The Christian Tithe ripoff.

[Mudda]

All hearsay, as the bible was written long after the events occurred.

Actually, it was not. The Apostle Paul, for just one example, references people who were still alive at the time he wrote who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Luke traveled with Paul and wrote one of the Gospels as well as the book of Acts. You might want to revisit your blanket assertion that you use to avoid dealing with the Scriptures.

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

Anyways Paul's writing of people who said they saw the resurrection is actually pure hearsay on its own.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Aliens are just a fun thing I follow and are very likely to exist, imo, and they're nothing that important to me. You live your life by what an invisible superbeing in another dimension tells you to do, and then you call faith because faith is the belief in something unproven, and you still believe anyways. BIG difference.

Well, faith and personal experience. A lot more than anecdotes about alien abductions.

Faith means no proof, so you have nothing with that, and what personal experience? God cured you when you got the flu?

 

[Mudda]

All hearsay, as the bible was written long after the events occurred.

Actually, it was not. The Apostle Paul, for just one example, references people who were still alive at the time he wrote who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Luke traveled with Paul and wrote one of the Gospels as well as the book of Acts. You might want to revisit your blanket assertion that you use to avoid dealing with the Scriptures.

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

Anyways Paul's writing of people who said they saw the resurrection is actually pure hearsay on its own.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Not irrelevant that the earliest fragment of the bible is dated to several generations after the fact. What I'll concede is that maybe the earlier copies have yet to be found, but at this point in time I just can't make that leap with nothing. That's why I'm agnostic, no solid proof either way has ever been put forward, but if someone comes up with some either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well, that and God going on CNN, right? Of course, if you think about it, why would He limit Himself to a TV channel?

I thought you were going to say, well, he's invisible, so maybe he's already been on CNN, and declare victory.

 

[hadit]

Actually, it was not. The Apostle Paul, for just one example, references people who were still alive at the time he wrote who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Luke traveled with Paul and wrote one of the Gospels as well as the book of Acts. You might want to revisit your blanket assertion that you use to avoid dealing with the Scriptures.

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

Anyways Paul's writing of people who said they saw the resurrection is actually pure hearsay on its own.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Aliens are just a fun thing I follow and are very likely to exist, imo, and they're nothing that important to me. You live your life by what an invisible superbeing in another dimension tells you to do, and then you call faith because faith is the belief in something unproven, and you still believe anyways. BIG difference.

Well, faith and personal experience. A lot more than anecdotes about alien abductions.

Faith means no proof, so you have nothing with that, and what personal experience? God cured you when you got the flu?

An alien abductee has the personal experience of being abducted, correct? I have personal experience with God. You can't understand it so I'm not going to bother trying to explain it to you, but Christians do understand. Matthew 7:6 and all.

 

[hadit]

Actually, it was not. The Apostle Paul, for just one example, references people who were still alive at the time he wrote who had seen the resurrected Jesus. Luke traveled with Paul and wrote one of the Gospels as well as the book of Acts. You might want to revisit your blanket assertion that you use to avoid dealing with the Scriptures.

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

Anyways Paul's writing of people who said they saw the resurrection is actually pure hearsay on its own.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Not irrelevant that the earliest fragment of the bible is dated to several generations after the fact. What I'll concede is that maybe the earlier copies have yet to be found, but at this point in time I just can't make that leap with nothing. That's why I'm agnostic, no solid proof either way has ever been put forward, but if someone comes up with some either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well, that and God going on CNN, right? Of course, if you think about it, why would He limit Himself to a TV channel?

I thought you were going to say, well, he's invisible, so maybe he's already been on CNN, and declare victory.

Why would I say that? That sounds like something someone would say who has no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Mudda]

The earliest fragments of the bible are dated to several generations after the facts.

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

Anyways Paul's writing of people who said they saw the resurrection is actually pure hearsay on its own.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Not irrelevant that the earliest fragment of the bible is dated to several generations after the fact. What I'll concede is that maybe the earlier copies have yet to be found, but at this point in time I just can't make that leap with nothing. That's why I'm agnostic, no solid proof either way has ever been put forward, but if someone comes up with some either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well, that and God going on CNN, right? Of course, if you think about it, why would He limit Himself to a TV channel?

I thought you were going to say, well, he's invisible, so maybe he's already been on CNN, and declare victory.

Why would I say that? That sounds like something someone would say who has no idea what they're talking about.

Can't your invisible friend do everything? Even go on CNN without you knowing?

 

[hadit]

Irrelevant. You are aware, are you not, that the only way to preserve written information thousands of years ago was to very carefully copy an original because originals decayed and got lost or destroyed? Even today, as digital storage technology changes, information must be copied to new media to maintain its availability. If we did not do that, we would have data on tapes that no one could read because the drives are no longer manufactured. You could then accurately claim that "the oldest copies we have of the information are only a few years old", when the original information was recorded long ago.

You're basically conceding the point there. Had he written hundreds of years after the fact as you have repeatedly stated, he would hardly have said eyewitnesses were still alive.

Now, the evidence for alien abductions is totally anecdotal, hearsay, after the fact, and from a handful of people over the last several decades. No one can show a UFO and no one can call for one to appear and take them for a ride. Yet you maintain your faith in them while totally rejecting accounts from millions of people over thousands of years who have reported encounters with God. Not sure why it's such an obsession with you when you clearly understand what it means to take something on faith.

Not irrelevant that the earliest fragment of the bible is dated to several generations after the fact. What I'll concede is that maybe the earlier copies have yet to be found, but at this point in time I just can't make that leap with nothing. That's why I'm agnostic, no solid proof either way has ever been put forward, but if someone comes up with some either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well, that and God going on CNN, right? Of course, if you think about it, why would He limit Himself to a TV channel?

I thought you were going to say, well, he's invisible, so maybe he's already been on CNN, and declare victory.

Why would I say that? That sounds like something someone would say who has no idea what they're talking about.

Can't your invisible friend do everything? Even go on CNN without you knowing?

Again, why would He? He doesn't care about CNN. I might as well ask you if invisible UFO's are abducting invisible sheep.

 

[Mudda]

Not irrelevant that the earliest fragment of the bible is dated to several generations after the fact. What I'll concede is that maybe the earlier copies have yet to be found, but at this point in time I just can't make that leap with nothing. That's why I'm agnostic, no solid proof either way has ever been put forward, but if someone comes up with some either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.

Well, that and God going on CNN, right? Of course, if you think about it, why would He limit Himself to a TV channel?

I thought you were going to say, well, he's invisible, so maybe he's already been on CNN, and declare victory.

Why would I say that? That sounds like something someone would say who has no idea what they're talking about.

Can't your invisible friend do everything? Even go on CNN without you knowing?

Again, why would He? He doesn't care about CNN. I might as well ask you if invisible UFO's are abducting invisible sheep.

You're right, god's not interested in reaching everyone. My bad.

 

[Mickiel]

Christianity is ripping off believers of the tithe, the ministers know full well the tithe is obsolete;

they just know the members don't know. And their afraid to loose their pay checks.

 

[Mudda]

Christianity is ripping off believers of the tithe, the ministers know full well the tithe is obsolete;

they just know the members don't know. And their afraid to loose their pay checks.

You've said that already about 500 times. Please

 

[Mickiel]

Christianity is ripping off believers of the tithe, the ministers know full well the tithe is obsolete;

they just know the members don't know. And their afraid to loose their pay checks.

Were moving into a time before the time ; were moving into a time that the truth will not be recognized , and one reason it won't be recognized , is because the world has been lied to so much. Religion thought they were teaching truth ,Jer. 16:19" Surely our Fathers have inherited lies, vanity and things of no profit." And Christianity has transferred the bulk of those lies into this age.

Its been nothing short of classic.

 

[Mickiel]

Remember that Christianity is chosen to deliver a perverted form of the truth. In their minds , they are doing what's right. So the way they teach tithing , is just right in their spirit ; they do it , because they really "See no harm in it." They see no harm in teaching givers that they are cursed with a curse if they don't tithe. That they are wrong if their giving is not 10 percent. This " See no harm" is a spirit , its been dropped into their consciousness.

They " See no harm" in Christmas.
They " See no harm," in Easter.
They " See no harm" in the Trinity.
They " See no harm " in eternal separation from God.
And that spirit has affected their entire belief system , its perverted how they view scripture.

 

[ding]

To quote you “if”, so you admit that there is no proven creator? Good for you.

lol, no. I believe there is a Creator and that what He has created can be used as evidence for His existence. You at first argued that tangible evidence couldn't be used as physical evidence, then you changed your position that tangible items could be used as evidence but just not as evidence for a Creator. The you finally accepted that tangible items could be used for evidence for a Creator IF a Creator did exist. All along the way I have made it clear that I am not trying to prove to you God's existence even though you are chomping at the bit for me to do so. I have told you at least 5 times that I am only discussing the universal attributes of evidence and how evidence can be used. Now do you understand?

 

[Mickiel]

Remember it is the Christian "Spirit" to enter into even how you deal with your money It is a " Spirit of Control" , they want to control even how you budget your income. This same Spirit wants to control your very salvation ; even how you worship.

This is a powerful spirit , its nothing to play with. Its damaging the very understanding and lives of people.

 

[ding]

I nailed you again, so you attempt a joke. Your concession is duly noted.

I don't know how you nailed me again, brother. You are not making any sense at all. You were the one who said that you started out to write a song and ended up making a vegetarian dinner, lol. I was pointing out using humor that just because you stopped to make a dinner, that didn't mean that you didn't go back and finish the song or that you don't always end up making vegetarian dinners. I'm sorry if my joke went over your head. Common sense tells us that when we set out to create something, AS A RULE, what we create ends up being what we set out to create. Does it turn out exactly like we intended? No, not always, but if you set out to write a song, you don't end up making a turkey dinner. If your position was not so weak, you would not have to resort to making foolish arguments.

 

[ding]

Totally not what the bible says. Please try again. Or find the passage in the bible that backs up your claim.

I disagree. The story of Genesis is allegorical. God did not magically create the universe in one step. He set the rules of nature and let nature take its course. You cannot dispute that the laws of nature are such that at the moment space and time came into existence, beings that know and create were pre-destined to evenyually arise. Here is the proof you have been looking for.

 

[ding]

Well, maybe when you graduate to the third grade you’ll start to see the errors of your nonsense.

Maybe. And maybe one day, you will realize that the exact moment you lost this argument was when you admitted that tangible items could be used as evidence. The reality is that the Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

 

[hobelim]

The story of Genesis is allegorical.

If the story of genesis is allegorical what is the story actually about?

 

[ding]

Sorry, I’m not gay. But yes, the universe could naturally propagate into multi-verses without being directed, and you have to admit that it’s a possibility, or are you going to refute this without proof? Again.

I just got to home plate.

The Bible correctly explains that the universe had a beginning and was created in steps. Science tells us that the universe did have a beginning and what we see today is a result of the evolution of matter and was a process that was done in steps. Subatomic particles evolved into hydrogen and helium. Hydrogen and helium formed cosmic structures. Supernovas created the other elements. Chemical evolution created all the compounds. Life mad the leap from inorganic matter to organic matter. Life made the leap from single cells to multi cells and to eventually beings that know and create. The laws of nature came into existence at the time space and time were created. Those laws predestined that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Check mate.

 

[ding]

The story of Genesis is allegorical.

If the story of genesis is allegorical what is the story actually about?

It covers many things. The key one is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he doesn't abandon the concept he rationalizes that he did not violate it.

 

[hobelim]

The story of Genesis is allegorical.

If the story of genesis is allegorical what is the story actually about?

It covers many things. The key one is that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it he doesn't abandon the concept he rationalizes that he did not violate it.

That is one thing conveyed. And I agree that the story is allegorical.

My question is, since the story is allegorical then it is not about the creation of the universe,the solar system, the the sky above or the earth below..

What is it about?

In other words when it says that God said, "let there be light" and there was light, what does the light that was established on earth represent??