Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall

[angel_luv]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_israel_ancient_wall

[Leetonidas]

"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.

:lmao

[Oh, Gee!!]

the title of the story doesn't match the content of the story. here I am thinking some relevant fact about the Bible and Christianity was going to be supported empirically, but what I read is that there is evidence to support some peripheral historical account listed in the Bible.

[phyzik]

How do they know the wall is that old? At the end of the article it makes it sound like they dont have any real evidence yet to support the claim.

Also, I assume they are going to use carbon dating to verify the walls age? If carbon dating can be used to support a story from the bible, it can also be used to support the fact that the earth is millions of years old. It cant be one way and not the other.

[boutons_deux]

"It cant be one way and not the other"

With "Christians", any old thing is possible, the more anti-science, the more illogical, the more they believe it. :lol

Carbon dating works for "Christians", doesn't work for scientists. It's only good back to about 60K years. Anyway, God faked all the carbon for the first from 6K years ago to 54K years ago. Which day of the week did He do that? :)

[DMX7]

There's evidence of Jesus in my toast sometimes.

[ploto]

We already know that there is some factual history in the Bible, as evidenced by alternative historical sources.

[balli]

If carbon dating can be used to support a story from the bible, it can also be used to support the fact that the earth is millions of years old. It cant be one way and not the other.
lol. Very true.

[Strike]

Don't you all know this is just another test by god and jeebus? :rolleyes

[Will Hunting]

God, Bible Thumpers like Angel_luv are scary sheeple considering the kind of garbage they get tricked into believing.

[BadOdor]

Sons, I haven't been keeping up with crazy_luv, does she still believe Obama is the anti-christ?

God bless sons.

[angel_luv]

Sons, I haven't been keeping up with crazy_luv, does she still believe Obama is the anti-christ?

God bless sons.

He doesn't seem to be popular enough to fit the Biblical description of the anti-chirst.

I just wasn't use to seeing so popular a politician as President Obama was when he ran. The only other elections I have paid attention to were the previous two, which former President Bush were in.

[z0sa]

lol. Very true.

Very untrue. Carbon doesn't exist in leftovers of organisms that are millions of years old.

[benefactor]

Is this another attempt to "win people over?"

Looks to me like another successful attempt at being an annoying fundamentalist.

[admiralsnackbar]

Very untrue. Carbon doesn't exist in leftovers of organisms that are millions of years old.

Then why are most fossils found in calcium carbonate? Why are most plant fossils carbon films?

It's fine we differ on bigger questions, but that doesn't give you a pass to just be factually wrong.

[bigzak25]

not to derail, but the anti-christ is more a movement than a person/being.

[angel_luv]

not to derail, but the anti-christ is more a movement than a person/being.

Why do you think that?

[benefactor]

not to derail, but the anti-christ is more a movement than a person/being.
Careful there heretic, you wouldn't want to present any other idea that is contrary to the "truth".

[angel_luv]

For your consideration Big Zak:

Revelation 13 ( the whole chapter) and Revelation 20:10.


And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.


Notice how it list the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are each listed as their own separate identies.

Also see that it says they- the devil, the beast, and the false prophet- will be tormented night and day for ever and ever.

How can a movement be tormented? Only actual, living beings can experience pain.

[z0sa]

It's fine we differ on bigger questions, but that doesn't give you a pass to just be factually wrong.

Everything I've read or heard states carbon dating is ineffective on ancient fossils and organisms past 60,000 years old due to a distinct lack of well, carbon. It decays into other substances within this constraint.

[admiralsnackbar]

Everything I've read or heard states carbon dating is ineffective on ancient fossils and organisms past 60,000 years old due to a distinct lack of well, carbon. It decays into other substances within this constraint.

My bad... I didn't read what you were responding to. The radioisotope carbon-14 decays in under 60,000 years, but carbon itself does not. Obviously.

... that said, carbon dating can't be said to help young earth creationists too much.

[Wild Cobra]

How do they know the wall is that old? At the end of the article it makes it sound like they dont have any real evidence yet to support the claim.
There are scientific methods to determine such things.

Also, I assume they are going to use carbon dating to verify the walls age? If carbon dating can be used to support a story from the bible, it can also be used to support the fact that the earth is millions of years old. It cant be one way and not the other.
carbon dating is used on organic material, not rock. As for dating rocks, depending on they type, isotopic analysis of Uranium and the compounds it breaks down to is used in many cases. It is pretty damn accurate. There are several other accurate dating methods used as well.

Question is, did anyone do an accurate dating, or are they guessing?

[Wild Cobra]

Everything I've read or heard states carbon dating is ineffective on ancient fossils and organisms past 60,000 years old due to a distinct lack of well, carbon. It decays into other substances within this constraint.
To clarify, it's not the lack of carbon, but the lack or carbon 14. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of 14C to 12C. 14C is radioactive, with a half-life of something like 5730 years. After 57,300 years, the 14C is almost non-existent, and too small to accurately assess. There is only 0.0977% of the original amount. It already starts at trace levels.

[bigzak25]

Careful there heretic, you wouldn't want to present any other idea that is contrary to the "truth".

dude...the gate in narrow. being labeled a 'heretic' by the masses is a compliment. :tu



Why do you think that?

For your consideration Big Zak:

Revelation 13 ( the whole chapter) and Revelation 20:10.

Notice how it list the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are each listed as their own separate identies.

Also see that it says they- the devil, the beast, and the false prophet- will be tormented night and day for ever and ever.

How can a movement be tormented? Only actual, living beings can experience pain.

veronica, it's just different interpretations...different perspectives dependent on the readers beliefs.

[tlongII]

Very untrue. Carbon doesn't exist in leftovers of organisms that are millions of years old.

That's why they use radio-isotope dating.

[mouse]

Also, I assume they are going to use carbon dating to verify the walls age? If carbon dating can be used to support a story from the bible, it can also be used to support the fact that the earth is millions of years old. It cant be one way and not the other.


I have to agree with this, I hate contradictions. I don't support carbon dating and therefore I will never use it to support my theories. At the same time i don't belittle anyone who doesn't know how to use a FTP server.

[Blake]

Only actual, living beings can experience pain.

and then they die and go to hell

[Blake]

I have to agree with this, I hate contradictions. I don't support carbon dating and therefore I will never use it to support my theories. At the same time i don't belittle anyone who doesn't know how to use a FTP server.

:lol

[Duff McCartney]

I just wasn't use to seeing so popular a politician as President Obama was when he ran. The only other elections I have paid attention to were the previous two, which former President Bush were in.

What do you consider popular? You're reasoning, like always, is flawed...or non-existent at times.

Does popular mean who got the most votes? Who won the most states? Because Reagan won all but 1 state in 1984 and was a hugely popular President, winning almost 60 percent of the popular vote. Obama only won 52 percent of the popular.

Nixon also defeated McGovern in a landslide. McGovern only won one state as well..and Nixon actually made it to 60 percent of the popular vote.

But I'm sure you wouldn't have considered them the anti-christ. It's like all you would want is an ugly, short, unpopular man to run and you'd vote for him..because anyone who is handsome, charismatic, tall, and popular you'd think he's the anti-christ.

[DJ Mbenga]

this thread wont end well....

[Buddy Holly]

For your consideration Big Zak:

Revelation 13 ( the whole chapter) and Revelation 20:10.



Notice how it list the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are each listed as their own separate identies.

Also see that it says they- the devil, the beast, and the false prophet- will be tormented night and day for ever and ever.

How can a movement be tormented? Only actual, living beings can experience pain.

Also see that a big bad wolf blew down some houses except for the one made with brick. :wow

[Whisky Dog]

...And he will come again, to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom will have no end.

Amen.

[Whisky Dog]

Disconnect and self destruct one bullet at a time.

What's your rush now, everyone will have his day to die.

[MI21]

lol bible

[td4mvp21]

What do you consider popular? You're reasoning, like always, is flawed...or non-existent at times.

Does popular mean who got the most votes? Who won the most states? Because Reagan won all but 1 state in 1984 and was a hugely popular President, winning almost 60 percent of the popular vote. Obama only won 52 percent of the popular.

Nixon also defeated McGovern in a landslide. McGovern only won one state as well..and Nixon actually made it to 60 percent of the popular vote.

But I'm sure you wouldn't have considered them the anti-christ. It's like all you would want is an ugly, short, unpopular man to run and you'd vote for him..because anyone who is handsome, charismatic, tall, and popular you'd think he's the anti-christ.

Actually, there was some speculation that Reagan was the antichrist among evangelicals when he ran. One of the "signs" was his name - Ronald Wilson Reagan - because his first, middle, and last name each has six letters, which equaled 666.

And, when Clinton ran, there was speculation that he was the antichrist and that Hilary was the false prophet.

My point is that the evangelical right calling someone (particularly, someone who does not support conservative and/or republican values) the antichrist is rather commonplace. I remember when Al Gore ran, one of my family members made the comment that he could be the antichrist :lol

[angel_luv]

dude...the gate in narrow. being labeled a 'heretic' by the masses is a compliment. :tu



veronica, it's just different interpretations...different perspectives dependent on the readers beliefs.

From your post it seems we agree about Whose side we are on. I am glad about that. :)

[angel_luv]

What do you consider popular? You're reasoning, like always, is flawed...or non-existent at times.

Does popular mean who got the most votes? Who won the most states? Because Reagan won all but 1 state in 1984 and was a hugely popular President, winning almost 60 percent of the popular vote. Obama only won 52 percent of the popular.

Nixon also defeated McGovern in a landslide. McGovern only won one state as well..and Nixon actually made it to 60 percent of the popular vote.

But I'm sure you wouldn't have considered them the anti-christ. It's like all you would want is an ugly, short, unpopular man to run and you'd vote for him..because anyone who is handsome, charismatic, tall, and popular you'd think he's the anti-christ.


I was trying to say that, for example with with Reagan and Nixon, had I paid attention to them, I might very well have come to a similiar suspicion about them as I did President Obama.

Or perhaps had I first come to the conclusion with Reagan, I would have had the frame of reference that, as you said, just because someone is popular, it does not make him the antichrist. That way, when I again encountered an incredibly popular politician, I would take the hype with a grain of salt.

I believe that the anti-christ will be charismatic and popular. Those are traits that describe President Obama, although I personally do not think he is handsome.

But,as you said, there are many charismatic and popular people and there will be only one Anti-Christ, so those characteristic alone do not prove anything.

I did wonder if President Obama was the anti-christ and I am not ashamed of that.

I have since come to think that it is unlikely that President Obama is the anti-christ. But the absolute assurance I am waiting for is for President Obama to publicly identify Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, because I know that is something the anti-christ would never do.

If President Obama has made such an assertion, I have yet to hear about it.

[Blake]

But the absolute assurance I am waiting for is for President Obama to publicly identify Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, because I know that is something the anti-christ would never do.


why wouldn't the anti-christ do that?

[clambake]

this church shit has really fucked you up.

[angel_luv]

why wouldn't the anti-christ do that?

The anti-christ will be all about promoting himself and Satan's agenda, not about giving Jesus the praise and glory Jesus is due.

The anit-christ will live in direct opposition to Jesus. Therefore the anti-christ would never truly submit himself to Jesus and would not want to give the appearance of having done so.

[angel_luv]

If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

[clambake]

holy shit

[Blake]

The anti-christ will be all about promoting himself and Satan's agenda, not about giving Jesus the praise and glory Jesus is due.

The anit-christ will live in direct opposition to Jesus. Therefore the anti-christ would never truly submit himself to Jesus and would not want to give the appearance of having done so.

If I'm the a-c, I would say, "hey Christians, come get your Jesus mark on your forehead or right hand. Boo Devil. Yay Jesus" .....but have my fingers crossed so that it doesn't count.

[Blake]

If Satan is divided against himself, how can his kingdom stand?

does Satan not have access to the same script that you do?

if he does, then he's an idiot.

[angel_luv]

If I'm the a-c, I would say, "hey Christians, come get your Jesus mark on your forehead or right hand. Boo Devil. Yay Jesus" .....but have my fingers crossed so that it doesn't count.

The anti-christ will definitely try to fool people. He will be a liar and a deceiver, same as Satan.
But those who put their faith in Jesus need not worry about ever falling prey to Satan or any of Satan's followers.

When it comes to taking the mark of the beast, it is my belief that very person will know exactly what he or she is doing.

Accepting the mark of the beast will involve forever rejecting Jesus, giving your soul to Satan, and dooming yourself to eternal torment in Hell.

Rejecting the mark of the beast will involve submitting your life to Jesus, gaining access to Heaven, and quite possibly forfeiting your life here on earth. The Bible makes it clear that many Believers in Jesus will be martyred for their faith.


I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Even those who do not face execution will be penalized greatly by the anti-christ and his false prophet for refusing to take the mark of the beast.


He [ the false prophet] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

It is not a decision anyone will be making lightly.

[angel_luv]

does Satan not have access to the same script that you do?

if he does, then he's an idiot.

Satan knows the Bible the same as me. And yes, he is certainly an idiot.

[angel_luv]

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

[clambake]

The anti-christ will definitely try to fool people. He will be a liar and a deceiver, same as Satan.

sounds like every preacher and politician that ever lived.

[angel_luv]

sounds like every preacher and politician that ever lived.

Some certainly, but not all of them.

[clambake]

not yours, right? lol

[angel_luv]

not yours, right? lol

My church is awesome. I would love to see you there sometime. :)

[Trainwreck2100]

wow a thread about a wall turned into another religion thread

[clambake]

My church is awesome. I would love to see you there sometime. :)

why, so your church could convince me that a specific black man is the antichrist?

[angel_luv]

why, so your church could convince me that a specific black man is the antichrist?

They wouldn't.

My pastor is very clear on his stance on voting:
1) Every Christian has a responsibility to vote.
2) Each Christian should vote the Bible.

My pastors says everyone ought to study their Bible and then choose themselves the candidate whom best represents what Jesus and the Bible stands for.

Never once has anyone at my church ever told me who to vote for or even asked me how I voted.

My pastor is also very strict in his stance that whomever is elected President of our country ought to be shown respect because of the position he holds. And my pastor says that we should pray for the President daily.

[Shastafarian]

They wouldn't.

My pastor is very clear on his stance on voting:
1) Every Christian has a responsibility to vote.
2) Each Christian should vote the Bible.

My pastors says everyone ought to study their Bible and then choose themselves the candidate whom best represents what Jesus and the Bible stands for.

Never once has anyone at my church ever told me how to vote for or even asked me how I voted.

My pastor is also very strict in his stance that whomever is elected President of our country ought to be shown respect because of the position he holds. And my pastor says that we should pray for the President daily.

[Nash2TimeMVp]

All y'all who don't believe in the bible and in jesus christ our lord and savior, are sadly mistaken and wrong. it just bugs me that people can be so complacent on such a delicate matter. you guys should srsly look and research into this and if you do you will easily know what decision you should make.

[clambake]

angel got burned. hows that for irony.

[angel_luv]

angel got burned. hows that for irony.

How do you figure?

[clambake]

How do you figure?

^look up^

[koriwhat]

I was trying to say that, for example with with Reagan and Nixon, had I paid attention to them, I might very well have come to a similiar suspicion about them as I did President Obama.

Or perhaps had I first come to the conclusion with Reagan, I would have had the frame of reference that, as you said, just because someone is popular, it does not make him the antichrist. That way, when I again encountered an incredibly popular politician, I would take the hype with a grain of salt.

I believe that the anti-christ will be charismatic and popular. Those are traits that describe President Obama, although I personally do not think he is handsome.

But,as you said, there are many charismatic and popular people and there will be only one Anti-Christ, so those characteristic alone do not prove anything.

I did wonder if President Obama was the anti-christ and I am not ashamed of that.

I have since come to think that it is unlikely that President Obama is the anti-christ. But the absolute assurance I am waiting for is for President Obama to publicly identify Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, because I know that is something the anti-christ would never do.

If President Obama has made such an assertion, I have yet to hear about it.

wow you've gone off the deep end girl! holy shit!

lets get back to reality... take some lsd or something. trip and find yourself before you allow others to corrupt what little potential you still have left to be your own person.

my brother used to be just like you. delusional would be my best description.

does bo subscribe to this same ideology? i hope not because i've met bo a couple times, even played basketball with the dude, and he seems to be level headed and not way out there.

bo i'm sorry if it seems like i'm dogging on your wife and i don't mean to but damn she is taking this shit to a new level. wtf?!

[Fpoonsie]

I don't necessarily agree w/ a_l, but I've always been impressed by her ability to remain (presumably) sincere and kind after countless posters try to bait her into overreacting.

She either practices what she preaches or rivals Funt as one of the most convincing trolls ever.

[clambake]

I don't necessarily agree w/ a_l, but I've always been impressed by her ability to remain (presumably) sincere and kind after countless posters try to bait her into overreacting.

She either practices what she preaches or rivals Funt as one of the most convincing trolls ever.

she made a thread about her problem with overreacting already.

so, you decide.

[Cane]

I don't necessarily agree w/ a_l, but I've always been impressed by her ability to remain (presumably) sincere and kind after countless posters try to bait her into overreacting.

She either practices what she preaches or rivals Funt as one of the most convincing trolls ever.

Nah, she's never really argued or defended her points well. More troll than not:

"I have since come to think that it is unlikely that President Obama is the anti-christ. But the absolute assurance I am waiting for is for President Obama to publicly identify Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, because I know that is something the anti-christ would never do. "

She seems kind of dim witted tbh (thats putting it politely).

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Angel is always kind. No one can say any different, but I must admit, I am a little bit scared to think that people who believe like her actually vote their religious concience... Don't get me wrong, she can vote for whomever she likes, but... damn.

[angel_luv]

^look up^

I did. The sky is blue and the clouds are nice and fluffy. God sure made it beautiful today. :)

If you are, as I suspect, referring to what I said about my pastor telling us to vote the Bible... My pastor would be a poor pastor indeed if he encouraged me to make decisions independent of Jesus.

My pastor always points me in the right direction- to Jesus and to God's Word, the Bible. But my pastor leaves my decisions to 1) choose to seek Jesus through prayer and studying the Bible and 2) honor what Jesus tells me with my vote and decisions, between me and Jesus.

[Fpoonsie]

she made a thread about her problem with overreacting already.

so, you decide.

:lol

Granted, but I don't necessarily equate her overreactions in her home-life to those on a message board.

You're an excellent example of someone who knows exactly what to say to a poster to get them to bite (i.e. your back-n-forth w/ Crookshanks). A_l's resistance to it is what amazes me.

[clambake]

what did he say when you told him obama is the antichrist?

[clambake]

:lol

Granted, but I don't necessarily equate her overreactions in her home-life to those on a message board.

You're an excellent example of someone who knows exactly what to say to a poster to get them to bite (i.e. your back-n-forth w/ Crookshanks). A_l's resistance to it is what amazes me.

angel is no crookskanks.

[Fpoonsie]

angel is no crookskanks.

Ha! Now, see, given your history w/ both, I'm not even sure who you're trying to insult.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Ha! Now, see, given your history w/ both, I'm not even sure who you're trying to insult.

That was a Crookshanks dig if I ever saw one

[Cane]

:lol

Granted, but I don't necessarily equate her overreactions in her home-life to those on a message board.

You're an excellent example of someone who knows exactly what to say to a poster to get them to bite (i.e. your back-n-forth w/ Crookshanks). A_l's resistance to it is what amazes me.

Likewise with A_l, she usually posts stuff that incites non-Christians or Christians that don't respond to arguments by saying "thats what Jesus/God/bible/church told me so I believe it".

Her "resistance" is to just post more of the above. On top of that she contradicts herself and basically makes herself an easy piñata particularly in areas like science and politics. Obama the anti-christ? :downspin:

[clambake]

Ha! Now, see, given your history w/ both, I'm not even sure who you're trying to insult.

note the spelling of "crookskanks"

[Fpoonsie]

note the spelling of "crookskanks"

Whooooops. :lol

[insert "RIF" jab here]

[Fpoonsie]

Likewise with A_l, she usually posts stuff that incites non-Christians or Christians that don't respond to arguments by saying "thats what Jesus/God/bible/church told me so I believe it".

Her "resistance" is to just post more of the above. On top of that she contradicts herself and basically makes herself an easy piñata particularly in areas like science and politics. Obama the anti-christ? :downspin:

I'd say that remains more commendable than a personal attack, of which she gets thrown her way all-too-often. I understand that the inability to crack her could be infuriating to some, but I can't help credit her for holding her ground, regardless of how misguided I may think that ground is.

And, just a side-note, but my mom shared a similar worried sentiment concerning Obama, and she certainly didn't share a_l's levelheadedness when I attempted to dispute her foolhardy accusations.

[Blake]

Satan knows the Bible the same as me. And yes, he is certainly an idiot.

So are all angels this stupid, or just Satan and the 1/3 that followed him out the door?

Honestly, why wouldnt he just be a lazy devil and not do anything?

This is me talking to Satan:

"S, listen, we both know that God is omnipotent and you aren't so why do you bother?....You had a nice little run, taking down Jesus for 3 days, but really, just give it up already and ask for forgiveness..."

"I cannot."

"Why not? Just ask JC to come in your heart and boom, you're back inside the gates. Big mansion. Babes. No eternal torment. Seriously.

"No can do. The Bible hath foretoldeth that I will keep trying so I musteth keep trying."

"Dude....seriously, no you don't. Free will and all. Look, I'm not thrilled either about how boring it sounds, walking around singing all day with no PS3, but cmon........boredom > eternal fire.

"No, I thinketh I can still win this thing."

"Whatever dude. If you keep this up, you deserve to burn......not because you didn't ask Jesus into your heart, but because you're an idiot. I'm out of here."

[Fpoonsie]

:lmao

Wow.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

So are all angels this stupid, or just Satan and the 1/3 that followed him out the door?

Honestly, why wouldnt he just be a lazy devil and not do anything?

This is me talking to Satan:

"S, listen, we both know that God is omnipotent and you aren't so why do you bother?....You had a nice little run, taking down Jesus for 3 days, but really, just give it up already and ask for forgiveness..."

"I cannot."

"Why not? Just ask JC to come in your heart and boom, you're back inside the gates. Big mansion. Babes. No eternal torment. Seriously.

"No can do. The Bible hath foretoldeth that I will keep trying so I musteth keep trying."

"Dude....seriously, no you don't. Free will and all. Look, I'm not thrilled either about how boring it sounds, walking around singing all day with no PS3, but cmon........boredom > eternal fire.

"No, I thinketh I can still win this thing."

"Whatever dude. If you keep this up, you deserve to burn......not because you didn't ask Jesus into your heart, but because you're an idiot. I'm out of here."

:lmao

[Cane]

I'd say that remains more commendable than a personal attack, of which she gets thrown her way all-too-often. I understand that the inability to crack her could be infuriating to some, but I can't help credit her for holding her ground, regardless of how misguided I may think that ground is.

And, just a side-note, but my mom shared a similar worried sentiment concerning Obama, and she certainly didn't share a_l's levelheadedness when I attempted to dispute her foolhardy accusations.

Its about the same level imo especially if its consistent; trolling is trolling. Being stubborn is more of a fault than not and on the internet its blissfully easy to do (Kobe trolls, Culburn, etc). Also depends on your perspective: if you're not a Bible-thumping Christian or a non-Christian you might find A_l's posts to be nearly as offensive as a personal attack like calling Obama the anti-christ and using Christianity to reinforce such misguided hate on this idea or in the general realm of politics and science.

[angel_luv]

what did he say when you told him obama is the antichrist?

I didn't tell my pastor I thought President Obama was the anti-christ.

Contrary to how it may have appeared on the forum, I was never fearful of President Obama- even when I speculated about him being the anti- Christ. Furthermore, I never progressed in my thinking to imagining the ramifications of the anti christ being elected, as I was not ever entirely certain that was about to happen.

Still, I could not/ would not say with absolute confidence that President Obama was not the anti-Christ because I had never heard President Obama boldly declare himself to be a follower of Christ.

The reason I stated publicly that I thought President Obama could be the anti-christ is because I misunderstood a post in a thread. (It has been so long, I forgot which thread.)
I had thought someone asked me specifically if I thought President Obama were the anti-christ.
Since it was something I had been wondering about, I chose to answer truthfully and say, " Yes."

With regards to future questions I have regarding the identity of the anti-christ...
If it ever got to the point where I was worried over the subject, I would definitely go to my pastor for advice.
I cannot know what type of counsel my pastor would give me concerning the topic, as I have not yet needed to ask him.
I would not want to put words in anyone's mouth, so I will not guess for you what his response would be.

As I said before I have no issue standing by the fact that I thought what I thought. Nor do I regret being honest with everyone about how I felt, regardless of the feedback I have received.

[Fpoonsie]

Its about the same level imo especially if its consistent; trolling is trolling. Being stubborn is more of a fault than not and on the internet its blissfully easy to do (Kobe trolls, Culburn, etc). Also depends on your perspective: if you're not a Bible-thumping Christian or a non-Christian you might find A_l's posts to be nearly as offensive as a personal attack like calling Obama the anti-christ and using your Christianity to reinforce such misguided hate.

The problem w/ most "Christians", however, is once they feel that their faith (and likewise, their person) is being attacked, they no longer respond "Christ-like". While I certainly admit that it's easier to temper your excitement or outrage online, you'd think that the frustration so often exhibited by her detractors could/would be tempered as well. However, more often than not, her "stubbornness" only serves to incite them further.

And I wouldn't necessarily classify a_l's labeling of Barack as the (possible) anti-christ "HATE". According to scriptures, he did fit a lot of the criteria. It's a common conclusion-jump by evangelicals to label popular people in history as such, but I don't believe a_l's concern was "hate-filled", but merely that: concern.

[clambake]

i wouldn't have said anything, either. he may have place you into one of those crisp white jackets that tie in the back.

[angel_luv]

Fpoonsie- thank you very much!

[Blake]

I didn't tell my pastor I thought President Obama was the anti-christ.

Contrary to how it may have appeared on the forum, I was never fearful of President Obama- even when I speculated about him being the anti- Christ. Furthermore, I never progressed in my thinking to imagining the ramifications of the anti christ being elected, as I was not ever entirely certain that was about to happen.

Still, I could not/ would not say with absolute confidence that President Obama was not the anti-Christ because I had never heard President Obama boldly declare himself to be a follower of Christ.

The reason I stated publicly that I thought President Obama could be the anti-christ is because I misunderstood a post in a thread. (It has been so long, I forgot which thread.)
I had thought someone asked me specifically if I thought President Obama were the anti-christ.
Since it was something I had been wondering about, I chose to answer truthfully and say, " Yes."

With regards to future questions I have regarding the identity of the anti-christ...
If it ever got to the point where I was worried over the subject, I would definitely go to my pastor for advice.
I cannot know what type of counsel my pastor would give me concerning the topic, as I have not yet needed to ask him.
I would not want to put words in anyone's mouth, so I will not guess for you what his response would be.

As I said before I have no issue standing by the fact that I thought what I thought. Nor do I regret being honest with everyone about how I felt, regardless of the feedback I have received.

if you really, really, really, realy think about it, common sense would tell you that if the book of revelation were to really happen that it would not happen in our life time.

Waaaaaaaaaaay too many people today are very familiar with the book of Revelation.

[clambake]

It's a common conclusion-jump by evangelicals to label

Fpoonsie- thank you very much!!!!

[Blake]

The problem w/ most "Christians", however, is once they feel that their faith (and likewise, their person) is being attacked, they no longer respond "Christ-like". While I certainly admit that it's easier to temper your excitement or outrage online, you'd think that the frustration so often exhibited by her detractors could/would be tempered as well. However, more often than not, her "stubbornness" only serves to incite them further.

And I wouldn't necessarily classify a_l's labeling of Barack as the (possible) anti-christ "HATE". According to scriptures, he did fit a lot of the criteria. It's a common conclusion-jump by evangelicals to label popular people in history as such, but I don't believe a_l's concern was "hate-filled", but merely that: concern.

I agree.

A_L is absolutely no hate filled troll. It's ridiculous to suggest it.

[Fpoonsie]

Fpoonsie- thank you very much!

:lol Not necessary. I'm very aware that you're more than capable of fighting your own battles.

And I wasn't actually "battling", but simply "curiously engaging".

[Fpoonsie]

Fpoonsie- thank you very much!!!!

:lol

Ummm...:toast ?

[Cane]

The problem w/ most "Christians", however, is once they feel that their faith (and likewise, their person) is being attacked, they no longer respond "Christ-like". While I certainly admit that it's easier to temper your excitement or outrage online, you'd think that the frustration so often exhibited by her detractors could/would be tempered as well. However, more often than not, her "stubbornness" only serves to incite them further.

This is Spurstalk we're talking about...I have no idea how Culburn and the like stayed unbanned for so long. This place is rampant with personal attacks and rage/troll-inducing topics...part of what makes this place great and horrible at the same time...horribly great.



And I wouldn't necessarily classify a_l's labeling of Barack as the (possible) anti-christ "HATE". According to scriptures, he did fit a lot of the criteria. It's a common conclusion-jump by evangelicals to label popular people in history as such, but I don't believe a_l's concern was "hate-filled", but merely that: concern.

Sure, some of it could be "concern" just like a lot of posters are "concerned" that people believe and act like such. You go around proclaiming people to be the antichrist for the sake of doing so is still trolling; people who go around with this mindset know it inflames and pisses people off ditto with people that mention religion or lack thereof on a regular basis and use these beliefs to reinforce their hate.

Is it Christian like to go around proclaiming people you know little about, never met, etc. to be the anti-christ or a witch? Use religion to put down others like it was done against blacks and nowadays, gays? Its fine to believe in whatever you want about the life beyond; not so much when its used to oppress or demonize others today.

What Would David Robinson Do?

[koriwhat]

Still, I could not/ would not say with absolute confidence that President Obama was not the anti-Christ because I had never heard President Obama boldly declare himself to be a follower of Christ.

so he wasn't in the past and he isn't in the present? just like your grammar, your religion is flawed too.

[angel_luv]

if you really, really, really, realy think about it, common sense would tell you that if the book of revelation were to really happen that it would not happen in our life time.

Waaaaaaaaaaay too many people today are very familiar with the book of Revelation.

That is an interesting thought.

I believe the Bible is both spiritually and factually true and that Rapture will happen. So, I am curious about how people will react when the Rapture occurs.

Think about it, like you said, people are familiar with the book of Revelation. Also there is a whole " Left Behind" best selling book series on the subject.
People should know what happened when it hits them.

But then again, it took ten plagues for Pharoah to release the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and even then Pharoah chased after the Israelites and ended up drowning.

[koriwhat]

one big fairytale i tell ya...

[Fpoonsie]

...horribly great.

:lol



Sure, some of it could be "concern" just like a lot of posters are "concerned" that people believe and act like such. You go around proclaiming people to be the antichrist for the sake of doing so is still trolling; people who go around with this mindset know it inflames and pisses people off ditto with people that mention religion or lack thereof on a regular basis and use these beliefs to reinforce their hate.

Is it Christian like to go around proclaiming people you know little about, never met, etc. to be the anti-christ or a witch? Use religion to put down others like it was done against blacks and nowadays, gays? Its fine to believe in whatever you want about the life beyond; not so much when its used to oppress or demonize others.

What Would David Robinson Do?

I believe some could argue that holding true to one's beliefs while at the same time treating people with respect and "Christ-like" love is specifically what Christianity preaches, and, moreover, exactly what a_l does.

She's mentioned that she misunderstood a post and simply put her (now ST-infamous) idea out there. She wasn't parading it around in non-believers' faces to attack or offend them, but merely stating her opinion. And I'd wager that she did so w/ as much tact as one possibly could muster when stating such a controversial claim.

I think people are so familiar w/ the "Christians" you allude to, the hate-filled, self-righteous, "Fred Phelps"s of the world, that the immediately lump ALL self-proclaimed, outspoken believers into the same category. A_l, from what I've seen thus far, doesn't deserve to be associated w/ such filth.

However, as soon as she opens a "God Hates Fags (and so do I, those nasty motherfuckers)" thread, I'll be the first to admit my egregious error.

[Fpoonsie]

so he wasn't in the past and he isn't in the present? just like your grammar, your religion is flawed too.


one big fairytale i tell ya...

Case in point. Exactly what I'm talking about. Unnecessary.

[koriwhat]

Case in point. Exactly what I'm talking about. Unnecessary.

not so quick... what exactly is unnecessary about what i said?

her grammar is flawed like her religion. she states that obama was not and is not the antichrist as well as the bible being factually true. please show me where i was wrong in my assessment.

[Blake]

That is an interesting thought.

I believe the Bible is both spiritually and factually true and that Rapture will happen. So, I am curious about how people will react when the Rapture occurs.

Think about it, like you said, people are familiar with the book of Revelation. Also there is a whole " Left Behind" best selling book series on the subject.
People should know what happened when it hits them.

Exactly. People as a whole sometimes can easily be played by propaganda, but have more common sense than that.

If a whole bunch of people disappear after which someone comes along pushing a "mark", there is no way that the dude survives 5 minutes in America and very few people would be stupid enough to get "the mark".

I for one would complain to my congressman about having the choice of having to starve or go to hell


But then again, it took ten plagues for Pharoah to release the Israelites from slavery in Egypt and even then Pharoah chased after the Israelites and ended up drowning.

In the story, the Pharoah gambled and lost.

If several million people suddenly disappear today, very few will gamble against it being a rapture.

I do feel sorry for all the millions of starving Africans that won't be part of the rapture that will take the mark of the beast just so they can give their small child something to eat.

But God is fair and just, right?



I also hate to be the one to break it to you, but the literal translation of the old Hebrew text "yam suph" makes more sense translated as "Reed Sea" instead of Red Sea.

It would also explain how the large number of Israelites crossed the sea on foot through the marshy low level sea of reeds while the smaller number of Egyptian chariots could not catch up through the marsh and simply turned back.

[koriwhat]

Exactly. People as a whole sometimes can easily be played by propaganda, but have more common sense than that.

If a whole bunch of people disappear after which someone comes along pushing a "mark", there is no way that the dude survives 5 minutes in America and very few people would be stupid enough to get "the mark".

I for one would complain to my congressman about having the choice of having to starve or go to hell



In the story, the Pharoah gambled and lost.

If several million people suddenly disappear today, very few will gamble against it being a rapture.

I do feel sorry for all the millions of starving Africans that won't be part of the rapture that will take the mark of the beast just so they can give their small child something to eat.

But God is fair and just, right?



I also hate to be the one to break it to you, but the literal translation of the old Hebrew text "yam suph" makes more sense translated as "Reed Sea" instead of Red Sea.

It would also explain how the large number of Israelites crossed the sea on foot through the marshy low level sea of reeds while the smaller number of Egyptian chariots could not catch up through the marsh and simply turned back.

it's also funny that people don't believe in the donkey lady, except those who visit tijuana haha, but they believe in a book written by fools who proclaim they were guided by god to be his personal stenographer.

[Blake]

it's also funny that people don't believe in the donkey lady, except those who visit tijuana haha, but they believe in a book written by fools who proclaim they were guided by god to be his personal stenographer.

and then those books were grossly mistranslated by people with agendas.

[koriwhat]

and then those books were grossly mistranslated by people with agendas.

i dont have 24 ribs... i have 24 sluts! yeah for sluts!

[Bigzax]

why wait for one anti-christ when there are currently billions...

[Fpoonsie]

not so quick... what exactly is unnecessary about what i said?

her grammar is flawed like her religion. she states that obama was not and is not the antichrist as well as the bible being factually true. please show me where i was wrong in my assessment.

I never said your criticisms were inaccurate, just unnecessary.

Par for the course, though, unfortunately.

[koriwhat]

I never said your criticisms were inaccurate, just unnecessary.

Par for the course, though, unfortunately.

this is a messageboard right? am i, like all others here, not supposed to point out her contradictions? i don't get it.

[Fpoonsie]

this is a messageboard right? am i, like all others here, not supposed to point out her contradictions? i don't get it.

Don't act so obtuse. You know what I mean. There's a manner in which one can contradict w/o being abrasive or cruel...


wow you've gone off the deep end girl! holy shit!

lets get back to reality... take some lsd or something. trip and find yourself before you allow others to corrupt what little potential you still have left to be your own person.

my brother used to be just like you. delusional would be my best description.

does bo subscribe to this same ideology? i hope not because i've met bo a couple times, even played basketball with the dude, and he seems to be level headed and not way out there.

bo i'm sorry if it seems like i'm dogging on your wife and i don't mean to but damn she is taking this shit to a new level. wtf?!


...this, however, isn't it.

[benefactor]

What exactly is the point of trying to convince someone the Bible is true?

[koriwhat]

Don't act so obtuse. You know what I mean. There's a manner in which one can contradict w/o being abrasive or cruel...

i'm not trying to write a paper to gain a PhD man... i say what i say here on this messageboard exactly how i'd say it in real life. sorry if i come across in a manner you don't see fit.

and i don't see how i was cruel at all.

crazy is as crazy does man and from a ton of the stuff i've read from angel_luv i can tell she's sincere and a kind person but i have also heard the same out of the mouth of those who are and were crazy. case in point, my brother(who attended fuckface church of christ off o'connor rd and ended up in a cult outside of st. louis because he was duped into believing he was being sent to ministry school up north and instead got driven out to this camp) and my old neighbors(husband ended up killing his wife last yr with a hammer and a knife and guess what my neighbors were huge religious fools).

[benefactor]

Christians are their own worst enemy. :depressed

[Fpoonsie]

i'm not trying to write a paper to gain a PhD man... i say what i say here on this messageboard exactly how i'd say it in real life. sorry if i come across in a manner you don't see fit.

and i don't see how i was cruel at all.

crazy is as crazy does man and from a ton of the stuff i've read from angel_luv i can tell she's sincere and a kind person but i have also heard the same out of the mouth of those who are and were crazy. case in point, my brother(who attended fuckface church of christ off o'connor rd and ended up in a cult outside of st. louis because he was duped into believing he was being sent to ministry school up north and instead got driven out to this camp) and my old neighbors(husband ended up killing his wife last yr with a hammer and a knife and guess what my neighbors were huge religious fools).

You and this poster (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147527) should hang out.

[mouse]

There's a manner in which one can contradict w/o being abrasive or cruel...


Should I post some your cruel comments you've said about me?

[Fpoonsie]

Should I post some your cruel comments you've said about me?

I never claimed to share a_l's uncanny ability to refrain. If you talk shit to me (which you often do), I'll respond in kind.

[remingtonbo2001]

does bo subscribe to this same ideology? i hope not because i've met bo a couple times, even played basketball with the dude, and he seems to be level headed and not way out there.

bo i'm sorry if it seems like i'm dogging on your wife and i don't mean to but damn she is taking this shit to a new level. wtf?!

Yes, I am a Christian. I do not find my wife's beliefs to be way out there. As a matter of fact, they are beliefs I firmly believe as well.

Choose whom you will serve.

I choose Jesus. In all honestly, coming to Christ has made a significantly positive impact in my life, more so than anything else.

[ploto]

I believe the Bible is both spiritually and factually true...

So you believe that an apocalyptic book is meant to be read like a work of non-fiction-- that is, that literally a beast with seven heads and ten horns will appear. You do not- as most Christians I know- believe it is an allegorical and symbolic writing?

[JoeChalupa]

Doesn't change a thing for me.

[ploto]

I believe that the anti-christ will be charismatic and popular. Those are traits that describe President Obama, although I personally do not think he is handsome.

But,as you said, there are many charismatic and popular people and there will be only one Anti-Christ, so those characteristic alone do not prove anything.

I did wonder if President Obama was the anti-christ and I am not ashamed of that.

Do you wonder if George Clooney is the anti-Christ? How about the myriads of other people who are popular. Your claim can only be justified if you worry just as greatly that every other person who is popular is the anti-Christ. Otherwise, you are hiding your hatred for Obama behind an "acceptable" excuse for it.

[Fpoonsie]

Do you wonder if George Clooney is the anti-Christ? How about the myriads of other people who are popular. Your claim can only be justified if you worry just as greatly that every other person who is popular is the anti-Christ. Otherwise, you are hiding your hatred for Obama behind an "acceptable" excuse for it.

George Clooney was voted Sexiest Man Alive in '06. Barack Obama was voted to be the Leader of the Free World in '08. They may both have charisma, but that charisma affects people in ENTIRELY different ways.

I think you know that it's not just about being "popular."

[benefactor]

Faith is not acheived by posting articles or trying to provide arguments that attempt to convince others that the Bible is true. Christians really need to stop wasting time and energy on it. Jesus is not a game you are trying to win by outwitting someone.

[ploto]

Faith is not acheived by posting articles or trying to provide arguments that attempt to convince others that the Bible is true. Christians really need to stop wasting time and energy on it. Jesus is not a game you are trying to win by outwitting someone.

I agree. I think Angel believes she is doing something good. By setting herself up as a"martyr" she is trying to prove something. She wants the hatred and the drama to show she is a good Christian because people oppose her. Someone I know has tried to quote to me about how the world should hate you and that shows you are such a great Christian. I told him people do not dislike him because of his faith but because he is an asshole. Not the same thing.

[Blake]

So you believe that an apocalyptic book is meant to be read like a work of non-fiction-- that is, that literally a beast with seven heads and ten horns will appear. You do not- as most Christians I know- believe it is an allegorical and symbolic writing?

Most Christians I know believe that it will literally happen the way it is written.

[ploto]

Most Christians I know believe that it will literally happen the way it is written.


From USCCB:

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.

This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.

This much, however, is certain: symbolic descriptions are not to be taken as literal descriptions, nor is the symbolism meant to be pictured realistically. One would find it difficult and repulsive to visualize a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes; yet Jesus Christ is described in precisely such words (Rev 5:6). The author used these images to suggest Christ's universal (seven) power (horns) and knowledge (eyes). A significant feature of apocalyptic writing is the use of symbolic colors, metals, garments (Rev 1:13-16; 3:18; 4:4; 6:1-8; 17:4; 19:8), and numbers (four signifies the world, six imperfection, seven totality or perfection, twelve Israel's tribes or the apostles, one thousand immensity). Finally the vindictive language in the book (Rev 6:9-10; 18:1-19:4) is also to be understood symbolically and not literally. The cries for vengeance on the lips of Christian martyrs that sound so harsh are in fact literary devices the author employed to evoke in the reader and hearer a feeling of horror for apostasy and rebellion that will be severely punished by God.

The lurid descriptions of the punishment of Jezebel (Rev 2:22) and of the destruction of the great harlot, Babylon (Rev 16:9-19:2),are likewise literary devices. The metaphor of Babylon as harlot would be wrongly construed if interpreted literally. On the other hand, the stylized figure of the woman clothed with the sun (Rev 12:1-6), depicting the New Israel, may seem to be a negative stereotype. It is necessary to look beyond the literal meaning to see that these images mean to convey a sense of God's wrath at sin in the former case and trust in God's providential care over the church in the latter.

The Book of Revelation cannot be adequately understood except against the historical background that occasioned its writing. Like Daniel and other apocalypses, it was composed as resistance literature to meet a crisis. The book itself suggests that the crisis was ruthless persecution of the early church by the Roman authorities; the harlot Babylon symbolizes pagan Rome, the city on seven hills (17, 9). The book is, then, an exhortation and admonition to Christians of the first century to stand firm in the faith and to avoid compromise with paganism, despite the threat of adversity and martyrdom; they are to await patiently the fulfillment of God's mighty promises. The triumph of God in the world of men and women remains a mystery, to be accepted in faith and longed for in hope. It is a triumph that unfolded in the history of Jesus of Nazareth and continues to unfold in the history of the individual Christian who follows the way of the cross, even, if necessary, to a martyr's death.

Though the perspective is eschatological--ultimate salvation and victory are said to take place at the end of the present age when Christ will come in glory at the parousia--the book presents the decisive struggle of Christ and his followers against Satan and his cohorts as already over. Christ's overwhelming defeat of the kingdom of Satan ushered in the everlasting reign of God (Rev 11:15; 12:10). Even the forces of evil unwittingly carry out the divine plan (Rev 17:17), for God is the sovereign Lord of history.

The Book of Revelation had its origin in a time of crisis, but it remains valid and meaningful for Christians of all time. In the face of apparently insuperable evil, either from within or from without, all Christians are called to trust in Jesus' promise, "Behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Those who remain steadfast in their faith and confidence in the risen Lord need have no fear. Suffering, persecution, even death by martyrdom, though remaining impenetrable mysteries of evil, do not comprise an absurd dead end. No matter what adversity or sacrifice Christians may endure, they will in the end triumph over Satan and his forces because of their fidelity to Christ the victor. This is the enduring message of the book; it is a message of hope and consolation and challenge for all who dare to believe....

http://usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

A literal portrayal is a view held by certain factions of evangelical Christianity, not by the majority of Christians or denominations.

[angel_luv]

So you believe that an apocalyptic book is meant to be read like a work of non-fiction-- that is, that literally a beast with seven heads and ten horns will appear. You do not- as most Christians I know- believe it is an allegorical and symbolic writing?

The seven heads and ten horns are written to represent things that will literally take place. They are, as you said, symbolic.
When I said I believe the Bible is factually true, I meant that I believe that everything the Bible said happened, DID happen and that everything the Bible prophesizes will happen IS going to occur.

[angel_luv]

Do you wonder if George Clooney is the anti-Christ? How about the myriads of other people who are popular. Your claim can only be justified if you worry just as greatly that every other person who is popular is the anti-Christ. Otherwise, you are hiding your hatred for Obama behind an "acceptable" excuse for it.

I have always anticipated that the anti-christ would be a skilled politician and likely the President of the United States ( if the anti-christ is to come from America.) That is why George Clooney never drew my suspicision- though he is, as you said, popular.

[leemajors]

The seven heads and ten horns are written to represent things that will literally take place. They are, as you said, symbolic.
When I said I believe the Bible is factually true, I meant that I believe that everything the Bible said happened, DID happen and that everything the Bible prophesizes will happen IS going to occur.

symbolic or allegorical does not equal literal.

[clambake]

I have always anticipated that the anti-christ would be a skilled politician and likely the President of the United States ( if the anti-christ is to come from America.) That is why George Clooney never drew my suspicision- though he is, as you said, popular.

i'm sorry, how long has the united states existed?

[angel_luv]

Faith is not acheived by posting articles or trying to provide arguments that attempt to convince others that the Bible is true. Christians really need to stop wasting time and energy on it. Jesus is not a game you are trying to win by outwitting someone.



One cannot participate in a discussion unless one is allowed to speak one's mind.
In all my posts, I am simply stating my perspective on a given subject. I value the Word of God. The Bible is something I read daily, so it is always in the forefront of my mind. The Word of God and my faith in Christ are themes that are prevelent in every conversation I have, whether on the Internet or in person.


There are a host of very high iq people on here. There are many people that I consider to be much more formally educated, business savvy, and street smart than me. I honestly do not expect to ever outwit anyone on here nor do I desire to.

What I do pray is that my words bring people encouragement. I hope I am instrumental in leading people to the Lord.

If I feel a person, situation, or trend could be destructive and/or dangerous, I am going to say so because I feel I have a moral responsibility to do so.

My responsibility is to live righteously, lawfully, and honestly before the world and in all three regards my conscience is clear.

[benefactor]

I agree. I think Angel believes she is doing something good. By setting herself up as a"martyr" she is trying to prove something. She wants the hatred and the drama to show she is a good Christian because people oppose her. Someone I know has tried to quote to me about how the world should hate you and that shows you are such a great Christian. I told him people do not dislike him because of his faith but because he is an asshole. Not the same thing.
Yeah...this is pretty epidemic among evangelicals today. Christians look at that scripture and use it as an excuse when they feel persecuted. They don't take the time to think about the possibility of themselves being the problem.

Jesus was liked by just about everyone he approached...except the religious people of the day, who he called out repeatedly because of their self seeking motives. If one looks closely, the church today looks eerily similar to the religious establishments of that time. They look out for their own first and foremost, they reject anyone who doesn't fit in with them doctrinally(the bulk of most denominational doctrine was created by men) and they would much rather see themselves be proven right instead of showing love.

[clambake]

If I feel a person, situation, or trend could be destructive and/or dangerous, I am going to say so because I feel I have a moral responsibility to do so.

nah, you waited until obama ran for office.

its much more subtle to define it this way.

[benefactor]

One cannot participate in a discussion unless one is allowed to speak one's mind.
In all my posts, I am simply stating my perspective on a given subject. I value the Word of God. The Bible is something I read daily, so it is always in the forefront of my mind. The Word of God and my faith in Christ are themes that are prevelent in every conversation I have, whether on the Internet or in person.


There are a host of very high iq people on here. There are many people that I consider to be much more formally educated, business savvy, and street smart than me. I honestly do not expect to ever outwit anyone on here nor do I desire to.

What I do pray is that my words bring people encouragement. I hope I am instrumental in leading people to the Lord.

If I feel a person, situation, or trend could be destructive and/or dangerous, I am going to say so because I feel I have a moral responsibility to do so.

My responsibility is to live righteously, lawfully, and honestly before the world and in all three regards my conscience is clear.
Your approach is the problem. When you do things like posting the article you posted it sends only one message..."Ha! Look! I am right and you are wrong." This is not encouraging, it's arrogant.

[benefactor]

What I do pray is that my words bring people encouragement. I hope I am instrumental in leading people to the Lord.


Stop trying so hard and you will be more successful.

[angel_luv]

Your approach is the problem. When you do things like posting the article you posted it sends only one message..."Ha! Look! I am right and you are wrong." This is not encouraging, it's arrogant.

I said nothing of the kind. I merely posted an article that I found interesting. I didn't force anyone into this thread. Everyone entered willingly.

The thread title was the actual title of the article, so I didn't even come up with that.

[angel_luv]

Thank you for your perspective Benefactor.

But I am satisfied with the way and the content I post.

[benefactor]

I said nothing of the kind. I merely posted an article that I found interesting. I didn't force anyone into this thread. Everyone entered willingly.

The thread title was the actual title of the article, so I didn't even come up with that.
This is such BS.

You posted an article titled "Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall". It wasn't merely an article you found interesting. It was an attempt to shove some sort of proof for the Bible in the face of your detractors. Tell me...how is this showing love to an unbelieving world?

[Fpoonsie]

Your approach is the problem. When you do things like posting the article you posted it sends only one message..."Ha! Look! I am right and you are wrong." This is not encouraging, it's arrogant.

Outta curiosity, would you label an article posted supporting evidence refuting the Bible/creationism/etc the same way?

[angel_luv]

This is such BS.

You posted an article titled "Archaeologist sees proof for Bible in ancient wall". It wasn't merely an article you found interesting. It was an attempt to shove some sort of proof for the Bible in the face of your detractors. Tell me...how is this showing love to an unbelieving world?

Do you really think I have that kind of time on my hands?

Do you honestly think I spend my days plotting against faceless mere acquaintances that I happen to share space with on the Internet?

The article was featured on the front page of Yahoo. I saw it when I was on Yahoo to check my e-mail.

I thought the article was interesting and so I posted it. End of story and hopefully the end of your conspiracy concerns.

I assure you I am in no way, shape, or form plotting against any of you.

[Blake]

From USCCB:


A literal portrayal is a view held by certain factions of evangelical Christianity, not by the majority of Christians or denominations.

I don't agree or disagree with what you say or quote.

I'm just saying that personally, having lived most of my life around Texan Bible belt Baptists, most Christians I know or have known believe in a literal translation.

They also believe that the Earth was literally created in 7 days.

[benefactor]

Outta curiosity, would you label an article posted supporting evidence refuting the Bible/creationism/etc the same way?
I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I didn't label the article as anything. She claims to have had no agenda in posting the article...when it's obvious she did.

Do you really think I have that kind of time on my hands?

Do you honestly think I spend my days plotting against faceless mere acquaintances that I happen to share space with on the Internet?

The article was featured on the front page of Yahoo. I saw it when I was on Yahoo to check my e-mail.

I thought the article was interesting and so I posted it. End of story and hopefully the end of your conspiracy concerns.

I assure you I am in no way, shape, or form plotting against any of you.
No...I don't think you spend all of your time plotting like that, but that doesn't change the fact that you had an agenda when you posted the article.

You knew that there were plenty of people that post here who do not believe in the Bible and you felt like that you might be able to sway someone by posting an article like this...or at least that's what you tell yourself. The real truth is you are fed up and frustrated with people on this site trashing the Bible and you wanted to get your two pennies in. Upon reading the article you thought to yourself, "Hey, this is pretty good stuff. I can take it to Spurstalk and shut some of those guys up that constantly trash the Bible." You didn't need to spend much time at all calculating your move, because it was an automatic reaction. I know...I used to be just like you.

The fact still remains that nothing fruitful can come out of you posting an article like this. Even if I am way off base with my assessment of your motives(I think I'm right on), it doesn't change the impression given when someone sees what the article is about and then looks at who posted it...an impression that states, "You are wrong, I am right. Here's my proof."

[Buddy Holly]

Simple question to all the religious nut- frea- people reading this thread.

If the bible predicted/foretold the future and the end of mankind why weren't they able to foreshadow technology? The internet? The snuggie?

Seriously.

[mouse]

Simple question to all the religious nut- frea- people reading this thread.


You really know how to charm them.

[Blake]

Simple question to all the religious nut- frea- people reading this thread.

If the bible predicted/foretold the future and the end of mankind why weren't they able to foreshadow technology? The internet? The snuggie?

Seriously.

Daniel 12:4

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.