How to be "brave" in Hollywood --- attack Christianity

[007]

You are comparing apples with oranges. As I said, it is easy to prove that the holocaust happened. Not so that Jesus was the son of a god....

Apples and oranges are both fruit, and Abby just nailed your liberal ass to the floor. It's fun to watch you squirm.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LOL. Too great. WHy do libs suck so bad at thinking? Oh wait, I know, because they've abandoned critical thought in favor left wing orthodoxy. Never mind. I fingered it out.

 

[Said1]

You can't admit you're wrong?

You asked him to prove denying the holocost was illegal in some areas; he did.

Now you try to shift the conversation?

weirdo.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So Jillian, are you for free speech or not?

Does it depend on whether or not the free speech advances the interests of the jews?

 

[007]

So Jillian, are you for free speech or not?

Does it depend on whether or not the free speech advances the interests of the jews?

He's obviously more for his own free speech than anyone else's, especially if they're Christian. Christian free speech is untimely whinning, oversenstive, hypercritical and cantankerous.

But a LIBERAL... oh now a liberal, when they *****, it's enlightened, hip, cultivated and open minded.

Hypocrisy... liberals are the living deffinition.

 

[5stringJeff]

So Jillian, are you for free speech or not?

Does it depend on whether or not the free speech advances the interests of the jews?

Jews this, jews that... seriously, you're getting worse than Big D and WJ.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm trying to work out if this is a right wing circle jerk or a circle of right wing jerks.

Hey - it's both!

 

[Diuretic]

Eyewitness testimony is crap. But that's not what you meant. I just thought I'd put that in the mix.

Now why anyone would subject The Bible to legal standards of proof is beyond me. The Bible is a compilation of material from various sources, interpreted used a specifc process. The Bible can't meet the legal standard of proof because none of it would be admissible in court due to the fact that in common law jurisdictions hearsay is (except in very specific circumstances) inadmissible. However you could get it in as evidence in France.



It seems to be worry most those from denominations who need to see The Bible as literal truth, that is, fundamentalists. The Bible is not literal truth, it was never meant to be taken as literal truth. Therefore anyone attacking it on the basis of it being literal truth is bound to fail in their attempts.

To this Pale Rider, the gutless wonder, gave me red (big deal) and then this:

The "word of God" IS the literal truth. Enjoy your stay in hell.

Why don't you just post what's on your mind instead of hiding in the red zone?

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, Grump? what do ya think--How will it play in Peoria ?

Already answered...

 

[007]

To this Pale Rider, the gutless wonder, gave me red (big deal) and then this:

The "word of God" IS the literal truth. Enjoy your stay in hell.

Why don't you just post what's on your mind instead of hiding in the red zone?

Not hiding behind behind anything assmunch. Just giving you a piece of my mind along with neg rep, and you decide to air your dirty laundry on the board.

You might want to check out the rules first though...

6- Private Messages -Private messages are just that, private! What is stated between members in a PM stays there and should never be discussed on the board.

You might be begging for a ban.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jews this, jews that... seriously, you're getting worse than Big D and WJ.

Wake up, snoozer.

 

[Dr Grump]

Authentication of the gospels is actually quite thorough. In the four gospels, some events are out of chronological order. Some are omitted in different gospels. Some things are explained a little differently. However, they never truly contradict. Not only is this consistent with different people writing different accounts (VERY hard to fake), and the perspectives given fit the known personalities of the credited authors. All evidence points to them being authentic.

I wouldn't rely on the book "Holy Blood/Holy Grail." If it's the book I think it is, both the National Geographic Channel and the History Channel investigated the claims of the book and found no credible evidence to back it. The fact is that all four gospels survived. A page may have been lost here or there, but I doubt it.

As far as the divinity of Christ, you might want to check out a book called "A Case for Christ," by Lee Strobel. The book examines the resurrection legally and concludes that it is the only logical explanation to account for what can be already be proven true. One of the most compelling bits of evidence is the deaths of the disciples themselves. One doesn't face a horrendous, torturous death like that of the disciples for something that isn't true, especially when denying it is a quick and easy way to get out of it.



There's no problem with things being questioned. It's when an age-old truth is suddenly assumed false by millions of people based on a bunch of phony evidence. If as many people who believe the premise of the Da Vinci Code believed that the holocaust was a giant hoax because of a small amount of flimsy evidence, would you still think it's good to question such things?

You could be right re the gospels. Personally, I just don't believe it. There si nothing that compels me to believe it, especially with the lack of evidence. Also, one of the co-authors of the Holy Blood/Holy Grail admitted it was just a theory, not fact (the authors of the book also sued Brown and lost because they said he used their idea for the book. In fact, the main protagonist in the book Teabing, is an anagram of one of the authors Baigent - Brown's wife admitted to using the book in her research).

I think it is a good idea to question the book, but as I say, the evidence of the holocaust is overwhelming, a lot of it physical. The belief of Christ being devine is pure faith.

 

[jillian]

You can't admit you're wrong?

You asked him to prove denying the holocost was illegal in some areas; he did.

Now you try to shift the conversation?

weirdo.

Because he was only PART right, hon. He left out the salient point that the countries in which it is an issue also restrict other types of speech. BTW, also said I was against restrictions on speech. Perhaps you should go look at what I wrote.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Because he was only PART right, hon. He left out the salient point that the countries in which it is an issue also restrict other types of speech. BTW, also said I was against restrictions on speech. Perhaps you should go look at what I wrote.

No. I was 100% right. Your point is not salient. Irrelevant is a better word.

WHy are you so stupid?

 

[Dr Grump]

Apples and oranges are both fruit, and Abby just nailed your liberal ass to the floor. It's fun to watch you squirm.

She didn't even come within a bull's roar...and since when have pro death penalty and anti abortion advocates become liberals???

 

[007]

Hey Darin... she called you "hon". Maybe there's an attraction there to you as an authority figure...

 

[Dr Grump]

You might want to check out the rules first though...

Yeah Pale, you better check the rules:

"Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not."

 

[007]

She didn't even come within a bull's roar...and since when have pro death penalty and anti abortion advocates become liberals???

You're all over the political spectrum then. So why do you champion most liberal causes then?

And yeah.. she did spank you like a red headed step child... :happy2:

 

[007]

Yeah Pale, you better check the rules:

"Members that are here solely to be disruptive will be removed. Overuse of personal attacks as a method of debate is detrimental to the board. Again, the occassional outburst will be tolerated, incessant flaming will not."

Uuuummmm.... who PM'd who grunt? Better check yourself son. And I've never discussed them on the board.

And my "attacks" aren't "personal". I "attack" what you "think". Big difference.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're all over the political spectrum then. So why do you champion most liberal causes then?

And yeah.. she did spank you like a red headed step child... :happy2:

I don't champion liberal causes, I just don't champion neocon ones..