The death of Judas Iscariot

[BluePhantom]

Ok, so the church committed all the atrocities, and made the dark ages dark. But that's just not so, and does in no way point to worship of God as the reason for there actions. They were called the dark ages because everything sucked, and anyone who could was struggling to be THE power in the known world. The smart ones used the church to reign everyone in. Sick men, read that MEN , used Gods word for political reasons, much like politicians do now.

Oh the church in that time had very little to do with God or worship of Him. Yeah, they used he threat of God for political and monetary gain. Damn right. There are a few popes I could point at where it wouldn't be much of a stretch to compare them to Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin. But that's the point I was making at the end of my post...they interfered with the worship of God for political purposes.

Compared to other civilizations, the dark ages with the inquisition thrown would not even stack up side to side in comparison to the blood shed in the name in religion. Wouldn't even be close.

Oh.....I'd like to see you try to support that with evidence. I have never done an in depth study on the "body count" by religion but my guess is that Christianity is probably one of the bloodiest in history.

Christianity had nothing at all to do with the dark ages, evil people did. As for keeping the people ignorant, that was common among ALL governments whose theologies served a crown. Your whole comment is nothing more then an anti christian rant ? Even the white Earth worshiping Pagans everyone is so in love with had there power mongering religious leaders. The average schlub just was not allowed to learn how to read the goat innards, he had to go to the head Pagen.

Well first of all I am not anti-Christian. I think anyone familiar with my posts would be hard pressed to say that I am against religion or Christianity. Indeed, I am not at all. I am simply pointing out that the church has a pretty bloody and corrupt past. Now if you said "Phantom is anti-organized religion" or "anti-church" I would cede that point. But there's a big difference in opposing an organized church and opposing religion as a whole

 

[earlycuyler]

You mean you have done an in depth study of the body counts of MAINSTREAM religions. Most likely Christianity and Islam, and thats just not honest reserch. You need to remember, Kings ALWAYS needed the approve of the Priest, Witch Doctor, Shaman, or what ever. If not God/The gods would be displeased and the king would fail. The Inca, an Mayas sacrificed many in the name of there gods and the peat bogs in Europe still spit out victims of human sacrifice. That does not even touch all the natives in the Pacific islands who sacrificed and in some cases ate there enemies Or how the Native Americans were busy killing each other off just because. If you really researched the topic at all you would find that the ages were only dark in Europe, and Christianity, where quite insignificant and the church had nothing what so ever to do with it, And in the scheme of things

 

[BluePhantom]

You mean you have done an in depth study of the body counts of MAINSTREAM religions.

Dude I just said:

I have never done an in depth study on the "body count" by religion but my guess is that Christianity is probably one of the bloodiest in history.

You were the one who made the statement professing fact that:

Compared to other civilizations, the dark ages with the inquisition thrown would not even stack up side to side in comparison to the blood shed in the name in religion. Wouldn't even be close.

I said in response:

I'd like to see you try to support that with evidence.

Thus far you have offered the argument that there was slaughter all over the world unrelated to Christianity. I never said there wasn't. But my guess is that where we are talking about perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in regards to the Inca or Aztecs, for example, we are talking millions in regards to Christianity. The witch hunts alone saw 50,000 - 60,000 "witches" burnt at the stake in Europe in a comparatively small time frame. Some sources say the number is in the millions (although most historians feel that is dramatically overestimated). But we're just talking witchcraft here in one small section of time. We're not even talking about heresy and all the other things that could get you killed or the Crusades which represented 200 years of war on a religious principle...at least the church claimed it was a religious principle. It actually had far more to do with their desire to control trade routes and through them dominate the financial health of Europe ensuring total obedience from the European nobility. But the church justified it using religious reasons.

http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html

 

[earlycuyler]

You mean you have done an in depth study of the body counts of MAINSTREAM religions.

Dude I just said:

I have never done an in depth study on the "body count" by religion but my guess is that Christianity is probably one of the bloodiest in history.

You were the one who made the statement professing fact that:

Compared to other civilizations, the dark ages with the inquisition thrown would not even stack up side to side in comparison to the blood shed in the name in religion. Wouldn't even be close.

I said in response:

I'd like to see you try to support that with evidence.

Thus far you have offered the argument that there was slaughter all over the world unrelated to Christianity. I never said there wasn't. But my guess is that where we are talking about perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands in regards to the Inca or Aztecs, for example, we are talking millions in regards to Christianity. The witch hunts alone saw 50,000 - 60,000 "witches" burnt at the stake in Europe in a comparatively small time frame. Some sources say the number is in the millions (although most historians feel that is dramatically overestimated). But we're just talking witchcraft here in one small section of time. We're not even talking about heresy and all the other things that could get you killed or the Crusades which represented 200 years of war on a religious principle...at least the church claimed it was a religious principle. It actually had far more to do with their desire to control trade routes and through them dominate the financial health of Europe ensuring total obedience from the European nobility. But the church justified it using religious reasons.

Gendercide Watch: European Witch-Hunts

Millions over how long ? And in the time frame, were there millions to be slaughtered ? All mass killings have used religion/politics to justify them. Christians are only the oldest and most documented in the western world, as well as the most convenient to point a finger at. There is also the fact that aside from the warriors of opposing army that got sacrificed, children were commonly sacrificed, yet they (Inca and such) are held up as great and sophisticated civilizations, while Christianity is pointed to as superstitious, and murderous. Even Islam takes allot of heat for being murderous, yet more sophisticated and less superstitious but still barbaric when compared to any of the Earth loving/worshiping theologies.

 

[BluePhantom]

Millions over how long ? And in the time frame, were there millions to be slaughtered ? All mass killings have used religion/politics to justify them. Christians are only the oldest and most documented in the western world, as well as the most convenient to point a finger at.

Hmmm.....I am assuming you forgot about the Hebrews who are far older and were conquerors themselves. And millions since Christianity became the dominant religious force in Europe and of course there were millions to be killed. Good God.

There is also the fact that aside from the warriors of opposing army that got sacrificed, children were commonly sacrificed, yet they (Inca and such) are held up as great and sophisticated civilizations, while Christianity is pointed to as superstitious, and murderous.

Both have elements of bloodthirstiness. The Inca killed without much remorse but so did the Christians. Additionally, just how many people do you think the Inca slaughtered when they conquered another tribe? 50,000? 100,000? Come on. Be realistic. I would be surprised if in any given event they slaughtered more than a couple thousand if that.

Now you are getting all pissy and defensive about shit I never said. I never said Christianity was "bad" or that it has not made positive contributions to society and the world. I merely pointed out that during the Middle Ages the church was a pretty corrupt and bloodthirsty bunch. You are the one trying to compare it to other religions which a) is completely irrelevant to the point of the discussion, and b) you have STILL not supported your statements with any documentation, only your continued assertions of what you insist to be true.

I am not the one making hard statements regarding the comparative bloodthirstiness of each religion...you are. I am simply saying "I highly doubt it, back up your point" which you apparently don't feel compelled to do.

 

[earlycuyler]

Millions over how long ? And in the time frame, were there millions to be slaughtered ? All mass killings have used religion/politics to justify them. Christians are only the oldest and most documented in the western world, as well as the most convenient to point a finger at.

Hmmm.....I am assuming you forgot about the Hebrews who are far older and were conquerors themselves. And millions since Christianity became the dominant religious force in Europe and of course there were millions to be killed. Good God.

There is also the fact that aside from the warriors of opposing army that got sacrificed, children were commonly sacrificed, yet they (Inca and such) are held up as great and sophisticated civilizations, while Christianity is pointed to as superstitious, and murderous.

Both have elements of bloodthirstiness. The Inca killed without much remorse but so did the Christians. Additionally, just how many people do you think the Inca slaughtered when they conquered another tribe? 50,000? 100,000? Come on. Be realistic. I would be surprised if in any given event they slaughtered more than a couple thousand if that.

Now you are getting all pissy and defensive about shit I never said. I never said Christianity was "bad" or that it has not made positive contributions to society and the world. I merely pointed out that during the Middle Ages the church was a pretty corrupt and bloodthirsty bunch. You are the one trying to compare it to other religions which a) is completely irrelevant to the point of the discussion, and b) you have STILL not supported your statements with any documentation, only your continued assertions of what you insist to be true.

I am not the one making hard statements regarding the comparative bloodthirstiness of each religion...you are. I am simply saying "I highly doubt it, back up your point" which you apparently don't feel compelled to do.

I will try and not sound pissey. The Church was no worse then anyone, and for the most part was scrambling for power like everyone else. No better no worse. Some in the church were a corrupt and blood thirsty bunch, but many were not. As far as backing up my point, Maya, and Inca Gods REQUIRED annual human sacrifice. This was in the form of children and captured enemies after battles. As for lacking compulsion to back up my point, a simple Google will do, but I will turn it around to you and ask you to present yours. Go on with the Hebrews if you like, but you still neglect the Philistines, Ammonites and others who were killing in the name of there gods, as well as the Egyptians Who did not really sacrifice humans, but surely the priest of there religion made sure Pharaoh and the generals paid up to the Gods to insure victory. No religion has clean hands, and all have been used by the corrupt to impose there will on the ignorant. Your point was that only Christianity has a history of this. My point is this is only the case for the lazy.

 

[BluePhantom]

I will try and not sound pissey. The Church was no worse then anyone, and for the most part was scrambling for power like everyone else. No better no worse. Some in the church were a corrupt and blood thirsty bunch, but many were not.

Granted, but that's not the role of the church is it? I mean isn't the role of the church to save mankind spiritually? That's what they claim it is. But a solid look at history reveals something else. The role of the church in the Middle Ages, as you yourself concede, was about power. Whether they were "as good or bad as anyone else" is irrelevant. Once they started down that path the church (not the religion of Christianity, but the church) stopped being about what was in the spiritual best interests of mankind and became about what was in the political best interests of themselves.

This led to a complete overhaul of Christian doctrine. Some concepts (such as hell, again as only one example) that were never part of the theology in the beginning were introduced for political reasons and in many cases those concepts (which are again political in nature and not spiritual) endure to this very day and influence modern society.

Now that is not to say that "Christianity is bad" or "Christianity is a lie" or anything of that sort. It IS to say that the teachings of the church and many of the traditional views that Christians have are rooted in more in political motivations throughout history and are removed from the original spiritual intent and philosophy.

As for lacking compulsion to back up my point, a simple Google will do, but I will turn it around to you and ask you to present yours.

Why on Earth would I be required to? YOU are the one who made the initial statement. You are the one stating "this is factual". The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. I never said "that's NOT true". I said "I highly doubt the accuracy of your statements" and challenged you to support your claim....which again you STILL refuse to do.

No religion has clean hands, and all have been used by the corrupt to impose there will on the ignorant. Your point was that only Christianity has a history of this. My point is this is only the case for the lazy.

Go find a post where I suggested that any religion was guiltless of corruption, slaughter, political influence, etc. Go find a post where I said that ONLY Christianity had such a history. I dare you to find one.

 

[Iridescence]

Perhaps instead of pointing out over and over and over again that these things are so, we should figure out the why... and better determine the ways of not needing to do things in which have been done in the ways they have been done. Can laughing and happiness have better results than crying and suffering? According to 'some'... ABSOLUTELY. *hearts*

 

[BluePhantom]

Perhaps instead of pointing out over and over and over again that these things are so, we should figure out the why...

Well...sure....that's the whole thing isn't it? Why do people hold some of the views on God that they do? Well in many cases simply because they were told to by a parent, a priest, or some authority figure and they simply accepted that.

It's something that really confuses and astonishes me, actually and i don't say that for the purpose of slamming anyone. But if I am going to buy a car I do some research about the price, its reliability, its history, etc so I know I am getting the correct thing. If someone came to me and said "here's a financial plan and for the rest of your life you are going to use your money this way" I would sure as hell want to know where that plan came from. What is the history of success, what are the problems I might run into. Is it sound? Well shit, if I am going to do that for something as small as a car or a financial plan, I sure as hell better be doing that about something as important as my soul and my relationship with God.

When one starts to do that certain questions begin to pop up: "well why is the Gospel of Mark included in the Bible but the Gospel of James is not?" for example. Then through research you discover "well because Cyprian said so and Constantine agreed, that's why." I mean...is that it?!?!? Well....yeah it's a little more complicated than that but not by much. So should the Gospel of James simply be tossed aside as invalid because a couple guys said so 1,700 years ago (and again for political reasons I might add)? Well if you take what the church says and never question it, yeah I suppose so.

"Why is The Revelation even in the Bible to begin with?" Despite popular belief it wasn't written by John the Apostle. In fact the book itself doesn't even claim it was. So who the hell wrote it and what are their credentials? No one knows, but it's in there anyhow.

I could go on and on but the reality is that it's been completely fucked up, mainly by politics. And again I want to stress that I am not slamming Christianity but a lifetime of research on this topic has led me to the inescapable conclusion that what the church preaches and what Jesus was pushing for are largely two completely different things. So my beef is not with Christianity, it's with the church. And yes let me be clear that means an organized church of any religion, not exclusively Christianity.

I encourage people to seek "the truth" and follow the example of Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, Moses...hell even Lao-Tsu if that's where their spirit leads them, but do it because they have searched in earnest, they have established their belief system after a good hard look at themselves, at scriptures of many different religions, and they conclude that "this is my truth". Not because an authority figure told them to believe something and out of fear or simple laziness even, they accepted it without question.

See.....now you've got me preaching. Damn it.

 

[BluePhantom]

Perhaps instead of pointing out over and over and over again that these things are so, we should figure out the why... and better determine the ways of not needing to do things in which have been done in the ways they have been done. Can laughing and happiness have better results than crying and suffering? According to 'some'... ABSOLUTELY. *hearts*

And allow me to make one further point which will almost certainly infuriate just about everyone. I am a firm believer that people should write their own damned Bible. I suggest they do it by some seriously hardcore research on ancient languages (specifically Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Zhuànshū, etc), ancient cultures, religious scriptures of multiple religions, and ancient and general religious history, as well as research in Greek philosophy, Chinese philosophy, etc, and yes even theoretical physics.

Now that's one hell of a tall order and realistically it's a task that no one can really pull off comprehensively. But the more someone works at it the more they begin to understand how certain things in any given religion don't mean now what they did when the scripture was written and one can get a far deeper sense of original purpose and philosophy.

That's a process I have been working on since I was 13 years old and I am in my mid-forties now. So 30ish years of research and I can assure you I have barely scratched the surface. My personal Bible is not yet complete and I doubt it ever will be, but if you saw it you would see a real crazy mixture of Christianity, Taoism, Hindu, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and M-theory. Is that what I profess is "the answer"? Well...it's "my answer" and even that is subject to change.

 

[Iridescence]

Perhaps instead of pointing out over and over and over again that these things are so, we should figure out the why...

Well...sure....that's the whole thing isn't it? Why do people hold some of the views on God that they do? Well in many cases simply because they were told to by a parent, a priest, or some authority figure and they simply accepted that.

It's something that really confuses and astonishes me, actually and i don't say that for the purpose of slamming anyone. But if I am going to buy a car I do some research about the price, its reliability, its history, etc so I know I am getting the correct thing. If someone came to me and said "here's a financial plan and for the rest of your life you are going to use your money this way" I would sure as hell want to know where that plan came from. What is the history of success, what are the problems I might run into. Is it sound? Well shit, if I am going to do that for something as small as a car or a financial plan, I sure as hell better be doing that about something as important as my soul and my relationship with God.

When one starts to do that certain questions begin to pop up: "well why is the Gospel of Mark included in the Bible but the Gospel of James is not?" for example. Then through research you discover "well because Cyprian said so and Constantine agreed, that's why." I mean...is that it?!?!? Well....yeah it's a little more complicated than that but not by much. So should the Gospel of James simply be tossed aside as invalid because a couple guys said so 1,700 years ago (and again for political reasons I might add)? Well if you take what the church says and never question it, yeah I suppose so.

"Why is The Revelation even in the Bible to begin with?" Despite popular belief it wasn't written by John the Apostle. In fact the book itself doesn't even claim it was. So who the hell wrote it and what are their credentials? No one knows, but it's in there anyhow.

I could go on and on but the reality is that it's been completely fucked up, mainly by politics. And again I want to stress that I am not slamming Christianity but a lifetime of research on this topic has led me to the inescapable conclusion that what the church preaches and what Jesus was pushing for are largely two completely different things. So my beef is not with Christianity, it's with the church. And yes let me be clear that means an organized church of any religion, not exclusively Christianity.

I encourage people to seek "the truth" and follow the example of Jesus, Muhammad, Siddhartha, Moses...hell even Lao-Tsu if that's where their spirit leads them, but do it because they have searched in earnest, they have established their belief system after a good hard look at themselves, at scriptures of many different religions, and they conclude that "this is my truth". Not because an authority figure told them to believe something and out of fear or simple laziness even, they accepted it without question.

See.....now you've got me preaching. Damn it.

Preach on I don't mind so much

As for Revelations it is a massively important book on many levels. It reveals a great deal of key factors for the other books... and then many other things... most are unmentionable but because of the psychological lacking of our mainstream. That is just my take on it. What used to not make sense to me somehow *just* does now... far more than posting in biblical debates could prove, I'm sure.

 

[earlycuyler]

I will try and not sound pissey. The Church was no worse then anyone, and for the most part was scrambling for power like everyone else. No better no worse. Some in the church were a corrupt and blood thirsty bunch, but many were not.

Granted, but that's not the role of the church is it? I mean isn't the role of the church to save mankind spiritually? That's what they claim it is. But a solid look at history reveals something else. The role of the church in the Middle Ages, as you yourself concede, was about power. Whether they were "as good or bad as anyone else" is irrelevant. Once they started down that path the church (not the religion of Christianity, but the church) stopped being about what was in the spiritual best interests of mankind and became about what was in the political best interests of themselves.

This led to a complete overhaul of Christian doctrine. Some concepts (such as hell, again as only one example) that were never part of the theology in the beginning were introduced for political reasons and in many cases those concepts (which are again political in nature and not spiritual) endure to this very day and influence modern society.

Now that is not to say that "Christianity is bad" or "Christianity is a lie" or anything of that sort. It IS to say that the teachings of the church and many of the traditional views that Christians have are rooted in more in political motivations throughout history and are removed from the original spiritual intent and philosophy.

As for lacking compulsion to back up my point, a simple Google will do, but I will turn it around to you and ask you to present yours.

Why on Earth would I be required to? YOU are the one who made the initial statement. You are the one stating "this is factual". The burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. I never said "that's NOT true". I said "I highly doubt the accuracy of your statements" and challenged you to support your claim....which again you STILL refuse to do.

No religion has clean hands, and all have been used by the corrupt to impose there will on the ignorant. Your point was that only Christianity has a history of this. My point is this is only the case for the lazy.

Go find a post where I suggested that any religion was guiltless of corruption, slaughter, political influence, etc. Go find a post where I said that ONLY Christianity had such a history. I dare you to find one.

Well you stated a few times in the last couple post that no theology has out killed Christianity. And the fact that you had to throw the Jews in there makes it look like watching history channel counts as reserch to you. They spent a good deal of there existence getting chased out of country's, and being killed by everyone not Jewish. If that was so, then you know that millions getting killed would have pretty much removed all the people the church wanted to rule. Then there are all the plagues, and the hard work of just surviving that killed many more then just wars and religion. At best your reserch is nothing more then a hobby done to support your opinion.

 

[BluePhantom]

Preach on I don't mind so much

As for Revelations it is a massively important book on many levels. It reveals a great deal of key factors for the other books... and then many other things... most are unmentionable but because of the psychological lacking of our mainstream. That is just my take on it. What used to not make sense to me somehow *just* does now... far more than posting in biblical debates could prove, I'm sure.

ok sure......the Revelation has significance and ties up some loose ends and such, but I guess the point I am getting at is what you asked...."why?" Why is the Revelation included in the Bible when we have no idea who wrote it, we have no idea what his background was. I mean for all we know it was someone that smoked some good weed (yes they did have it) and wrote a good story. We accept the writings of Paul who never even met Jesus, who changed his story depending on the circumstances he was in, whose writings completely lack context, and who even Peter said people would be wise not to listen to in 2 Peter chapter 3. Yet we ignore the Gospel of James whose author not only knew Jesus personally, he either walked with Jesus or he was his fucking brother...maybe even both!

Well I can tell you why. If you read the Gospel of James a very strong argument is made that people should develop a personal relationship with God and should reject the establishment; government or an organized church. Well....you think a Roman Emperor or a Pope is going to let THAT into the Bible? FUCK NO!! No chance.

So why is the Gospel of James which was widely used by multiple Christian sects prior to the councils of Carthage and Nicaea not in the Bible? I guess everyone is free to draw their own conclusions but mine is pretty simple: it directly threatened the autocracy of the church and the state and so out it fucking goes. Well right there you have to ask yourself: for the spiritual good of mankind or for the political interests of an organized religion that depends on obedience and dependence and a Roman state that requires organization, order, efficiency, and obedience?

So it's not that I completely reject The Revelation...but I take it with caution as its credibility is questionable. I take the writings of Paul with a BIG grain of salt because his credibility is VERY questionable. But again...these are my conclusions that I have reached through extensive research. If someone else performs due diligence, does the research and reaches a different conclusion who am I to say they are wrong? They have found "their truth" and it's just as valid as "my truth."

See what I am getting at?

 

[BluePhantom]

Well you stated a few times in the last couple post that no theology has out killed Christianity.

ok I am not even going to read the rest of your bullshit because your first sentence is a complete fucking lie. You go find and quote where I said "no theology has outkilled Christianity." If you are going to get all huffy and "defend Christianity" against the evil Phantom who you appear to believe is attacking it, might I suggest you start by observing one of the most basic principles of Christianity: "thou shalt not bear false witness."

 

[koshergrl]

Perhaps instead of pointing out over and over and over again that these things are so, we should figure out the why... and better determine the ways of not needing to do things in which have been done in the ways they have been done. Can laughing and happiness have better results than crying and suffering? According to 'some'... ABSOLUTELY. *hearts*

And allow me to make one further point which will almost certainly infuriate just about everyone. I am a firm believer that people should write their own damned Bible. I suggest they do it by some seriously hardcore research on ancient languages (specifically Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Arabic, Zhuànshū, etc), ancient cultures, religious scriptures of multiple religions, and ancient and general religious history, as well as research in Greek philosophy, Chinese philosophy, etc, and yes even theoretical physics.

Now that's one hell of a tall order and realistically it's a task that no one can really pull off comprehensively. But the more someone works at it the more they begin to understand how certain things in any given religion don't mean now what they did when the scripture was written and one can get a far deeper sense of original purpose and philosophy.

That's a process I have been working on since I was 13 years old and I am in my mid-forties now. So 30ish years of research and I can assure you I have barely scratched the surface. My personal Bible is not yet complete and I doubt it ever will be, but if you saw it you would see a real crazy mixture of Christianity, Taoism, Hindu, quantum mechanics, general relativity, and M-theory. Is that what I profess is "the answer"? Well...it's "my answer" and even that is subject to change.

And probably not imbued with the Holy Spirit in and of itself.

Though who knows.

 

[earlycuyler]

Well you stated a few times in the last couple post that no theology has out killed Christianity.

ok I am not even going to read the rest of your bullshit because your first sentence is a complete fucking lie. You go find and quote where I said "no theology has outkilled Christianity." If you are going to get all huffy and "defend Christianity" against the evil Phantom who you appear to believe is attacking it, might I suggest you start by observing one of the most basic principles of Christianity: "thou shalt not bear false witness."

Those are not your exact words, but that's what you implied. you are the one lying. Read or dont read what you like. I bared no false witness. You are just pissed that your not being agreed with. To be clear, you never said that Christianity was responsible tho the death of millions ? You in all your post never implied Christianity killed more innocents then any other religion ? You studied shit, , and are not much then a more history channel scholar. Not much more.

 

[BluePhantom]

And probably not imbued with the Holy Spirit in and of itself.

Though who knows.

Oh I freely concede that possibility. I may be completely wrong. In fact I probably am. Whatever "the truth" really is no one knows. I think the best we can do is find our own version based on "what I truly believe". The main thing I am getting at is that a person's religious identity, I believe, should be an agreement between themselves and God, not between themselves and God according to the terms of someone else (i.e. a church who has political and financial reasons for making sure your relationship with God suits their purposes).

In the end I find that provided someone hes searched themselves, asked hard questions, meditated on it, opened their spirit to "the truth", etc.....how can I possibly tell them they are wrong? If they find meaning and value from their conclusions, who am I to take that away from them?

Now we can look at certain specifics...again let's go back to hell for example. Well if someone tells me "I believe in the concept of hell." Ok I might ask them "do you realize that the Bible never says anything at all that supports or even suggests such a concept?" I might ask "have you researched the history of the concept of hell and understand that it arose from a need for the church to control the actions of the peasantry?" And maybe we debate those things. But if they come back and say "yes I realize that and understand that history and having searched my spirit and meditated upon it I find that my truth is that hell exists." Well....ok.....what am I supposed to say to that? "You're wrong?" The person acknowledges the historical evidence, indicates understanding that there is nothing in scripture to support it, but is telling me "this is my truth" and "this is what I believe." There's nothing left for me to argue at that point.

Does that make sense? I don't ask that in a snotty way. I mean seriously "is what I am saying making sense to you?"

 

[BluePhantom]

Those are not your exact words, but that's what you implied. .

Bullshit. Again I stopped right there and read no further. In other words "ok Phantom you never said that". Yeah no shit. You interpreted what you wanted to based on a desire to defend what you assumed was an attack, but yet you concede I never said what you accuse me of.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, I'm re-reading Acts, and it seems to me that Judas bought some land with his betrayal of Christ earnings, then either fell or threw himself off a cliff, and BROKE IN HALF, and all his bowels (!) spilled out of him, resulting in the field being called "the field of blood" or some such thing.

Now I don't know why I thought Judas hung himself, so I'm curious if anybody else has any other take on the fate of Judas. Anybody except biblical retards like ABS, Loki, and Dragon, that is. Though I'm sure they'll have something supremely idiotic to say.

So did Judas commit suicide, or did he fall from a cliff, jump from a cliff, or hang himself? When? Years after the death of Christ? Shortly after? He had time to buy land, if I'm reading the passage correctly. It's maddeningly and miraculously ambiguous, as much of the bible is until you really start digging. And do we know his fate in the hereafter? Are there references to it? There is a vague reference to it in the Acts but I haven't really researched it yet.

The Canadian Red Bud, Cercis canadensis, is traditionally said to be red because it is blushing from shame because Judas hung himself on same.

Eastern Redbud, Canadian Redbud, Judas Tree
Cercis canadensis
PlantFiles: Detailed information on Eastern Redbud, Canadian Redbud, Judas Tree Cercis canadensis

 

[earlycuyler]

Those are not your exact words, but that's what you implied. .

Bullshit. Again I stopped right there and read no further. In other words "ok Phantom you never said that". Yeah no shit. You interpreted what you wanted to based on a desire to defend what you assumed was an attack, but yet you concede I never said what you accuse me of.

Never said you did not say it, I said its what you implied. Most likely because you are to much of a coward to say it out right because you have spent all this time denying what you meant. I am not defending shit. Just calling a wannabe history expert on there lies. Your implication was Christianity has killed more innocents then any religion on Earth. you then back peddled from it like a coward when you got challenged. Dont be scared, own it.