West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Jared Taylor on December 29, 2008, 03:49:34 PM
-
...for failing in its duty to God. It does NOT represent authentic Christianity, but rather a Roman pedophile corruption of true Christian values. God hates the Catholic Church. Visit this site for more information:
http://www.priestsrapeboys.com/
Sign the petition for America to deport all Catholic deviant scum!
-
lol....
Let's let one religious sect push out another....
smell that? smells like bullshit.....
and for the record, Most Christians don't even understand christian values....
And, Catholicism existed a few hundred years before Christianity....... both of which are newer than Judaism which is the base for both religions.... don't believe me? do your own research (Hint, Jesus Christ was a Jew....)
-
catholics ARE christians, how could they been there before?
-
catholics ARE christians, how could they been there before?
no actually Christians are Catholic...
keep in mind the words and meaning... Christianity's focal point is around Jesus Christ, hence the name Christianity Catholicism existed from the beginning of the Old Testament, where as Christianity could not exist until Jesus Christ and the New Testament.....
-
catholics ARE christians, how could they been there before?
no actually Christians are Catholic...
keep in mind the words and meaning... Christianity's focal point is around Jesus Christ, hence the name Christianity Catholicism existed from the beginning of the Old Testament, where as Christianity could not exist until Jesus Christ and the New Testament.....
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
-
religion is used to control the feeble...end of!!
-
i am a catholic and from what i've been told and read in books, catholicism is the religion of the church of rome, which was founded by saint pierre, around 100 after JC
-
i am a catholic and from what i've been told and read in books, catholicism is the religion of the church of rome, which was founded by saint pierre, around 100 after JC
St. Pierre just reformed the Catholic church, he created the centralized office, aka the Vatican.... but Catholicism existed before then...
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
-
Don't bother argueing with that moron Taylor. It's "Real American" trying to ruin the forum with his bullshit he posts to piss us normal people off. He's just an immature, uneducated loser. How else could you describe it? He's a teenager, posting racist/ignorant bullshit on the internet to get a reaction out of people. He's pathetic. And someone should ban him so we can have some real discussions.
-
Don't bother argueing with that moron Taylor. It's "Real American" trying to ruin the forum with his bullshit he posts to piss us normal people off. He's just an immature, uneducated loser. How else could you describe it? He's a teenager, posting racist/ignorant bullshit on the internet to get a reaction out of people. He's pathetic. And someone should ban him so we can have some real discussions.
First, I'm 24 dumbfuck, I have a job, and I am currently working my way into the upper rings of the music industry.....
Second, I'm immature? look who's talking....
And, I'm not the one who started the thread about "The Catholic Church must be destroyed..." so how are my comments racist????
Ignorant? like I tell everyone every time.... if you don't believe me GO LOOK IT UP
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
-
Don't bother argueing with that moron Taylor. It's "Real American" trying to ruin the forum with his bullshit he posts to piss us normal people off. He's just an immature, uneducated loser. How else could you describe it? He's a teenager, posting racist/ignorant bullshit on the internet to get a reaction out of people. He's pathetic. And someone should ban him so we can have some real discussions.
Thanks for proving again why you are a fucking retard. Let me explain something to you...
(1.) Real American has said in several posts he is a Catholic. I have made topics denouncing him for calling himself a "conservative". And yet you choose to accuse me of being Real American IN THE SAME TOPIC WHERE I AM SHITTING ON HIS FUCKED-UP RELIGION?
(2.) If you want to ban me, it's because you're afraid of me. That's the reaction of people when they read something that upsets them and disrupts the fabric of their reality. I speak the real and you know it.
So...go kill yourself now so that you don't reproduce and pollute the gene pool with your retarded genes.
-
Trauma you're such a pussy
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
The Catholic church was about jesus after jesus... it was about God before Jesus....... check out the website, or if you feel like waiting until after New Years, I will come back and post the actual text that I read.....
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
The Catholic church was about jesus after jesus... it was about God before Jesus....... check out the website, or if you feel like waiting until after New Years, I will come back and post the actual text that I read.....
Who cares anyway? The Catholic Church didn't have any power until Rome joined Christianity. Even then it was not the cause of evil but the effect of it. The faith was used as a vehicle to control the masses and the church was used as a vehicle to grant power. The main corruption and power started in feudal Europe. All these Kings had all these sons that weren't their first born. So while the first born got to be King there wasn't much left for the rest of the boys. This is when Kings started strong arming these sons and nephews into church positions like cardinals and such. What you were left with were people with no true faith running a church and that's where Martin Luther and the bunch jumped in and said we've lost our way. Centuries before that the Greeks saw the writing on the wall and abandoned ship of course.
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
The Catholic church was about jesus after jesus... it was about God before Jesus....... check out the website, or if you feel like waiting until after New Years, I will come back and post the actual text that I read.....
Who cares anyway? The Catholic Church didn't have any power until Rome joined Christianity. Even then it was not the cause of evil but the effect of it. The faith was used as a vehicle to control the masses and the church was used as a vehicle to grant power. The main corruption and power started in feudal Europe. All these Kings had all these sons that weren't their first born. So while the first born got to be King there wasn't much left for the rest of the boys. This is when Kings started strong arming these sons and nephews into church positions like cardinals and such. What you were left with were people with no true faith running a church and that's where Martin Luther and the bunch jumped in and said we've lost our way. Centuries before that the Greeks saw the writing on the wall and abandoned ship of course.
^^^exactly....
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
The Catholic church was about jesus after jesus... it was about God before Jesus....... check out the website, or if you feel like waiting until after New Years, I will come back and post the actual text that I read.....
Who cares anyway? The Catholic Church didn't have any power until Rome joined Christianity. Even then it was not the cause of evil but the effect of it. The faith was used as a vehicle to control the masses and the church was used as a vehicle to grant power. The main corruption and power started in feudal Europe. All these Kings had all these sons that weren't their first born. So while the first born got to be King there wasn't much left for the rest of the boys. This is when Kings started strong arming these sons and nephews into church positions like cardinals and such. What you were left with were people with no true faith running a church and that's where Martin Luther and the bunch jumped in and said we've lost our way. Centuries before that the Greeks saw the writing on the wall and abandoned ship of course.
^^^exactly....
Huh? What are we debating. That there was this secret religion that infiltrated Rome at the same time Rome was getting fed up by Christians and the two merged and became the Catholic Church of Christ?
-
you're talking bullshit homie, ya need to read a book or sumthing, catholicism is founded on jesus life, how could it been there before him, only judaism was there before. Anyway you can think what you want doesn't mather to me
No Bullshit homie, check out this website, http://www.theinfovault.net
Much of the information about the status of the Catholic Church was recovered from The Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1941, Much of the information from the scrolls, however, has been kept from public view.....
There are always people like me, who will stop at nothing to get the information out..... the website I just gave you has brief paragraphs quoted from the dead sea scrolls along with detailed break downs of the meaning.... I invite you to do your own research, and if you can prove me wrong, do so.... we'll all be better for it.....
So what was Catholicism all about in those years before Jesus? Where was their base of operations? What countries were they in? And what was their religion exactly. I'm not catholic but I do know that it's mostly about Jesus now.
The Catholic church was about jesus after jesus... it was about God before Jesus....... check out the website, or if you feel like waiting until after New Years, I will come back and post the actual text that I read.....
Who cares anyway? The Catholic Church didn't have any power until Rome joined Christianity. Even then it was not the cause of evil but the effect of it. The faith was used as a vehicle to control the masses and the church was used as a vehicle to grant power. The main corruption and power started in feudal Europe. All these Kings had all these sons that weren't their first born. So while the first born got to be King there wasn't much left for the rest of the boys. This is when Kings started strong arming these sons and nephews into church positions like cardinals and such. What you were left with were people with no true faith running a church and that's where Martin Luther and the bunch jumped in and said we've lost our way. Centuries before that the Greeks saw the writing on the wall and abandoned ship of course.
^^^exactly....
Huh? What are we debating. That there was this secret religion that infiltrated Rome at the same time Rome was getting fed up by Christians and the two merged and became the Catholic Church of Christ?
well, what dude said was essentially true, although, it was different from my original point...
there is no one specific debate in this thread.... at least not for me...
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
[/quote] fuck u & the devil >:(
-
who's this God guy all these wierdos keep talkin about? One of Santas friends? Tooth Fairy's brother? New Wu-Tang member?
Whats the popular phrase? "Pics or its not real". ;)
-
Whats the popular phrase? "Pics or its not real". ;)
" Pics or it didnt happen "
;)
-
who's this God guy all these wierdos keep talkin about? One of Santas friends? Tooth Fairy's brother? New Wu-Tang member?
Whats the popular phrase? "Pics or its not real". ;)
He's not a new Wu Tang Member you idiot. You want a pic? Here;
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=24932511&albumID=463745&imageID=34072237
-
Whats the popular phrase? "Pics or its not real". ;)
" Pics or it didnt happen "
;)
i know, had to throw in the "not real" part for the sake of the thread lol
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
[/quote]
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
[/quote]
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
-
The Catholic Church has deviated from Christianity because it is an organization of pedophiles.
-
The Catholic Church has deviated from Christianity because it is an organization of pedophiles.
you look like a paedo forreal,forreal
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
[/quote]
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
[/quote]
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
[/quote]
How badly do you want to test this theory?
or, more importantly, how open is your mind???
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
How badly do you want to test this theory?
or, more importantly, how open is your mind???
[/quote]
I'm not saying I can prove God exists or that his word is real. I'm saying I cannot prove it. And I cannot disprove it either. And neither can you. My mind is as open as it gets.
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
How badly do you want to test this theory?
or, more importantly, how open is your mind???
I'm not saying I can prove God exists or that his word is real. I'm saying I cannot prove it. And I cannot disprove it either. And neither can you. My mind is as open as it gets.
[/quote]
OK, if your mind is open, then check it out....
It can be proven that God does not exist,
but just because I tell you that 2 Plus 2 equals 4, doesn't mean you're going to believe me.....
-
"i believe man made god...out of ignorance and fear
if god made man why the hell would he put us here
i thought he supposed to be the all loving
same god that let Hitler put the jew;s in the oven"
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
How badly do you want to test this theory?
or, more importantly, how open is your mind???
I'm not saying I can prove God exists or that his word is real. I'm saying I cannot prove it. And I cannot disprove it either. And neither can you. My mind is as open as it gets.
OK, if your mind is open, then check it out....
It can be proven that God does not exist,
but just because I tell you that 2 Plus 2 equals 4, doesn't mean you're going to believe me.....
[/quote]
2 plus 2 equals 4 can be shown and broken down step by step. It can be explained to the point where it is more than just believed to be true. If you add what we call 2 with what we call 2 it will become what we call 4. There is no way around that. And there is no way to argue that.
You telling me that God doesn't exist with out explaining why and explaining it to the point where it cannot be argued the other way is no different than me saying Global Warming is going to destroy the planet and anyone that doesn't take my word for it is close minded. I have to give solid evidence to go a long with a claim like that.
-
Right, but Catholicism is still a perversion of God's word. The Catholic Church is a monstrosity that must be destroyed.
fuck u & the devil >:(
Yes, it is a perversion, but then again so is Christianity, technically speaking...
and, like Daygo said, the validity of "God's Word" is in question and thus far has never been unequivocally proven to be accurate....
Yeah but there is a difference. The Catholic church goes against what they themselves claim to be God's word. It's not a perversion to believe in something that was written and call it what it calls itself. Christianity itself is not a perversion of God's word. The Bible is the Bible. The Bible has written accounts of what Jesus said and Jesus sad he spoke the word of God. To believe that all that is correct and to pervert it are two different things. Sure you can't prove that Jesus was of God, or that Jesus said anything in that book, but you'd just as hard a time proving Jesus said something as you would proving Caesar said something.
Yes and no, but don't feel like explaining....
and it's easier to prove the words of Ceasar because there are multiple written records of his words, not just one.... keep in mind, the Romans were the most advanced human culture at the time.....
I know how advanced and well documented Rome was. That's why I used Caesar as an example. All we really know about most of his documents are what we found 1600 years later and a few stamps supposed to be his signature. Modern day politicians have speech writers that create personalities. Famous news reporters 50 years ago had ghost writers that wrote entire stories credited to them. Isaac Newton a few hundred years ago had an entire team of scientists working for him that had their own ideas but they are all credited to him. Even William Shakespeare has been accused of fraud in recent years. So prove to me that Caesar indeed said what they say he said.
And there is no Yes and No. You can never prove that Christianity is a perversion. Proving Catholicism is a perversion is easy because you can show it. You cannot show God's word for certain. You cannot prove it exists or doesn't exist. You can bring other religions in to account to show that Islam and Christianity cannot both be truthful but you cannot disprove either one.
How badly do you want to test this theory?
or, more importantly, how open is your mind???
I'm not saying I can prove God exists or that his word is real. I'm saying I cannot prove it. And I cannot disprove it either. And neither can you. My mind is as open as it gets.
OK, if your mind is open, then check it out....
It can be proven that God does not exist,
but just because I tell you that 2 Plus 2 equals 4, doesn't mean you're going to believe me.....
2 plus 2 equals 4 can be shown and broken down step by step. It can be explained to the point where it is more than just believed to be true. If you add what we call 2 with what we call 2 it will become what we call 4. There is no way around that. And there is no way to argue that.
You telling me that God doesn't exist with out explaining why and explaining it to the point where it cannot be argued the other way is no different than me saying Global Warming is going to destroy the planet and anyone that doesn't take my word for it is close minded. I have to give solid evidence to go a long with a claim like that.
[/quote]
That was the point I was making..... there is evidence out there....
but most people choose not to look at the hard evidence because the truth hurts worse than the lie....
Hence me asking you all the questions, didn't want to waste my time if you were going to instictively deny what I was saying.... get it?
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
-
Lol, this is weird looking on a Blackberry... Anyways, I'm not presenting a theory or fact yet, I was asking you if it's worth my time to present anything to you... Look, too much to type from blackberry, when I get back to work, ill send you some info...
-
The only thing that's important is that the Catholic Church must be destroyed. Fucking Taigs.
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
OK, so let's start with a pre-curser...
read this interview....
http://www.sabon.org/reptiloid/index3.html
nevermind the context of the interview, pay attention to the information presented in it.... It's long so I suggest you wait till you have 3 or 4 hours to dedicate to read it..... Most of the interview has to do with technology, but there are small parts of it that have to do with religion (you can skip around, but I suggest you read the whole thing)
Then take a stroll over to one of my favorite websites of all time, The Info Vault, and read this:
http://www.theinfovault.net/vault/spirituality/genesisrevised.html
Much shorter, but relevant.... and, while your at The Info vault, read some of the other stuff too....
After you read that stuff, let me know, I'll get ya some more reading.... obviously I can't force you to do anything, but if you really do have an open mind, you'll read it....
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
OK, so let's start with a pre-curser...
read this interview....
http://www.sabon.org/reptiloid/index3.html
nevermind the context of the interview, pay attention to the information presented in it.... It's long so I suggest you wait till you have 3 or 4 hours to dedicate to read it..... Most of the interview has to do with technology, but there are small parts of it that have to do with religion (you can skip around, but I suggest you read the whole thing)
Then take a stroll over to one of my favorite websites of all time, The Info Vault, and read this:
http://www.theinfovault.net/vault/spirituality/genesisrevised.html
Much shorter, but relevant.... and, while your at The Info vault, read some of the other stuff too....
After you read that stuff, let me know, I'll get ya some more reading.... obviously I can't force you to do anything, but if you really do have an open mind, you'll read it....
I have no problem reading anything. It make take me a while but I will read it and I will get back to you. One huge error I found upon first glimpse of the Genesis revised article was how it said it was translated from Hebrew to Latin. That's just dead wrong. Greek was the sophisticated language of Ancient Rome and anything translated from any other language would have been translated to Greek because all educated Romans had Greek tutors. It would later be translated to Latin for the common folk. As a Greek speaker and moderate Greek reader of very early Bible scriptures let me just say that there are no signs in the old Greek texts that imply multiple Gods. and I'm not even saying that there is only one God or that there has to be. I'm saying that translations that pre-date the Roman texts say one God.
Anyway, I'll try and read everything some time this week and give my thoughts. I'm eager to see if this ends up being as cut and dry as 2+2.
-
The only thing that's important is that the Catholic Church must be destroyed. Fucking Taigs.
i agree,but first we must tackle the evil of the middle aged receding white man before he contaminates our gene pool and were all walkin around with comb-overs
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
OK, so let's start with a pre-curser...
read this interview....
http://www.sabon.org/reptiloid/index3.html
nevermind the context of the interview, pay attention to the information presented in it.... It's long so I suggest you wait till you have 3 or 4 hours to dedicate to read it..... Most of the interview has to do with technology, but there are small parts of it that have to do with religion (you can skip around, but I suggest you read the whole thing)
Then take a stroll over to one of my favorite websites of all time, The Info Vault, and read this:
http://www.theinfovault.net/vault/spirituality/genesisrevised.html
Much shorter, but relevant.... and, while your at The Info vault, read some of the other stuff too....
After you read that stuff, let me know, I'll get ya some more reading.... obviously I can't force you to do anything, but if you really do have an open mind, you'll read it....
I have no problem reading anything. It make take me a while but I will read it and I will get back to you. One huge error I found upon first glimpse of the Genesis revised article was how it said it was translated from Hebrew to Latin. That's just dead wrong. Greek was the sophisticated language of Ancient Rome and anything translated from any other language would have been translated to Greek because all educated Romans had Greek tutors. It would later be translated to Latin for the common folk. As a Greek speaker and moderate Greek reader of very early Bible scriptures let me just say that there are no signs in the old Greek texts that imply multiple Gods. and I'm not even saying that there is only one God or that there has to be. I'm saying that translations that pre-date the Roman texts say one God.
Anyway, I'll try and read everything some time this week and give my thoughts. I'm eager to see if this ends up being as cut and dry as 2+2.
the language verses the age of it's creator is irrelevant to this....
and, the original bible was written in Aramaic (I know that's not the right spelling, but you get the point) everything else is a translation after that including Hebrew, which coincidentally became the Torah (again, sorry for my spelling) for the Jews..... Now, in some of my studies, I have found that some of the stories in the bible originated from Greek writers... It is a generally excepted theory among scholars that the bible is hugely plagiarized.....
and the Bible was translated into Latin using the Rosetta stone, a very popular and accurately documented event... there was no mention of the greek language before that point. Greek may be an older language, but it was not part of the change of command (so to speak) with regards to translating the bible...
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
true :-X
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
OK, so let's start with a pre-curser...
read this interview....
http://www.sabon.org/reptiloid/index3.html
nevermind the context of the interview, pay attention to the information presented in it.... It's long so I suggest you wait till you have 3 or 4 hours to dedicate to read it..... Most of the interview has to do with technology, but there are small parts of it that have to do with religion (you can skip around, but I suggest you read the whole thing)
Then take a stroll over to one of my favorite websites of all time, The Info Vault, and read this:
http://www.theinfovault.net/vault/spirituality/genesisrevised.html
Much shorter, but relevant.... and, while your at The Info vault, read some of the other stuff too....
After you read that stuff, let me know, I'll get ya some more reading.... obviously I can't force you to do anything, but if you really do have an open mind, you'll read it....
I have no problem reading anything. It make take me a while but I will read it and I will get back to you. One huge error I found upon first glimpse of the Genesis revised article was how it said it was translated from Hebrew to Latin. That's just dead wrong. Greek was the sophisticated language of Ancient Rome and anything translated from any other language would have been translated to Greek because all educated Romans had Greek tutors. It would later be translated to Latin for the common folk. As a Greek speaker and moderate Greek reader of very early Bible scriptures let me just say that there are no signs in the old Greek texts that imply multiple Gods. and I'm not even saying that there is only one God or that there has to be. I'm saying that translations that pre-date the Roman texts say one God.
Anyway, I'll try and read everything some time this week and give my thoughts. I'm eager to see if this ends up being as cut and dry as 2+2.
the language verses the age of it's creator is irrelevant to this....
and, the original bible was written in Aramaic (I know that's not the right spelling, but you get the point) everything else is a translation after that including Hebrew, which coincidentally became the Torah (again, sorry for my spelling) for the Jews..... Now, in some of my studies, I have found that some of the stories in the bible originated from Greek writers... It is a generally excepted theory among scholars that the bible is hugely plagiarized.....
and the Bible was translated into Latin using the Rosetta stone, a very popular and accurately documented event... there was no mention of the greek language before that point. Greek may be an older language, but it was not part of the change of command (so to speak) with regards to translating the bible...
No mention of the Greek language before what? It was the main language of Rome's elite and it's a lot easier to prove that than it is to prove God is false. Educated Roman writers wrote in Greek, spoke Greek. It was too complicated of a language for the Germanic Tribes that adopted Latin after conquering Rome and the Greek texts were lost in western Rome, but looking through the history of Eastern Rome it's very obvious.
The Rosetta Stone? The artifact written in three languages? One of those languages was Greek. None of those languages were Latin. How does it make sense that something would be translated to Latin before Greek? Where does Hebrew or Aramaic fit in here? If the Rosetta Stone was used to translate into latin it would have been used like this; The Septuagint which had been a Torah translated into Greek for Ptolemy by Jewish scholars would have been translated from Greek to Latin.
Teach me because I'm confused.
-
guys look at the big bang theory...............
something must have started it right?Then there has to be God
-
guys look at the big bang theory...............
something must have started it right?Then there has to be God
shut up fat ass, God wanted your children to be taken by someone else because he hates you.
-
Of course there is evidence, but it's not in the same league as the fact that 2 + 2 =4. We created 2+2=4. It cannot be anything else. My mind is open to the fact that Christianity may be wrong. You're the one with the closed mind. You are presenting a theory as fact and cannot admit that maybe your theory is wrong.
There is a saying; the painting is evidence of the painter. If you saw a painting pop up in your room painted on your wall and it looked exactly like an elephant let's say. Not kind of like one but exactly like one with different colors and eyes, and a trunk, etc. And everyone in your house says they didn't do it, and no one went into your room and trhe door was locked, but you found the window open and paint cans on your floor. You can think one of two things; someone came into your room trough the window and painted it then left or it was painted by chance. That the wind blew the paint onto the wall and it just happened to look exactly like an elephant.
If you saw a robot walking around the streets you'd wonder who built it because it cannot just build it self with out human intervention. So when I see life created I wonder who or what created it. You can believe it was created by chance, but you can never prove it, and neither can any big bang scientist on earth and they'll gladly admit that. You see because the great scientists are wise enough to know the difference between probable theory and fact. It's the unscientific skeptics that pervert the word of science.
OK, so let's start with a pre-curser...
read this interview....
http://www.sabon.org/reptiloid/index3.html
nevermind the context of the interview, pay attention to the information presented in it.... It's long so I suggest you wait till you have 3 or 4 hours to dedicate to read it..... Most of the interview has to do with technology, but there are small parts of it that have to do with religion (you can skip around, but I suggest you read the whole thing)
Then take a stroll over to one of my favorite websites of all time, The Info Vault, and read this:
http://www.theinfovault.net/vault/spirituality/genesisrevised.html
Much shorter, but relevant.... and, while your at The Info vault, read some of the other stuff too....
After you read that stuff, let me know, I'll get ya some more reading.... obviously I can't force you to do anything, but if you really do have an open mind, you'll read it....
I have no problem reading anything. It make take me a while but I will read it and I will get back to you. One huge error I found upon first glimpse of the Genesis revised article was how it said it was translated from Hebrew to Latin. That's just dead wrong. Greek was the sophisticated language of Ancient Rome and anything translated from any other language would have been translated to Greek because all educated Romans had Greek tutors. It would later be translated to Latin for the common folk. As a Greek speaker and moderate Greek reader of very early Bible scriptures let me just say that there are no signs in the old Greek texts that imply multiple Gods. and I'm not even saying that there is only one God or that there has to be. I'm saying that translations that pre-date the Roman texts say one God.
Anyway, I'll try and read everything some time this week and give my thoughts. I'm eager to see if this ends up being as cut and dry as 2+2.
the language verses the age of it's creator is irrelevant to this....
and, the original bible was written in Aramaic (I know that's not the right spelling, but you get the point) everything else is a translation after that including Hebrew, which coincidentally became the Torah (again, sorry for my spelling) for the Jews..... Now, in some of my studies, I have found that some of the stories in the bible originated from Greek writers... It is a generally excepted theory among scholars that the bible is hugely plagiarized.....
and the Bible was translated into Latin using the Rosetta stone, a very popular and accurately documented event... there was no mention of the greek language before that point. Greek may be an older language, but it was not part of the change of command (so to speak) with regards to translating the bible...
No mention of the Greek language before what? It was the main language of Rome's elite and it's a lot easier to prove that than it is to prove God is false. Educated Roman writers wrote in Greek, spoke Greek. It was too complicated of a language for the Germanic Tribes that adopted Latin after conquering Rome and the Greek texts were lost in western Rome, but looking through the history of Eastern Rome it's very obvious.
The Rosetta Stone? The artifact written in three languages? One of those languages was Greek. None of those languages were Latin. How does it make sense that something would be translated to Latin before Greek? Where does Hebrew or Aramaic fit in here? If the Rosetta Stone was used to translate into latin it would have been used like this; The Septuagint which had been a Torah translated into Greek for Ptolemy by Jewish scholars would have been translated from Greek to Latin.
Teach me because I'm confused.
I'll have to double check my own info on the Rosetta stone, you just told me somethin I had never heard/seen before....
but Aramaic is the original language that was spoken by Jesus, his disciples, and a small group of people (apparently the small group of people who put the bible together) because all of my research point to it as the original language of the bible....
This is a great dialog, someone should sticky this......
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
No we haven't, we've both added to each other's knowledge, but neither of us has completely proven either theory...
I believe and I live by a theory that everything in life is simple, people make it complicated, but it initially is simple....
so it is my belief that it can be simply proved that God does not exist, however, it is complicated to get someone to excepted it....
Nameste, Shallow!
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
No we haven't, we've both added to each other's knowledge, but neither of us has completely proven either theory...
I believe and I live by a theory that everything in life is simple, people make it complicated, but it initially is simple....
so it is my belief that it can be simply proved that God does not exist, however, it is complicated to get someone to excepted it....
Nameste, Shallow!
The fact that you even consider my side of the argument a theory proves it's more complicated than 2+2. If I was arguing that 2+2=6 would you waste any time responding to me? I know I wouldn't if you were saying that.
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
No we haven't, we've both added to each other's knowledge, but neither of us has completely proven either theory...
I believe and I live by a theory that everything in life is simple, people make it complicated, but it initially is simple....
so it is my belief that it can be simply proved that God does not exist, however, it is complicated to get someone to excepted it....
Nameste, Shallow!
The fact that you even consider my side of the argument a theory proves it's more complicated than 2+2. If I was arguing that 2+2=6 would you waste any time responding to me? I know I wouldn't if you were saying that.
I consider all sides of all arguments to be theories... if it was fact, there would be no argument/debate/etc....
It makes my ability to argue a point that much more open-minded and potent at the same time....
and it allows me to Dig your opinions without being upset and feeling that I have to prove you wrong, because I don't.... I tell you my theories, you tell me yours, and hopefully we'll both grow...
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
No we haven't, we've both added to each other's knowledge, but neither of us has completely proven either theory...
I believe and I live by a theory that everything in life is simple, people make it complicated, but it initially is simple....
so it is my belief that it can be simply proved that God does not exist, however, it is complicated to get someone to excepted it....
Nameste, Shallow!
The fact that you even consider my side of the argument a theory proves it's more complicated than 2+2. If I was arguing that 2+2=6 would you waste any time responding to me? I know I wouldn't if you were saying that.
I consider all sides of all arguments to be theories... if it was fact, there would be no argument/debate/etc....
It makes my ability to argue a point that much more open-minded and potent at the same time....
and it allows me to Dig your opinions without being upset and feeling that I have to prove you wrong, because I don't.... I tell you my theories, you tell me yours, and hopefully we'll both grow...
Exactly. I feel the exact same way. (Still haven't read those articles you sent my way but that's more on my own procrastination. I could overload this board and crash the server just listing the things I haven't gotten around to yet.)
I am a Christian yes, but I never argue with non-Christians in an attempt to convert or present my Christian beliefs as absolute facts.
I am however also a math tutor on occasion and if someone I was tutoring said 2+2=6, I'd definately present 2+2=4 and absolute fact and tell them they were wrong.
-
I'm no Rosetta Stone expert but I'll I've ever known of it was that it was discovered by the French a few hundred years ago in the time of Napoleon and it was used to translate Egyptian. Greek was known to Europe by that time and finding a scripture written in Greek and two Egyptian writings made it possible to understand old Egyptian.
As for Jesus; I'm not doubting they spoke Aramaic but the existing Gospels were written decades after Jesus, after the Christian movement started, and after Greeks joined it by the truck load. The Apostle Luke who was not one of the 12 with Jesus was Greek himself. There is absolutely no chance in my mind that the new testament was written in Aramaic first then years later translated to Greek. They would have been written at the same time. And the Old Testament was not originally written in Greek but was definitely translated to Greek before it was translated to Roman.
That's all I'm saying. The point is what the point was in the beginning; it's not quite as simple as 2+2.
I can dig your point of view even though I don't agree with it.....
Nameste Shallow.....
You mean you don't agree that there is a Christian God. We've already shown that it is harder to disprove God than it is to prove 2+2=4.
No we haven't, we've both added to each other's knowledge, but neither of us has completely proven either theory...
I believe and I live by a theory that everything in life is simple, people make it complicated, but it initially is simple....
so it is my belief that it can be simply proved that God does not exist, however, it is complicated to get someone to excepted it....
Nameste, Shallow!
The fact that you even consider my side of the argument a theory proves it's more complicated than 2+2. If I was arguing that 2+2=6 would you waste any time responding to me? I know I wouldn't if you were saying that.
I consider all sides of all arguments to be theories... if it was fact, there would be no argument/debate/etc....
It makes my ability to argue a point that much more open-minded and potent at the same time....
and it allows me to Dig your opinions without being upset and feeling that I have to prove you wrong, because I don't.... I tell you my theories, you tell me yours, and hopefully we'll both grow...
Exactly. I feel the exact same way. (Still haven't read those articles you sent my way but that's more on my own procrastination. I could overload this board and crash the server just listing the things I haven't gotten around to yet.)
I am a Christian yes, but I never argue with non-Christians in an attempt to convert or present my Christian beliefs as absolute facts.
I am however also a math tutor on occasion and if someone I was tutoring said 2+2=6, I'd definately present 2+2=4 and absolute fact and tell them they were wrong.
We are in agreement, righteous.....
-
i was sitting in the sauna when some dude tried to recruit me to his church
-
i was sitting in the sauna when some dude tried to recruit me to his church
That sounds about right.
-
Look, the bottom line is, Catholics cannot be considered Americans. America was founded upon Enlightenment values, which the Church opposed. Today, Catholics remain some of the stupidest people in the world. They basically support any injustice, have little concern about government interference in the economy or anything else as long as the government bans abortion and homosexuality, and generally cannot be counted on to defend white civilization. I want all Catholics out of this country. Fucking Taigs.
-
Look, the bottom line is, Catholics cannot be considered Americans. America was founded upon Enlightenment values, which the Church opposed. Today, Catholics remain some of the stupidest people in the world. They basically support any injustice, have little concern about government interference in the economy or anything else as long as the government bans abortion and homosexuality, and generally cannot be counted on to defend white civilization. I want all Catholics out of this country. Fucking Taigs.
in that case, I love Catholics!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
in that case, I love Catholics!!!!!!!!! ;D
Even though they also supported the Nazis in WWII?
-
in that case, I love Catholics!!!!!!!!! ;D
Even though they also supported the Nazis in WWII?
DUDE, I'm black, not Jewish.... yeah they killed a few niggas too, but Niggas have killed WAY MORE Niggas than the Nazi's have.....
I still love Catholics!!! ;D 8) or wait, I can't smoke no more, I quit.... :'(
OOOOHHH, I especially love Catholic School Girls.... ;D
-
they are gay pagans