first baptist featured on morons.com

[second_pancake]

2nd-pancake, secularists, atheists, and other non-believers like to think that "true" Christians just sit in a church while holding hands and singing Kum Ba Yah, but we have arguments and debates many times. What's important is how we resolve them and treat others in the process.

Quite the contrary, which is why I'm a "non-beliver".  Truth is, I AM a believer, just not in a god.  Being an atheist doesn't mean you have no morals, principles or other values, it simply means you don't believe in a supernatural being overseeing your life...that only YOU control what does/does not happen and through your free-will, can exercise your beliefs. 

It never ceases to amaze me how many "non-believers" know more about Christianity than those who claim to be "believers", and how many believers know even less about beliefs contrary to their own.  The difference between you and I is I've read many books and listened to many ideas, came to a rational and logical conclusion that everyone has the right to believe and practice their beliefs as they wish.  You read one book, took it as the one and only gospel,  and condemned all others who didn't/don't follow your beliefs. 

You say you debate and argue, but the fact of the matter is, you only argue over one thing, the interpretation of the bible.  If you truely questioned anything that was written in the gospel, why, you'd be committing a moral sin because you wouldn't have faith.  Organized religion exists because of blind faith.  Free-will is evil, one must be guided not choose.  These are the beliefs of Christianity and many other faith-based religions.

My original comment was made in jest, however it's apparant that it wasn't received well by you, or maybe you were just so offended by Stephan's comments that the laugh-factor didn't score high when you read it.  No matter, one thing is certain; you, and all members of your religious organization, will have no "resolution" until everyone you've come into contact with has been converted to your way of thinking.  And since the only way to do this is through manipulation and/or force, the way others are "treated in the process" is appallingly obvious.

[Charleston native]

...No matter, one thing is certain; you, and all members of your religious organization, will have no "resolution" until everyone you've come into contact with has been converted to your way of thinking.  And since the only way to do this is through manipulation and/or force, the way others are "treated in the process" is appallingly obvious.

Second_pancake, what absolute nonsense. It has nothing to do with any way of thinking, nor is it done through manipulation or force, and for you to conclude that, I truly feel sorry for you.

You have no possible idea how I came to my belief, and for you to assume that I just blindly read 1 book just shows your ignorance in my beliefs as well as the Christian belief. It is not a sin to question our faith, and by praying and investigating, one's faith is made stronger. That includes reading other books that are contrary to what the Lord says. So, sorry to not fit your stereotype. BTW, my earlier comment was made to you in order to clarify that it's OK to disagree, even in churches. It wasn't meant to slander you in any way.

Stephen, I never said that they didn't have multiple wives. I merely asked for physical, Scriptural proof of pedophilia, and you have shown none. Your use of 1 Kings to claim Judeo-Christian approval of pedophilia is, to quote a word you use, "balderdash". For starters, where is your Scriptural proof (or any other for that matter) that she was 11 years old? Second, stick to your own advice about reading:

1 Kings 1:1-4
1 When King David was old and well advanced in years, he could not keep warm even when they put covers over him.

2 So his servants said to him, "Let us look for a young virgin to attend the king and take care of him. She can lie beside him so that our lord the king may keep warm."

3 Then they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful girl and found Abishag, a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.

4 The girl was very beautiful; she took care of the king and waited on him, but the king had no intimate relations with her.

So, regardless if the girl was young, we have documented evidence that David DID NOT sleep with her.

As far as your other Scriptural examples, I find it perplexing that you are quick to cast judgement on the people in the OT and NT for their lack of character and sinful activities, but you insist in the holiness and complete purity of Mohammed. If you actually read the Bible and understood the entire context of those passages you listed, you would know especially that these books in the OT were historical references. I have read parts of the Koran...you'd be amazed how you can find these things on the internet. The Koran does not give historical accounts; it goes through a looooong set of instructions, basically. Sure, there is poetry in the verses, but that does not lend credibility to it, IMO.

[Charleston native]

David didnt penetrate her in that instance, because he was already impotent, Dave.

It wasnt from a lack of trying.  The bible says that she slept with him naked however.

Source? Book, chapter, and verse, please.

I'm not sure what you mean by my casting judgement on people dead over 4 thousand years however.  Nor am I suggesting that Muhamed was anything more than what he claimed to be, a Man.

But Jesus did not make the same claim; therein lies the huge difference. Sorry if I wasn't clear on casting judgement...it appeared that you were using many of the actions of people in the OT and equivocating their actions with ones in Islam.

I am suggesting that Jerry Vines intentionally contributed to warmongering when he accused Muhamed of being both demon posessed and a pedophile when clearly he was neither.

Again, a blatantly false accusation. If a Christian knows or considers that Islam is a false religion, it is thereby believed that Mohammed's words were not inspired by God. True, it's not definite that a demon possessed him, but the possibility does exist. We will continue to disagree here.

I made the point that this criticism of Muhamed is not believed by Muslims, nor is it backed up with a lot of fact, but rather latter day insinuation on the part of his critics.

Much the same way that people have made spurious claims about Jesus based on our scriptures and content.

Of course the criticism will not be believed by Muslims, but as far as facts, all one has to do is to quote the Koran. As always, we will disagree here. However, I will say that if one is just a mere observer and is just studying all facets of religion, there is a ton of critical material to sort through.

[gatorback]

Wow, for a group full of Christians, you sure did spend a lot of your time during the season of "christ" on this forum, lol.  I don't believe in all this hoo-ha and even I managed to stay away for almost and entire week 

Wow.  First, thanks you for judging us and second bravo, you’ve managed to “out do us Christians” this holiday season. 

[Charleston native]

aha!

common ground.

Indeed.

Praise the Lord! 

[RiversideGator]

Wow, for a group full of Christians, you sure did spend a lot of your time during the season of "christ" on this forum, lol.  I don't believe in all this hoo-ha and even I managed to stay away for almost and entire week 

I would urge you to reconsider this.  Your eternal soul is in jeopardy.

[gatorback]

Yep.  Apparently it's yahweh or the highway around these here parts .

[second_pancake]

Wow.  First, thanks you for judging us and second bravo, you’ve managed to “out do us Christians” this holiday season. 
[/quote]

Well, you know, I try.  That's what my purpose in life is anyhow; to judge and out-do

I would urge you to reconsider this.  Your eternal soul is in jeopardy.
[/quote]

Lol, well, that would be a problem if I believe in an afterlife, wouldn't it?   

As for the reply from Charleston (which I have declined to insert as it's just so damned long), here's some reading for you. Take it for whatever it may be worth:

On Force:

tr.v.   forced, forc·ing, forc·es

To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group. 
To produce with effort and against one's will: force a laugh in spite of pain.

con·vert1      /v. kənˈvɜrt; n. ˈkɒnvɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. kuhn-vurt; n. kon-vurt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"verb (used with object)
1. to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform. 
2. to cause to adopt a different religion, political doctrine, opinion, etc.: to convert the heathen. 

Consider this (the above) when you think of The New Testament which is widely known (and accepted) to be the part of the bible in which instruction is given on how to convert "non-believers."  How can one, by definition, convert a non-believer (specifically Jews in the NT) if some means of force isn't used? If facts or information were presented in a manner that allows someone to seek out, listen, research, and make a decision on his/her own, then they were not converted, but rather, they accepted a belief through their own reasoning.  Jesus himself (in the bible) sought others out to listen to him, and later said to those that didn't convert that since they have made a choice not to believe that they will spend eternity in hell.  Conform or have eternal damnation.  Believe or die.  That's not force?

And if you just read that and said, "why, that's not me...that's not how I believe", then that goes back to my point about your "debating" about beliefs not being that at all, but merely being about the interpretation of the bible.  You all have the same belief that there is a God that rules your life, the only debate is in what capacity based on how each of you choose to interpret what you're reading.  You can either take it literally, which is what is written in the Old Testament you SHOULD be doing...taking God's word as his word and living by it in its entirety (which in the New Testament states the conversion of non-believers by believers is necessary), or not, to which you can not consider yourself a practicing Christian.  We can debate that point all day but when it all boils down, A is A.  It is what it is. It's not "ok" to "disagree...in churches".  Picking and choosing pieces to believe in...saying you believe in God and the bible but you don't believe you have to have "blind-faith" or evangelize, is the equivalent of me saying I'm aethiest, believing that it's absurd to think a super-natural being can oversee my life, but then saying I believe in ghosts or an afterlife.


And in regard to faith:

faith       /feɪθ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[feyth] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. 


For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

â€"Romans 1:17 

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation. By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

â€"Hebrews 11:1-6

Hmm, just those two scriptures alone would lead one to believe that in order to call oneself "Christian" you would have to live by faith, no?  And since faith, by definition, means you believe regardless of facts or other information, it leads one to believe you do not question faith, because in doing so, you have no faith.  So, I guess your argument is contingent on one thing, what the definition of "faith" and "sin" actually are, eh?

This isn't personal, I dont' even know you, or anyone else here for that matter, nor is it some attempt at trying to condemn you for your beliefs, my beliefs are contigentent upon religious freedom after all and I'm not known to be a hypocrite.To be Christian is not about rejecting all other forms of religion or belief after you've looked at them and thought them to be out of your character.  It's not like choosing a career or buying a car.  Christianity is not about choosing, it's about believing in God and Jesus Christ as your saviour...simply believing.  And to come by this belief, you read the bible...one book, believe what you've read to be 100% factual and live each day of your life by those words and that doctrine.  Period.

[gatorback]

That's just to much reading in a single rant in a break room thread!  I'm glad you're back however.  Peace Out!

[gatorback]

I did however, managed to read your last paragraph and don't agree that "simply believing" is what it's about.  You're called to do somethings I believe like share your time, talents and treasures. 

[second_pancake]

That's just to much reading in a single rant in a break room thread!  I'm glad you're back however.  Peace Out!

ROFLMAO.  I know, but I was on a roll.  Could you imagine if I had included the original quote to which I responding? It would have probably taken up all available space on the server

[RiversideGator]

I would urge you to reconsider this.  Your eternal soul is in jeopardy.

Lol, well, that would be a problem if I believe in an afterlife, wouldn't it?   [/quote]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the case), it doesnt matter whether you believe in it or not.  The afterlife will come to pass.

[second_pancake]

Lol.  Well, the irony in all of the differences of opinion posted here, is that no matter our beliefs, NONE of us will be able to come back and say, I told you so

[gatorback]

you two! 

Lol.  Well, the irony in all of the differences of opinion posted here, is that no matter our beliefs, NONE of us will be able to come back and say, I told you so

Are you sure about that?  I think when we meet up with our family in friends in heaven we'll all have a good laugh or two.

[gatorback]

I think Hoffman mentioned "enduring self" once making him a reincarnationist.  He's probably already back as a dogcow.  Moof!