African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[RandomGuy]

I use to have the same struggle trying to reconcile GOD's justice and His sense of Grace. But that's just it... Scripture reveals that no one is good enough. We're all sinners. All of us. Even on our best day, we fail to meet the sanc y and holiness required to appease GOD's justice. Ultimately, we're all accountable for our own actions because the law reveals our imperfection -- it is the law which reveals, but ultimately our own actions that condemn us. Only one was perfect, JESUS.

Children, which have no concept of 'right and wrong' are exempted from this system of justice by GOD's grace.

Everyone else will be accountable for their actions. So who else can they blame for their actions...? How is that unfair...?

"Sorry officer, I didn't know that in this jurisdiction the law was applied differently. Am I still accountable for breaking the law...?"

The God of the Christian bible is a horrible monster, provably so. To claim that it is somehow above our moral reckoning is the worst form of special pleading.

I am morally superior to the Christian God. I would never flood the whole world because it was wicked, nor would I ever, ever ask anyone to sacrifice their child to make me happy. Easiest argument to make given the text of the Bible.

[RandomGuy]

353 Separate prophetical clauses are fulfilled by JESUS according to the following list.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures....rophecies.html

The likelihood that any one person in history would satisfy all of those - every single one - is astoundingly low.

""...most of the Old Testament prophecies claimed by New Testament writers to be prophecies of Jesus, were not even meant as messianic prophecies in the first place."

Matthew 27:35, it says "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, 'They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.'" which is referring to Psalm 22:18. However, just one look at Psalm 22:18 by anybody will show that the writer, David, was merely singing a psalm as a plea of help from God for injustices done to him (David) and not predicting what would happen to the future messiah! That’s a huge discrepancy!

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Deb...ians/Page7.htm

It goes on. "Fulfilled prophecies" is merely a conclusion in search of evidence.

That is the reason I don't think delving into this kind of muck just is all that interesting. It is thin gruel, and someone else's interpretations of prophesy is therefore not anywhere near a good reason to believe something.

Better is to ask some rather important questions about the nature of reality and what people think "God" is or isn't and why.

(edit)
Read more:

Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017” (that's 10 to the power of 17).

For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question. It was not until a Bible class earlier this year that serious doubts about the Messianic prophecies began to bubble to the surface. I was teaching through John's Gospel, verse by verse, when the class came to chapter 19 and verse 36 ("These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of his bones will be broken"). Someone asked me about the original prophecy, so I followed my index finger to the handy-dandy cross reference and arrived at Psalm 34:20. Ah, here I would be able to show the class one of the "astounding" prophecies of Scripture that "proves beyond a doubt" that Jesus was the Christ. What I discovered was, shall we say, underwhelming:

19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

This is certainly an inspiring verse of Scripture, but you would have to be a fool to take it as a prophecy of the Messiah. I was left in the truly awkward position of explaining to the class why John took a verse like this and wrenched it so violently from its original context (something I've preached against for years). As we went along, I noticed other misquoted passages the Gospel writer applied to Jesus. I was quite embarrassed--not for myself, but for the apostle John! This got me to wondering--how many other claims of prophetic fulfillment are not just a little bit off, but way off?

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...challenge.html

The comments section there has commentary from others who looked into the same topic. It follows the line

When I read St. Jerome's rationalization for perpetuating the translation fraud, even though he knew the Hebrew scholars who criticized Christian interpreters were correct, then I realized that the whole Christianity thing is false, as are all other religions. The "virgin birth" is the hinge upon which a huge chunk of orthodox soteriology rests. If it ain't so, the remainders don't leave much upon which to build gospel.

It goes back and forth. Handy for me though was something someone else wrote after looking into all this that sums up my take:

You are not considering that your presuppositions are based on circular reasoning. you believe in the christian god because the bible describes it, and the bible says it is the word of god. There is no corroborating evidence and there is a preponderance of evidence to show that it was borrowed from lots of other cultures and scriptures throughout the near east. Thats empirical evidence all converging on the one data point, that the bible is not the word of god but the words of people inspired by the idea of gods.

[CosmicCowboy]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

[RandomGuy]

The "Church" isn't doing their job if they aren't being a light unto the nations. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone must convert. It simply means that everyone must be exposed to the Gospel. Ultimately, people will choose to receive or reject the Gospel message.

I noticed you didn't directly answer this rather important question:

If you could go back in time to Jesus' Crucifixion with the means of stopping it, would you? why or why not?

[RandomGuy]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

Well, chemistry has a certain structure, and obeys some rules, it isn't quite completely random. All you need is a s of naturally forming lipids and basic amino acids. Dunno. I would never go so far as to think or say "there is no god", but I pretty much have ruled out the Christian concept of such a being by this point. Even if it did exist, I would not really want to worship such a being. People who want to claim it is all about love have to ignore and excuse a whole lot of evil behavior. I just can't put my fingers in my ears and go "la la la la" to multiple genocides.

[mingus]

Ok. Now do that without knowing what the prophecies are, because you are amongst a group of people who are being hunted down by the very authorities who have those writings in their possession.

Thanks for playing.

And THAT my friend was the hurdle. YET Christ fulfills every prophecy concerning himself found in the canon of Hebrew/Judaic writings, every single one --> again, a mathematical improbability (which isn't proof in and unto itself, just more context supporting the notion that Jesus was who he claimed to be).

"Prophecy" is just a non-religious way of saying "prediction" tho. And there are things that are hard to predict and things that are easy to predict. Before we can even get into talking mathematical probabilities, we have to know what the nature of the predictions/prophecies are. Every prediction has a different probability of turning out to be true or false based on their nature (i.e. vagueness or specificity). Where are these prophecies/predictions situated in the specificity-vagueness spectrum? After answering THAT, then we can talk about the mathematical probabilities, otherwise we're getting ahead of ourselves.

BUT, before you even do that, convince me that all of these prophecies were written BEFORE the outcomes had happened so that we can be sure we can actually call them "predictions/prophecies" in the first place.

These are questions anyone who has a desire to pursue/know truth should want answered to the fullest extent possible.

[baseline bum]

I believe there is some supreme force that brought this all together. It's hard to believe that DNA just "happened". I don't think that force was the vengeful Christian god, though.

I can understand that. I lean the other way, that there is no designer, but if I know if I'm right. When I was 18 I decided I wanted to become a good Christian and read the bible on my own without being guided by anyone who would spin it one way or the other, and I was horrified. Sometimes I go back and forth on whether there is some god(s), but I can't see myself ever following one who seems to be based on a brutal dictator.

[RandomGuy]

"Prophecy" is just a non-religious way of saying "prediction" tho. And there are things that are hard to predict and things that are easy to predict. Before we can even get into talking mathematical probabilities, we have to know what the nature of the predictions/prophecies are. Every prediction has a different probability of turning out to be true or false based on their nature (i.e. vagueness or specificity). Where are these prophecies/predictions situated in the specificity-vagueness spectrum? After answering THAT, then we can talk about the mathematical probabilities, otherwise we're getting ahead of ourselves.

BUT, before you even do that, convince me that all of these prophecies were written BEFORE the outcomes had happened so that we can be sure we can actually call them "predictions/prophecies" in the first place.

These are questions anyone who has a desire to pursue/know truth should want answered to the fullest extent possible.

The bible is full of "prophecies" that say something along the line of "people will be greedy". Hardly an astonishing feat of prediction. That is a bit like speaking a prophecy of a ham sandwich appearing on you plate at a restaurant, after ordering a ham sandwich.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You assume a lot about me. You don't know very much.

Whatever you extrapolate from that is your very own business, hilariously off base, and has nothing to do with me.

And youre cagey and wishy washy.

You claim I am off base but never ever provide a counter narrative. Reads as avoidance to me. You give no reason for anyone else to believe you either.

And your interactions and writings here have everything to do with you. You did it not someone else. That is the basis of my comments not make believe. The sentiments I am talking about are on display from you as we speak.

[Phenomanul]

The God of the Christian bible is a horrible monster, provably so. To claim that it is somehow above our moral reckoning is the worst form of special pleading.

I am morally superior to the Christian God. I would never flood the whole world because it was wicked, nor would I ever, ever ask anyone to sacrifice their child to make me happy. Easiest argument to make given the text of the Bible.

I don't have time to address all the rebuttals.... especially not on New Year's weekend.

but wow...!

("I am morally superior to the Christian God") Says the guy who unilaterally supports abortion and the selling of baby parts...

As for asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, I'm pretty sure GOD never intended for Abraham to kill him... wait, wait... that's exactly what scripture says.

[Phenomanul]

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

So the bolded ones are supernatural/unnatural prophecies... yeah let's all "predict" supernatural/unnatural things willy nilly style... because ANYONE can satisfy those.

The truth is WE will never see eye to eye because your skepticism is not based on disbelief alone - it is a disbelief grounded on disdain - in which case the passages from John 8:42-45 and John 7:7 that I posted previously apply to most of you all here. That being the case - again, this whole exchange/discussion is utterly futile (and frankly a waste of our time).

[vy65]

If there really is no underlying rhyme or reason to everything -- and we're in one big True Detective ghetto -- then this is really ing depressing.

That being said, that the irony of anthropomorphizing a deity, ascribing it things like will/intent/language etc, and taking as literal written before we had electricity is lost on Christians is beyond me. It's why republicans are absolutely ed -- they hate smart.

[mingus]

The only Christian friends I have--and I have many (actually most of my friends are Christian, probably)--are Catholic. I think Catholics are more realistic about practicing their faith than Evangelicals or Protestants. I've gotten to know quite a few priests, and even went to weekly mass and Bible study with this chick I was ing, and basically all of what they had to say seemed fair. The priests were open to being challenged. All of them admitted as pretty much a fact evolution, as just one example. It didn't feel like they were practicing in an echo-chamber like the others.

[Phenomanul]

The only Christian friends I have--and I have many (actually most of my friends are Christian, probably)--are Catholic. I think Catholics are more realistic about practicing their faith than Evangelicals or Protestants. I've gotten to know quite a few priests, and even went to weekly mass and Bible study with this chick I was ing, and basically all of what they had to say seemed fair. The priests were open to being challenged. All of them admitted as pretty much a fact evolution, as just one example. It didn't feel like they were practicing in an echo-chamber like the others.

And you are en led to that opinion. I would add that the history of the Catholic ins ution is what mostly has cast Christianity in bad light (IMO)... The Inquisition, the Crusades, indulgences, the killing off of intellectuals, the "dark ages", etc... that's not to say that Catholic adherents are responsible. It's just I'm surprised you would take that position despite such a horrendous history...

[Phenomanul]

If there really is no underlying rhyme or reason to everything -- and we're in one big True Detective ghetto -- then this is really ing depressing.

That being said, that the irony of anthropomorphizing a deity, ascribing it things like will/intent/language etc, and taking as literal written before we had electricity is lost on Christians is beyond me. It's why republicans are absolutely ed -- they hate smart.

If by proxy you are implying Christians "hate smart"... you need to go back and read up on your history of the scientific movement.

I've posted this before:

First, by and large the fathers of the Scientific Enlightenment were Christian... or Deists. It is mere historical revisionism to claim that those that progressed Science to its current state were mostly atheists or unbelievers... Again, this is yet another instance of the fallacy of "consensus gentium…" running rampant in our modern society… You've probably heard this misconception over and over that you yourself have come to believe it... Let me share the truth with you – the following scientists were the ones that pushed humanity to the modern scientific era – and they all believed in an all-powerful Creator:

Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus and Physics)

Sir James Clerk Maxwell (father of Electromagnetism)

Sir Francis Bacon (father of the Scientific Method)

Neils Bohr (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

John Dalton (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

Louis Pasteur (father of Germ Theory of Disease)

Albert Einstein (co-father of Nuclear Physics and Relativity) [Deist]

J. Robert Oppenheimer (co-father of Nuclear Physics) [Deist]

Enrico Fermi (co-father of Nuclear Physics)

Michael Faraday (co-father of Chemistry)

Antoine Lavoisier (co-father of Chemistry)

Linus Pauling (co-father of Modern Chemistry)

Sir Robert Boyle (father of Thermophysical Gas Laws)

Gregor Mendel (father of Genetics)

Carl Linnaeus (father of Binomial Nomenclature)

Claude Bernard (co-father of Modern Physiology)

Lord Kelvin (William Thompson Kelvin) (co-father of Thermodynamics)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (co-father of Thermodynamics)

John von Neumann (father of the Computer)

Johannes Kepler (renowned astronomer who pinned down the motion of the planets)

Luke Howard (father of Meteorology – developed the cloud naming nomenclature we use today)

Nicolaus Copernicus (renowned astronomer)

Max Planck (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Max Born (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Werner Heisenberg (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Verner Edward Suomi (father of Satellite Meteorology)

Alfred Wegener (developed the Continental Drift Theory)

William Herschel (renowned astronomer who catalogued Galaxies and Nebulae)

Edwin Hubble (renowned astronomer who helped develop the modern telescope)

Franz Boas (father of modern Anthropology)

Anton van Leeuwenhoek (co-father of Microbiology – developed the micro-scope)

Leonard Euler (renowned mathematician)

Karl Friedrich Gauss (renowned mathematician)

Blaise Pascal (renowned mathematician)

Christiaan Huygens (developed the “Wave” theory of light)

Erwin Schrodinger (father of Wave mechanics)

Emil Fischer (co-father of Organic Chemistry)

Richard Feynman (father of Quantum Electrodynamics)

Thomas Milton Rivers (father of Modern Virology)

Paul Ehrlich (developed the concept of Chemotherapy)

Matthew Fontaine Maury (father of Oceanography)

Sheldon Glashow (co-father of Quarks – discovered Charm)

Jonas Salk (developed the Vaccination concept)

Alexander Fleming (developed the Anti-biotics concept – discovered Penicillin)

Christiaan Barnard (performed the first successful human-to human heart transplant)

Among others…

Note that they just about cover EVERY major field in Science…

But go ahead and keep on believing that somehow "Christians hate smart" or more specifically, intellectual reasoning.

I would add that (and I've said this before as well) science is not the only revealer of truth... People need to understand the importance of studying History...

[Winehole23]

And youre cagey and wishy washy.

You claim I am off base but never ever provide a counter narrative. Reads as avoidance to me. You give no reason for anyone else to believe you either.

And your interactions and writings here have everything to do with you. You did it not someone else. That is the basis of my comments not make believe. The sentiments I am talking about are on display from you as we speak.

What precisely?

Stop clearing your throat and say something, if you have something to say. So far, it's pretty abstract.

[mingus]

I would add that the history of the Catholic Ins ution...

You haven't added . You've confused . I wasn't talking about the history of the Catholic Church.

[vy65]

If by proxy you are implying Christians "hate smart"... you need to go back and read up on your history of the scientific movement.

I've posted this before:

First, by and large the fathers of the Scientific Enlightenment were Christian... or Deists. It is mere historical revisionism to claim that those that progressed Science to its current state were mostly atheists or unbelievers... Again, this is yet another instance of the fallacy of "consensus gentium…" running rampant in our modern society… You've probably heard this misconception over and over that you yourself have come to believe it... Let me share the truth with you – the following scientists were the ones that pushed humanity to the modern scientific era – and they all believed in an all-powerful Creator:

Sir Isaac Newton (father of Calculus and Physics)

Sir James Clerk Maxwell (father of Electromagnetism)

Sir Francis Bacon (father of the Scientific Method)

Neils Bohr (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

John Dalton (co-father of the “Atom” concept)

Louis Pasteur (father of Germ Theory of Disease)

Albert Einstein (co-father of Nuclear Physics and Relativity) [Deist]

J. Robert Oppenheimer (co-father of Nuclear Physics) [Deist]

Enrico Fermi (co-father of Nuclear Physics)

Michael Faraday (co-father of Chemistry)

Antoine Lavoisier (co-father of Chemistry)

Linus Pauling (co-father of Modern Chemistry)

Sir Robert Boyle (father of Thermophysical Gas Laws)

Gregor Mendel (father of Genetics)

Carl Linnaeus (father of Binomial Nomenclature)

Claude Bernard (co-father of Modern Physiology)

Lord Kelvin (William Thompson Kelvin) (co-father of Thermodynamics)

Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (co-father of Thermodynamics)

John von Neumann (father of the Computer)

Johannes Kepler (renowned astronomer who pinned down the motion of the planets)

Luke Howard (father of Meteorology – developed the cloud naming nomenclature we use today)

Nicolaus Copernicus (renowned astronomer)

Max Planck (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Max Born (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Werner Heisenberg (co-father of Quantum Physics)

Verner Edward Suomi (father of Satellite Meteorology)

Alfred Wegener (developed the Continental Drift Theory)

William Herschel (renowned astronomer who catalogued Galaxies and Nebulae)

Edwin Hubble (renowned astronomer who helped develop the modern telescope)

Franz Boas (father of modern Anthropology)

Anton van Leeuwenhoek (co-father of Microbiology – developed the micro-scope)

Leonard Euler (renowned mathematician)

Karl Friedrich Gauss (renowned mathematician)

Blaise Pascal (renowned mathematician)

Christiaan Huygens (developed the “Wave” theory of light)

Erwin Schrodinger (father of Wave mechanics)

Emil Fischer (co-father of Organic Chemistry)

Richard Feynman (father of Quantum Electrodynamics)

Thomas Milton Rivers (father of Modern Virology)

Paul Ehrlich (developed the concept of Chemotherapy)

Matthew Fontaine Maury (father of Oceanography)

Sheldon Glashow (co-father of Quarks – discovered Charm)

Jonas Salk (developed the Vaccination concept)

Alexander Fleming (developed the Anti-biotics concept – discovered Penicillin)

Christiaan Barnard (performed the first successful human-to human heart transplant)

Among others…

Note that they just about cover EVERY major field in Science…

But go ahead and keep on believing that somehow "Christians hate smart" or more specifically, intellectual reasoning.

I would add that (and I've said this before as well) science is not the only revealer of truth... People need to understand the importance of studying History...

The absence of reading comprehension and defensiveness here proves my point.

Of course smart people had religious beliefs. That's not related to the claim that taking the bible literally is anti-intellectual. Try again.

[boutons_deux]

And you are en led to that opinion. I would add that the history of the Catholic ins ution is what mostly has cast Christianity in bad light (IMO)... The Inquisition, the Crusades, indulgences, the killing off of intellectuals, the "dark ages", etc... that's not to say that Catholic adherents are responsible. It's just I'm surprised you would take that position despite such a horrendous history...

Repug Bible-thumpers, walking around the WH with Bibles in their hands, invaded Iraq and destabilized the (Muslim) Middle East probably for decades, with Ms dead, maimed, displaced.

And the blatant, materialistic, money-grubbing corruption of wealthy Protestant televangelists is a huge stain on your Christianity, are as corrupt as the CC was that led to the Reformation.

The Protestant, esp evangelical, claim that they are holier, better than the hated CC within Christianity reminds of Shiite - Sunni rivalry within Mohammadism.

One of the defining characteristics of Religion is disrespect, hate of other major Religions, and even of varieties, flavors, sects within their own Religion.

Defining others as apostates, infidels, sinners is a ploy to convince a Religion's members they are better, to affirm their choice, and serves as a basis, justification for punishing, discriminating against, persecuting the others, eg, with wedding cakes, marriage licenses.

The US evangelical fringe nuts with the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-humanistic Bible literalism are pulling America, or at least themselves, into a Dark Age, just like the CC, in conjunction with political powers, did for a 1000 years.

Bible literalists can't accept the scientific TRUTH of AGW, because it would destroy their belief in the bogus "truth" of their Bible(s).

[Phenomanul]

You haven't added . You've confused . I wasn't talking about the history of the Catholic Church.

No... you were too busy taking a dig at Protestants and Evangelicals... as if somehow the Catholic Church better interprets Biblical Scriptures when what they've done through the ages is murky up the simple gospel message - in an attempt to wield power.

Ironically enough, any claims that tampering occurred with Biblical scriptures annexed from the Hebrew/Judaic canon would reside on the shoulders of said ins ution. Fortunately, scripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls exist that AFFIRM that the language of the texts has not changed for several thousand years. In other words, Christians could not just change the old texts "all wily nily to suit their message" because those texts have been found in editions that predate the arrival of Christianity altogether (every one here seems to miss that point) - In other words those texts say the same thing prior to Christianity as they do in the Biblical canon. Furthermore, the meanings CAN in fact be validated because neither Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are completely dead languages.

[Phenomanul]

Repug Bible-thumpers, walking around the WH with Bibles in their hands, invaded Iraq and destabilized the (Muslim) Middle East probably for decades, with Ms dead, maimed, displaced.

And the blatant, materialistic, money-grubbing corruption of wealthy Protestant televangelists is a huge stain on your Christianity, are as corrupt as the CC was that led to the Reformation.

The Protestant, esp evangelical, claim that they are holier, better than the hated CC within Christianity reminds of Shiite - Sunni rivalry within Mohammadism.

One of the defining characteristics of Religion is disrespect, hate of other major Religions, and even of varieties, flavors, sects within their own Religion.

Defining others as apostates, infidels, sinners is a ploy to convince a Religion's members they are better, to affirm their choice, and serves as a basis, justification for punishing, discriminating against, persecuting the others, eg, with wedding cakes, marriage licenses.

The US evangelical fringe nuts with the anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-humanistic Bible literalism are pulling America, or at least themselves, into a Dark Age, just like the CC, in conjunction with political powers, did for a 1000 years.

Bible literalists can't accept the scientific TRUTH of AGW, because it would destroy their belief in the bogus "truth" of their Bible(s).

Cool it there boutons... you're always on the verge of getting aneurysms... I find it hypocritical that you would characterize politicians as being evil and then in the same breadth chastise believers for denouncing what they do (as adherents who have gone astray). How can you not see the dichotic nature of your peeves...?

In other words only YOU (seemingly from the outside) can cast stones at everyone??? What gives you that authority...? Are believers supposed to abscond their interpretational discernment of the scriptures to fancy your political posturing? The way you see things...?

[Phenomanul]

The absence of reading comprehension and defensiveness here proves my point.

Of course smart people had religious beliefs. That's not related to the claim that taking the bible literally is anti-intellectual. Try again.

Your original post is rather cryptic. I went back to re-read it and the crux of your argument ("we're ed because Republicans hate smart") is not supported by the ramblings in the earlier part of your quote. You didn't connect the context of your ramblings to the argument itself.

For example, why would it matter if something were written before we had "electricity", as if somehow that advancement marked the cutoff frame for taking something literal or not??? Is The Declaration of Independence or The Cons ution itself devoid of literalness simply because they were do ents written before the arrival of "electricity"...?

Don't shove the "reading comprehension" excuse down my throat if somehow you've failed to make a coherent argument to begin with.

Just more hate.

[mingus]

No... you were too busy taking a dig at Protestants and Evangelicals... as if somehow the Catholic Church better interprets Biblical Scriptures when what they've done through the ages is murky up the simple gospel message - in an attempt to wield power.

Ironically enough, any claims that tampering occurred with Biblical scriptures annexed from the Hebrew/Judaic canon would reside on the shoulders of said ins ution. Fortunately, scripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls exist that AFFIRM that the language of the texts has not changed for several thousand years. In other words, Christians could not just change the old texts "all wily nily to suit their message" because those texts have been found in editions that predate the arrival of Christianity altogether (every one here seems to miss that point) - In other words those texts say the same thing prior to Christianity as they do in the Biblical canon. Furthermore, the meanings CAN in fact be validated because neither Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are completely dead languages.

Where did I say that Catholics interpret the Bible better? What does "interpret the Bible better" even mean? What does "better" mean?

I'll rephrase what I said a bit more carefully to avoid confusion: Catholics--not 100, 200, 500, or 1000 years ago, but now--tend towards a less literal interpretation of the Bible, and I believe this is more realistic/pragmatic in light of the fact that science has given in my humble opinion better & more sound theories & explanations for various phenomena than what's in (or not in) the Bible.

I can't say whether that's a better way of interpreting the Bible per se. I simply think it's a better way of interpreting it against competing ideas that seem to me, better. Whether that makes them better Christians or not, I don't know. The better interpretation is the one that is closest to the Bible's intent.

The other paragraph you wrote, I don't know who it's directed at or what is it specifically attempting to answer. Since we got off topic a bit, I'll just take it back to the post where I listed some questions for you that anyone with a desire to know pursue/know truth would want answered to the fullest extent possible. I'm still waiting for your answers.

[boutons_deux]

Cool it there boutons... you're always on the verge of getting aneurysms... I find it hypocritical that you would characterize politicians as being evil and then in the same breadth chastise believers for denouncing what they do (as adherents who have gone astray). How can you not see the dichotic nature of your peeves...?

In other words only YOU (seemingly from the outside) can cast stones at everyone??? What gives you that authority...? Are believers supposed to abscond their interpretational discernment of the scriptures to fancy your political posturing? The way you see things...?

I am, as always, super cool beyond belief, but thanks for your concern

Believers can believe whatever their pastors make up, and whatever personal divine revelation their imaginations conjure, but when they "believe" that their authorizes them:

-- to violate civil law and/or pass civil laws to discriminate against whom they consider "sinners" (but only for particular sins)

-- to push their religious into taxpayers' public education

-- to use taxpayer facilities for religious ends, violating separation of religion and state

-- etc

... then I'll "chastise" you assholes.

[boutons_deux]

The Associated Press reported this week:

Americans place a higher priority on preserving the religious freedom of Christians than for other faith groups, ranking Muslims as the least deserving of the protections, according to a new survey.

Solid majorities said it was extremely or very important for the U.S. to uphold religious freedom in general. However, the percentages varied dramatically when respondents were asked about specific faith traditions, according to a poll by The Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

According to the survey’s findings, 82% of the public agreed that protections for Christians are important. For Jewish Americans, support slips to roughly 70%. For Mormons, it’s 67%. And at the bottom, 63% of Americans are on board with protections with those with no religion, and only 61% say the same about Muslims.

The idea that the First Amendment applies to everyone, regardless of their belief system, and that the law doesn’t play favorites among traditions, is a core cons utional truth – which many Americans evidently take issue with.

the fine folks at Right Wing Watch identified “five failed right-wing prophecies and predictions” from 2015, “including fears about

the looming imposition of martial law,

establishment of Obama’s private army and

the assassination of conservative leaders.”

My personal favorite were the prophecies about divine punishment in 2015 over marriage equality, which some religious right figures said would include

hurricanes,

riots, and a

mass migration away from the United States.

None of this actually happened.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow

So many Americans, giving at lip service, in theory, to their sacred Cons ution, think Christianity, in practice, deserves protections and privileges that should not be accorded to non-Christian religions, and of course not to non-Christians.