Demons Are Out To Getcha!

[Guest Servant]

I'm not sure about the anonymity, I left my blog and email address available to anyone who wants it. No we do not know each other but I am far from being anonymous. No merit badges recieved or desired. Since you were a christian there had to be something that pushed you away from it I wa just wondering what? I am not looking for a warm welcome, we have different views so of course you are not going to welcome me with open arms. You already know where I am coming from because I believe the bible and I can tell from your posts you have read it and are very familiar. I have no problem with blowing off steam, even at my expense. I do enjoy hearing different views and you have given me things to research to give more than this is what I know proof, you will need quotes, and books, and websites, and everything else I can find to prove what I believe and I have no problem with that I just have to look for some answers of proof. I do not claim to be all knowing by any means, not even when it comes to the bible.

[narcissist]

This whole demon business (like all christian business) is a great way to sell books on demons, angels, prayer warriors, etc. If they start acting funny that's ok, as long as they keep buying the books.

[Ouroboros]

If they start acting funny that's ok, as long as they keep buying the books.

You mean the demons?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not claim to be all knowing by any means, not even when it comes to the bible.

That's a healthy view. Keep that.

[BenjaminHaag]

I'm not sure about the anonymity, I left my blog and email address available to anyone who wants it. No we do not know each other but I am far from being anonymous.

 

anonymousOne entry found for anonymous.

 

Main Entry: anon·y·mous

Pronunciation: &-'nä-n&-m&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Late Latin anonymus, from Greek anOnymos, from a- + onyma name -- more at NAME

1 : not named or identified <an anonymous author> <they wish to remain anonymous>

2 : of unknown authorship or origin <an anonymous tip>

3 : lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability <the anonymous faces in the crowd> <the gray anonymous streets -- William Styron>

- anon·y·mous·ly adverb

- anon·y·mous·ness noun

 

Is "Servant" on your birth certificate?

 

It is ultimately a moot question, as I truly don't care what your name is...I was simply trying to make a point, and doing so while being a pain in the ass is icing on the cake.

 

Since you were a christian there had to be something that pushed you away from it I wa just wondering what?

 

Well, for starters I find "Thou shalt not kill" a tad restrictive.

 

And technically it would be "are a Christian" and "has been pushing me away from it." And the answer, in broadest strokes, is partly to be found in the very context of this discussion: people who act "concerned" or, to quote your aforementioned blog, "heartbroken" because...<gasp>...total strangers don't share their beliefs.

 

In summation, since you asked, what I find objectionable in "Christianity" is far more the way Christianity is practiced, and the absurd and obscene parodies of it that offend and assail and hurt people by the busload, than its ethical or ideological core. That said, there is much in the Bible that demands far more intelligent and rational discussion than is generally available in most church contexts, at least from what I have experienced and seen firsthand, and heard of, in most churches.

 

...do enjoy hearing different views and you have given me things to research to give more than this is what I know proof, you will need quotes, and books, and websites, and everything else I can find to prove what I believe and I have no problem with that I just have to look for some answers of proof.

 

I have no idea what the hell this sentence means.

 

Are you doing research for an article? I want my share of the royalties, in unmarked bills, or a case of Jack Daniels.

 

Look, this is getting boring enough to make me want to gnaw off my hand at the wrist, so...AMF, kum ba yah, and all that.

[Guest Servant]

And technically it would be "are a Christian" and "has been pushing me away from it." And the answer, in broadest strokes, is partly to be found in the very context of this discussion: people who act "concerned" or, to quote your aforementioned blog, "heartbroken" because...<gasp>...total strangers don't share their beliefs.

 

In summation, since you asked, what I find objectionable in "Christianity" is far more the way Christianity is practiced, and the absurd and obscene parodies of it that offend and assail and hurt people by the busload, than its ethical or ideological core. That said, there is much in the Bible that demands far more intelligent and rational discussion than is generally available in most church contexts, at least from what I have experienced and seen firsthand, and heard of, in most churches.

 

...do enjoy hearing different views and you have given me things to research to give more than this is what I know proof, you will need quotes, and books, and websites, and everything else I can find to prove what I believe and I have no problem with that I just have to look for some answers of proof.

 

I have no idea what the hell this sentence means.

 

Are you doing research for an article? I want my share of the royalties, in unmarked bills, or a case of Jack Daniels.

 

Look, this is getting boring enough to make me want to gnaw off my hand at the wrist, so...AMF, kum ba yah, and all that.

 

 

No servant is not on my birth certificate, but you've been to my blog which I made sure to have accessible for that reason.

Sorry for the misunderstanding of the were and pushed.

Research in order to be better available to "That said, there is much in the Bible that demands far more intelligent and rational discussion than is generally available in most church contexts, at least from what I have experienced and seen firsthand, and heard of, in most churches."

To finish, as I said you know the bible and not all Christians read it and pretend some or at least myself do genuinely care about people. Yeah the world has become cynical when it comes to Christians and the only people to blame for that is Christians. I'd just prefer to become more knowledgeable to be able to have better discussions and I am heartbroken that there are this many people that have horror stories about how some moron treated them at church. If you read my blog consistently you will see that I am generally hammering away at the church masses to walk what they talk or just shutup.

 

Franklin Cadenhead - go by Frankie

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Did anyone else have to deal with such nonsense???

 

When my mother was dying, some moron from the church told her that she was in danger of going to hell because she was afraid of death.

 

 

The Christian god is a tyrant.

 

I would have liked to have hanged the moron over a vat of HCL on a frayed rope to see if s/he was in danger of hell.

 

It makes you wonder if the illogical use of dunking witches and such will work with Christians. "Hey lookie, the Christian is dead, he must have been a real one!"

[Amethyst]

All I am asking is, what part of the bible do you have issue with?

 

I have a huge issue with the hell doctrine.

 

Want to know why?

 

It's immoral and unethical to torture people forever and ever and ever and ever for ANY reason, much less simply not being a member of your church or being gay or not being perfect enough.

 

It's a hateful doctrine. I will not worship a god who thinks it's okay to torture anyone, ever. It's wrong, it's tyrannical, and it's diabolical.

Even if Jesus existed, I would not worship him because of that. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for hell, period.

 

Someone like Hitler deserves death for his crimes. I will agree with that. Maybe even punishment for a thousand years. But forever? Why forever? It makes no logical sense to punish someone forever for a finite crime. They didn't do their deed forever, so why be punished forever for it? Makes no sense.

 

Not to mention, the Christian god is a tyrant who thinks it's okay to torture people just for disagreeing with him. Don't believe literally in the Bible? Guess what, torture time. Think gay people are okay? Guess what, torture time. Happen to be a member of the wrong Christian denomination (whatever that is, because they ALL claim they're the right ones)? Torture time.

 

It's evil. It's sinister. It's outright diabolical. Hell is the action of a DICTATOR, not a god.

 

The fact that Christianity originated in the Middle East, along with the other Abrahamic religions is beginning to make more sense now. People there seem a lot more willing to accept dictators as their leaders, rather than stand up for their rights. I will not cower and accept a dictator like the Christian god as my leader. If you want to, that's your business, but I won't.

 

My other issue is that it's not real. Even if you can provide evidence that the early church introduced the hell concept to control people, you still can't prove to me that Jesus existed in the past, much less exists NOW, nor that he is a deity.

[Angel]

All I am asking is, what part of the bible do you have issue with?

 

I have a huge issue with the hell doctrine.

 

Want to know why?

 

It's immoral and unethical to torture people forever and ever and ever and ever for ANY reason, much less simply not being a member of your church or being gay or not being perfect enough.

 

It's a hateful doctrine. I will not worship a god who thinks it's okay to torture anyone, ever. It's wrong, it's tyrannical, and it's diabolical.

 

Even if Jesus existed, I would not worship him because of that. There is NO JUSITIFICATION for hell, period.

 

Someone like Hitler deserves death for his crimes. I will agree with that. Maybe even punishment for a thousand years. But forever? Why forever? It makes no logical sense to punish someone forever for a finite crime. They didn't do their deed forever, so why be punished forever for it? Makes no sense.

 

Not to mention, the Christian god is a tyrant who thinks it's okay to torture people just for disagreeing with him. Don't believe literally in the Bible? Guess what, torture time. Think gay people are okay? Guess what, torture time. Happen to be a member of the wrong Christian denomination (whatever that is, because they ALL claim they're the right ones)? Torture time.

 

It's evil. It's sinister. It's outright diabolical. Hell is the action of a DICTATOR, not a god.

 

 

HERE HERE!!! I agree with you 100%! A lot of christians will usually say that god does not send us there, we do.....yeah, ok? Who created it? Who made it available? Who made up "the rules"??? God of love? I think not. Yeah, a loving father that would murder his son to "possibly" save the rest of his kids from hell. Gee, sounds like a plan? Why is it ok for god to murder? Not to mention all the children that god had killed....and for what? Because someone was not listening to him. (Pharoah for example) Why not deal with the individual instead of causing harm to innocent lives???? CHILDREN at that!!! There are numorous and numerous churches that claim to have "the way" and "the answer" ALL from the same book. The bible is man written to control people with. Not this chick, not anymore. Inspired by god? Not one I want to serve.

[Rachelness]

Like they do a pollen count for people with hay fever they should do a 'demon count' for people with mental health problems.

[narcissist]

If they start acting funny that's ok, as long as they keep buying the books.

You mean the demons?

If the people who buy the books start acting as though they believe they are possessed by demons (ie: funny), that's ok, as long as they keep buying even more books.

[mostlyharmless]

Like they do a pollen count for people with hay fever they should do a 'demon count' for people with mental health problems.

 

The more demons you think there are in the world, the more bigger the mental health problem you have.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

This Deacon Dave is a moderator at True Christians Unite. He claims he is the True Christian, while you claim he is not. That is very funny!

 

FYI, True Christians Unite is a parody site. The fundy personalities there are not for real. Deacon Dave is pulling your leg.

[mostlyharmless]

There are historical artifacts to support the bible. Also, try reading a Case For Christ. There are many examples of the physical proof of Christ, as He is spoken of in the bible.

 

All I am asking is, what part of the bible do you have issue with?

 

I would like to know if the "physical proof of Christ" is accepted as such by the majority of the scientific community. Does the writer of the Case for Christ explain the science that was used to determine that the physical proofs were the genuine article? Can you tell us about one of the physical proofs as an example?

 

BTW, I have heard some Muslims say that they have read about proofs that the Qu'ran is historically correct. How can I know which religion is more accurate? Why should I believe Christianity is any better than Islam?

 

Have you read any material supporting other religions? Or do you only seek information to back up the beliefs you already have?

 

I'll give you one example of the many things I don't like about the bible:

 

Someone is having a fit, convulsing on the ground so Jesus comes along and yells at him something like, "Be gone, demon!" The guy stops convulsing, gets up and walks away.

 

It seems to me the guy was suffering from an epileptic fit that ran it's course, but whoever wrote this passage of the bible (sorry, I can't remember which book it's in, I read it when I was 17 and I'm now 31) passed it off as a miracle. I remember then and there thinking, "This is bullsh*t." I knew science had better explanations for fits of convulsions than yesteryear's explanation of "demons". I held onto the idea of God, though, because there are still unknowns that can't be explained. But today I have come to realise that seeing God in the gaps of science is not good science, namely because it predisposes you to making conclusions before you see the results of your experiments.

[Ouroboros]

This Deacon Dave is a moderator at True Christians Unite. He claims he is the True Christian, while you claim he is not. That is very funny!

 

FYI, True Christians Unite is a parody site. The fundy personalities there are not for real. Deacon Dave is pulling your leg.

I know that. But Deacon Dave are the first one that actually had good answers to the questions. (Why doesn't that surprise me.) Actually that was what tipped me off that Deacon wasn't real, he knew the answers, and they were clever. But pulling legs or not, his answers are fully usable.

[Guest Servant]

 

Have you read any material supporting other religions? Or do you only seek information to back up the beliefs you already have?

 

Yes I do read about other religions and try to understand everything I can about them. Some are a little more difficult to learn about than others because everything is not publicly shared.

 

 

BTW, I have heard some Muslims say that they have read about proofs that the Qu'ran is historically correct. How can I know which religion is more accurate? Why should I believe Christianity is any better than Islam?

 

There is historical evidence about Muhammad, he was a real man. And I am sure there is other evidences that back Islam historically. I do not argue that. The thing that sets Christianity apart is the fact that Christ died on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later. If there was only one or two eye witness accounts of that I could see where it would be harder to swallow; not that someone being raised from the dead isn't hard to swallow logically, but there were hundreds of people that saw him after he had been crucified.

 

Secondly, although there were wars in the old testament led by christians due to a difference in belief that is no longer the case as per the new testament. The teachings of Christ was to love thy neighbor, hate sin, but still love that person. No, christians do not always practice this but that is what christians are supposed to practice. The Islamic faith teaches that if someone is not a Muslim then they are your enemy and should be killed. If both were false, I believe the simple fact of love you enemy as compared to kill your enemy would lend one to believe that christianity is better.

 

As far as A Case for Christ goes I will reas through again, it has been almost 2 years since I read it and I have read a lot more since but I will take a look at some things and get something out here for you on it.

[theunraveler]

within me there lives a demon, and when i look into the mirror i see him staring back at me.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Did anyone else have to deal with such nonsense???

 

Are you kidding? I was involved in the sector of the Christian religion that INVENTED the damned "Spiritual Warfare" BULLSHIT. I was part of the pentecostal charismatic Church of God. My ex-wife is a MAJOR believer in demon affliction being the cause of all ills.

 

I can remember putting on a play in the church...I can't remember what it was called now, but it was a stupid bunch of anecdotes about people not believing and then dying and discovering that hell was REAL or Christians dying and getting their just reward in heaven. Can you say "SCARE THOSE SINNERS INTO BELIEVING IN JESUS"? I knew you could.

 

So I played the part of a non-believing father married to a "good Christian woman." His son was having doubts about religion and asked his dad about it as they drove to the son's basketball game. Of course disbelievin' dad told his son it was all a bunch of hogshit and the son took his dad's word for it. They then had a car wreck and died and the son was dragged off to the flaming pit of hell, screaming "Dad! No! You told me it wasn't real!" as dad watched, horrified. Then dad was given a taunting sarcastic lecture by the devil and was dragged off to roast as well. As I was pulled backstage, there was a group of my fellow players there waiting to pray over me so the REAL demons didn't get a chance to afflict me.

 

Now that I actually have written this and look back over it, it INFURIATES me. How emotionally manipulative is this? I didn't have children at the time I played this part, but I do now. I can now imagine exactly what would have been going through my head if I were sitting in the audience watching it. I HAVE to protect my children. They CAN'T suffer this fate because of ME! I can't even write anymore on this. I am SO PISSED OFF.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

The thing that sets Christianity apart is the fact that Christ died on the cross and was resurrected 3 days later.

 

This is NOT a fact.

 

If there was only one or two eye witness accounts of that I could see where it would be harder to swallow

 

There are NO eyewitness accounts. All of the gospels were written at least 50 to 100 years after the "fact." No one wrote an account of the crucifixion much less the resurrection that was an eyewitness. Yet we are expected to accept it as "fact"?

 

but there were hundreds of people that saw him after he had been crucified

 

It is purported by the gospel authors (who wrote of the events decades after the events themselves were purported to have happened) that there were hundreds of people that saw him after he had been crucifed. None of this has any historical merit. There's plenty of information out there about the high probability that the extra-biblical sources that are used by Christians to support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and his crucifixion are false. I'll let you do the research yourself. It's the best way to prove to yourself what the truth is. I can sit here and tell you until I'm blue in the face, but you wouldn't listen. Believe me, I've been there and been talked to until they were blue. I didn't listen until I did my own searching.

[Ouroboros]

And why are Mathew, Mark, Luke and John the declared eyewitnesses, while Thomas, Judas and Mary are not?

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

Just remembered the name of that BULLSHIT play...Heaven's Gates, Hell's Flames.

 

http://www.realityoutreach.org/frontpage.htm

 

Asswipes.

[Guest Servant]

And why are Mathew, Mark, Luke and John the declared eyewitnesses, while Thomas, Judas and Mary are not?

 

Why didn't they name every person that was an eyewitness? Everytime I give a recount of an event I don't name every single person that was there. There are various verses that reference Christ appearing to groups and not naming a particular person. Also, as spoken by another in this thread earlier; the gospels were recorded later but not so much later that nobody would have been left to refute them if they had been false. You can bet that the Pharisees would have written up many things that would have been found refuting these accounts if just one person had come forward saying they did not see Jesus.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

You can bet that the Pharisees would have written up many things that would have been found refuting these accounts if just one person had come forward saying they did not see Jesus.

 

 

Uh...yeah. You aren't paying a bit of attention, but as I said before, that's to be expected. I hope someday you'll admit to yourself that it all does not make any sense and you'll start looking for answers yourself. You're the only person you'll really listen to.

[Ouroboros]

And why are Mathew, Mark, Luke and John the declared eyewitnesses, while Thomas, Judas and Mary are not?

 

Why didn't they name every person that was an eyewitness? Everytime I give a recount of an event I don't name every single person that was there. There are various verses that reference Christ appearing to groups and not naming a particular person. Also, as spoken by another in this thread earlier; the gospels were recorded later but not so much later that nobody would have been left to refute them if they had been false. You can bet that the Pharisees would have written up many things that would have been found refuting these accounts if just one person had come forward saying they did not see Jesus.

I think you misunderstood my question.

 

Why do you, personally as a Christian, put more trust in the Gospels that were supposedly written by some of the apostels, but not the Gospels written by some other? Judas Gospel is dated around 150 CE, and John is around 90-100 CE. I mean, it's not really a big difference. If you claim one, why can't you claim the other?

 

If I say "I believe Judas wrote the Gospel of Judas", you would most likely reply "No, it's a lie, he wasn't an eyewitness." While in the same breath you don't hesitate to say "John wrote the Gospel of John."

 

How is that you can't balance them equal and see there is reasonable doubt to the stories, and the selection of Gospels were not from who was named as an eyewitness, but rather from what fitted best in a politcal agenda in 350 CE? If the bishops and Constantine had been Gnostics, you would have had a whole different version of the Bible, and most likely MtMkLkJn would not be part of the Boggle.

 

Or put it this way.

 

If there was a trial, and two different witnesses are called to the stand. If one say "i saw him do it", and the other say "no I saw him, and he didn't do it." Which way would you vote? He did it, or he did not? If it's a murder trial, you're supposed to aquit, because of reasonable doubt. The defense and the prosecutor try to make either witness to look bad or untrustworthy, so it becomes a personal decision who do you trust more, and who do you think is lying.

 

Now, if we put the NT gospels side by side to the gnostic gospels, to me the whole picture looks paints a huge hoax rather than historical stories.

[BenjaminHaag]

The bottom line is...the "eyewitnesses" who wrote the Gospels are/were...purportedly...leaders of the church. Ergo, they had every reason to claim that they saw the very miracle their following was based on. So that, per se, proves nothing. Objective accounts of historians who had nothing to gain by claiming that Jesus died and then returned to life, and led a ministry, would be something potentially different.

 

You can bet that the Pharisees would have written up many things that would have been found refuting these accounts if just one person had come forward saying they did not see Jesus.

 

Suppose they had (or did)...who's to say that the church wouldn't have done its damndest to obliterate of conceal such refutations? Look at how it ("it" being the Catholic church, in this context) went after scientists who dared to contradict its own teachings. Look, for that matter, at the predominant level of respect for truth, and fact, over dogma in nearly every facet of the church today.

[Ouroboros]

The bottom line is...the "eyewitnesses" who wrote the Gospels are/were...purportedly...leaders of the church.

I'm not sure about that. Wasn't Thomas one? So wouldn't Gospel of Thomas be included? And who said they were the leaders of the Church. No one but themselves. The only one that kind of was on the sideline was Paul, and he pointed at Peter as the leader, but we have no Gospel by Peter. (Which is strange, was he illiterate and a leader, while the ones able to write were put in the shadows. )

 

The whole thing smells of conspiracy!