Christians Who Haven't Read Their Bible

[onesteward]

Oh my.  Yep, I feel that the concepts of freedom and liberty are concrete in that they are demonstrable as having concrete benefits. Soldiers know this and protect these benefits. At best you can claim that the very first US soldiers didn’t know for sure that the promise would be fulfilled, that they would be able ignore religion if they want, the many sects of  Christianity are allowed to exist, etc.

 Libert and Freedom, to you, once they are won that means they are always yours? So Pearl Harbor for instance...no problemo. Nothing to worry about here folks, move along.Cuban missile crisis...Crisis!?  what crisis?, a proverbial walk in the park, right?I mean the very first US soldiers did all the ""not  knowing" correct?.

  However, they knew that there were concrete benefits to fighting for them.   Since you’ve seen fit to bring up early American history later in your post, I’d suggest reading how freedom and liberty in regards to religion were very much debated in the colonies and how many of the various religious groups did not want freedom for those “other” Christians.  I have yet to see that religions bring any concrete benefits that cannot be gained by other means and without the rancor and bloodshed.

Well none of our benefits qualify here in the US.Maybe you could point me to a few so I get a better understanding.

[kaziglu bey]

I think the Pope needs to read his Bible, and examine his words, in the context of sitting on a golden throne, with fancy robes, surrounded by opulence, in a city, which is also a sovereign nation, of which he is essentially the Dictator:

Today Christmas has become a commercial celebration, whose bright lights hide the mystery of God's humility, which in turn calls us to humility and simplicity...

Because humility and simplicity is a gilded throne. What an asshole.

From http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/25/world/europe/vatican-pope-christmas/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

[changeling]

His solid gold fisherman's ring alone would feed thousands.

[kaziglu bey]

His solid gold fisherman's ring alone would feed thousands.

Probably would! gold is what, like $1200 an ounce or something right now?

I still think that the resemblance in appearance between Pope Benedict XVI and Emperor Palpatine is somewhat disturbing. As is, of course, the resemblance in their use of fear and power to coerce people into following them, or slaying them if they don't. from http://wegoats.com/files/pope-benedict-palpatine.jpg.jpeg

[changeling]

More like $1,600 to $1,700 per ounce, but you get the idea.

And the resemblance is uncanny.

[velkyn]

Velkyn,
If you make your living posting on this site than more power to you. Scrub the following in part as it pertains to your job. If you are posting because your job is boring I don't get it. Posting since 2008. Ten posts per day. Lets try to think this out. 10 per day and thinking about what you are going to write plus reading the responses what time does that take. If it were on average 30 minutes per post times 35,000 that would equal somewhere near 17,500 hours of your life, just on this never ending largely irrelevant argument. ( Just how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.)

Ah, and the usual attempt by the theist to try to convince an atheist that they shouldn’t spend so much time showing the theist to be wrong.  Sorry, I don’t think it’s irrelevant.  I am amused that you would claim that it is and still be here posting.  

Your proclivity for calling people liars is also astonishing. I'll bet you a dime to a dollar you do not address people like that when talking in person. Why loose your civility because you are a cyber, faceless, ranting, fanatical and invisible person.

And you’d lose the bet. I have no problem in calling a liar a liar right to his or her face.  That’s the only way to get some people to change and to show them that they are not immune to being questioned.  And ah, more baseless claims.  I am quite civil. You are yet again one more theist who wants to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is being uncivil or disrespectful or some other nonsense.  It’s a very weak argument and shows that you have little else to use.  If I call someone a liar, I present the evidence on how that was determined.  If the person in question has opposing evidence, they are more than welcome to present it and I will withdraw the charge.  It is indeed shocking on how rarely that happens, that so many theists indeed have nothing to back up what they claim. 

When I say that I'm trying to wrap my head around the point of having to post here every day. My guess is you just enjoy this. No you love this.
Am I getting close to warship?

No, and you still can’t spell. How cute. I do love (see, not using the word “worship here)  how theists so desperately try to redefine words.  and they fail every time.  It must be frustrating to have so little actual ammunition for your arguments that you must use such pathetic baseless claims repeatedly. 

I find countering liars to be very important for society.  Religion depends on baseless claims and those claims can and do harm people.  I have no problem spending time here if it would even help one person avoid that.

Why not use your intellect to try to educate if that is your intention? On one can educate by calling people liars or worse. You had the opportunity to educate me. By brain went into hostile mode the minute you call me a liar. Years ago I would have hospitalized anyone who had the nerve to call me that face to face.

Hah! This is great.  More baseless claims.  It is quite easy to tell someone that they are a liar in order to educate them.  How it works is this:  you present a false claim.  I say that what you say is a lie and ask for evidence to support what you’ve claimed.  You fail to produce it.  This *should* make you wonder why you can’t produce it but most theists simply run away or continue with their lies no matter the opposing evidence as if their god would change reality for them.  Some do start to wonder though, and realize that, for instance, their fellow Christian creationists have lied to them by misrepresenting quotes, facts and using outright lies.  And nice threat there, Joe.  It’s always amusing to see Christian after Christian making them.   

Moreover, does your employer feel he/she should pay you for the 17,500 hours of posting this site while "on the job"? Do you feel you should take your salary?

I have to be here and sorry to burst your little bubble of miserable hope, they know what I do.  Does that disappoint you, that your made-up image of me fails *again*?  And you are correct, I would not work for you.  Liars dont’ often stop in only one segment of their lives.
And ah, accusing me of acting like a child.  More baseless claims, Joe and personal insults.  False witnessing is amusing when it comes from a theist.  It does show your hypocrisy quite well.


You of course can't actually address my ontopic questions. Typical.

[velkyn]

Libert and Freedom, to you, once they are won that means they are always yours? So Pearl Harbor for instance...no problemo. Nothing to worry about here folks, move along.Cuban missile crisis...Crisis!?  what crisis?, a proverbial walk in the park, right?I mean the very first US soldiers did all the ""not  knowing" correct?.

Wow, OS, way to ignore my post and go off on a tangent.  Hilarious, and lovely evidence that you have nothing to support your claims.  You start with such a great strawman, claiming I said something I did in no way do.  Your ability at actually reading and responding to someone’s actual post is lacking.  No, I did not say that at all, OS.   You wished to know how I thought the concepts of freedom and liberty were concrete.  The only ones it could have been hypothetical for is the very first US soldiers, that they had not yet benefited from the laws of the new country they were helping to create.  Our military personnel have constantly had to risk everything for liberty and freedom, both of which have very concrete benefits.  They’ve even risked it for others to enjoy the same things.  Peal Harbor, the missile crisis (my dad was in during that, manning a Nike-Zeus missile site, sure he would be vaporized soon), all demanding good men and women who did their jobs. 

Well none of our benefits qualify here in the US.Maybe you could point me to a few so I get a better understanding.

I am not sure at all what you are trying to say in this last bit.   I see a country that allows you to practice your religion as you will, right to the end of my nose.  I see no evidence that religion gives any concrete benefits that cannot be gained by other means and without the rancor and bloodshed. For instance, religion can be seen to give the benefits of having a community (I do miss the potluck dinners), to give some placebo help, etc.  But again, they are easily found in other venues without the hatred and harm. I’m not sure what you mean by claiming that “none of our benefits qualify here in the US”.  Please explain further.

Unsurprisingly, you have also failed to again support your claims.  You have made the false analogy between the apostles and military service members, where this started in questioning what your god requires to follow JC and get your magic presents.  They are not required to do the same things as your god supposedly said to do.  You have failed to show that the apostles did anything remotely like what our military members do when they risk their lives.  You fail to realize that the military has exceptions and that your god doesn’t seem to have any for its rules.

You have accused me of having an “infantile” take on what it means to serve in the armed forces but of course you can’t actually show how that’s true and not you just lashing out with baseless claims again, unable to actually participate in a discussion and  come up with evidence for what you have claimed earlier.  You try to claim that I do not understand loyalty and commitment, and when I show you I do, you of course don’t admit that you are wrong *again*. 

Finally, in going back to former posts, you have again failed to show how you are any better of a Christian now than I was when I was one.  And you have failed to show that your god is any more real than Tezcatlipoca after you have claimed that butterflies somehow show you that your god does exist.  For an Aztec, they would have shown that their gods existed.  Both are religions and both have no more evidence than the other.

I am asking for evidence for things *you’ve* claimed, OS.  Since you have not yet shown any yet, there is little reason to think you have any.   However, I’m still waiting in case you might actually be able to supply some.  To bring this back to the OP,  there are many Christians who are ignorant of their own bible or who ignore what they want because it’s inconvenient for a modern human.  We have the bible repeatedly saying that this god hates liars but we have self-profess Christians telling lies and ignoring anything that shows them wrong.  We have the whole industry of apologetics created to give reasons on why this is acceptable but we see Christians counter each other on what they think this god really meant for them to do.  Nam had a very good point here, one that I think you ignored (though I might be mistaken)

So, before Christians as a whole try to convert the non-believers shouldn't they all get their ducks in a row and have 1 whole religion, don't you think?  Of course not.  Since they all believe in the basic things then it's okay that they exist, right?  Please....
-Nam

   

[onesteward]

  You wished to know how I thought the concepts of freedom and liberty were concrete.  The only ones it could have been hypothetical for is the very first US soldiers, that they had not yet benefited from the laws of the new country they were helping to create.

 They wouldn't understand what "freedom and liberty" would gain for them except hypothetically?Why did they come here in the first place?

Do you think right now, as we  communicate, there aren't forces at work around the world working diligently to deny us our freedom and liberty?

  Our military personnel have constantly had to risk everything for liberty and freedom, both of which have very concrete benefits.  They’ve even risked it for others to enjoy the same things.

I would have to assume by " everything"  that might include :
Luke 18 :
29) “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children ....
 
The men and women in the military who " sacrificed all" in Iraq understood loyalty and commitment and they weren't drafted.They did leave behind all of the things listed in Luke.Christians, whether you like it or not, feel as strongly and have for nearly 2000 years, about service to their King.They sacrifice their own well being every day for the sake of others.Prison, torture and death in many cases.

 The other point I think needing to be made here is that the scriptures you used for your point don't even say what you propose that they do say.They aren't commands.Explanations of peoples rewards for choosing to make sacrifices seems to me how they read.
 

 Peal Harbor, the missile crisis (my dad was in during that, manning a Nike-Zeus missile site, sure he would be vaporized soon), all demanding good men and women who did their jobs.

Exactly...for something they believed in.If your Dad was vaporized I guess that may have qualified as having "left everything".
 Then the real bummer, as a Christian man, you did say your parents were Christians as I recall, he would have come home from the strain of being almost vaporized, only to think he was to pack up and " leave everything for Jesus "? Did he leave? Your mom , did she go and leave you to fend for yourself like you claim The Bible says she must?

I am not sure at all what you are trying to say in this last bit.   I see a country that allows you to practice your religion as you will, right to the end of my nose.  I see no evidence that religion gives any concrete benefits that cannot be gained by other means and without the rancor and bloodshed. For instance, religion can be seen to give the benefits of having a community (I do miss the potluck dinners), to give some placebo help, etc.  But again, they are easily found in other venues without the hatred and harm. I’m not sure what you mean by claiming that “none of our benefits qualify here in the US”.  Please explain further.

Just that nothing we have in the US came without rancor and bloodshed.I didn't think it was about 'potluck suppers'.If that's what you mean I have indeed been to picnics and such that were  secular and without rancor and bloodshed.Well, at least the ones where they didn't serve alcohol.

Unsurprisingly, you have also failed to again support your claims.  You have made the false analogy between the apostles and military service members, where this started in questioning what your god requires to follow JC and get your magic presents.

Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement".

  They are not required to do the same things as your god supposedly said to do.  You have failed to show that the apostles did anything remotely like what our military members do when they risk their lives.

They risk their lives.

 You fail to realize that the military has exceptions and that your god doesn’t seem to have any for its rules.

You never grew up in a Christian household? Your parents split up and hit the mission field? What exceptions are you looking for?Your parents sold 'everything" and gave it to the poor? Maybe they understood better than you what the Bible says.Is that why you are mad at God? He asked more of you than you thought you should have to give?

Finally, in going back to former posts, you have again failed to show how you are any better of a Christian now than I was when I was one.

Because Velkyn you seem to think you can be a Christian without God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus ..God's Son or the Bible.I can say and believe that Jesus is the Messiah who has come in the flesh...can you?

  And you have failed to show that your god is any more real than Tezcatlipoca after you have claimed that butterflies somehow show you that your god does exist.  For an Aztec, they would have shown that their gods existed.  Both are religions and both have no more evidence than the other.

There are still 10s of millions of believers in Tezcatlipoca being added annually like Christianity?Did Tez bring back the Aztecs like God restored the Nation Israel?Is he planning to ,you think?

I am asking for evidence for things *you’ve* claimed, OS.  Since you have not yet shown any yet, there is little reason to think you have any.   However, I’m still waiting in case you might actually be able to supply some.  To bring this back to the OP,  there are many Christians who are ignorant of their own bible or who ignore what they want because it’s inconvenient for a modern human.

Or like in your own case here, invent stuff that isn't there to try and make The Bible look bad.You really see a command in this Scripture?

Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

This too:

Mark 10:29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30)will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.
and this as well:

Luke 18: 29

"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30)will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

 

[kaziglu bey]

<snipped>
.......made here is that the scriptures you used for your point don't even say what you propose that they do say.They aren't commands.Explanations of peoples rewards for choosing to make sacrifices seems to me how they read.
 
<snipped>
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

This too:

Mark 10:29 "I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30)will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields--and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life.
and this as well:

Luke 18: 29

"I tell you the truth," Jesus said to them, "no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30)will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life."

Ok, but what about
   "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." -- Luke 14:26

Is that direct enough for you? Jesus says that in order to be his disciple, you MUST hate yourself, your mother and father, and wife and children and siblings. In other words, if you do not do those things, you are not a follower of Jesus, per Jesus himself. But of course you chose to ignore that, even though its not that far removed from your Luke passage, and say that Velkyn was stating things that aren't said in the Bible when in fact they are. In other words, you are a liar.

You said "Or like in your own case here, invent stuff that isn't there to try and make The Bible look bad." and you also said "Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement"." Well there it is OneSteward. Jesus clearly sets necessary conditions[1] for being his follower, and most believers understand that not following Jesus means Burn! Burn! Burn! Or are you saying that what Jesus, the alleged son of God, and King of man, says is not a command, but rather a multiple choice questionnaire? I can't think of any absolute rulers who view their words as "optional", especially not the God of the Bible.

1.	in other words, a "requirement"

[changeling]

^^ Christians have conveniently changed the meaning of the word hate.
It now means that you must not love or like them as much as you do Jesus.

[kaziglu bey]

^^ Christians have conveniently changed the meaning of the word hate.
It now means that you must not love or like them as much as you do Jesus.

I love[1] the little word games they play. If something in the Bible means what they want it to mean, it should be taken literally, and no context is ever required. If something in the Bible does not say what the want it to mean, they say that the Bible doesn't mean that. Instead of admitting that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong, they want to rewrite the Bible so that it says what they think. Where can I get my own magic decoder ring?

1.	or is it hate?

[onesteward]

Ok, but what about
 
  "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." -- Luke 14:26

Is that direct enough for you? Jesus says that in order to be his disciple, you MUST hate yourself, your mother and father, and wife and children and siblings. In other words, if you do not do those things, you are not a follower of Jesus, per Jesus himself.

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Matt 10 : 37

 A simple reading of the parallel text for that quote gives a fuller understanding of the meaning.If the originals were written to people in the Ancient Near East don't you think their   languages and culture are going to be factors?

 But of course you chose to ignore that, even though its not that far removed from your Luke passage, and say that Velkyn was stating things that aren't said in the Bible when in fact they are.

I said what she was interpreting in the Scriptures I quoted was incorrect.Now you have in fact found a Bible verse that is a command and I agree with it.The verses I quoted are right there in your post ...do you think they read as commands by Jesus ?

 In other words, you are a liar.

 You shouldn't play so' fast and loose' with a word that carries that kind of weight.Think first, post second.

You said "Or like in your own case here, invent stuff that isn't there to try and make The Bible look bad." and you also said "Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement"."

Correct, those Scripture do not make a requirement of all Christians to leave, ...
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

 Well there it is OneSteward. Jesus clearly sets necessary conditions[1] for being his follower,

1.	in other words, a "requirement"

He does, I agree.The verses you quoted which I quoted don't contain any though.They are about rewards for those that do them.You don't reward someone for just doing what is required of them I would think.

 and most believers understand that not following Jesus means Burn! Burn! Burn! Or are you saying that what Jesus, the alleged son of God, and King of man, says is not a command, but rather a multiple choice questionnaire? I can't think of any absolute rulers who view their words as "optional", especially not the God of the Bible.

And some of His commands aren't  "universals" and some things he said aren't commands. For an example

  7Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. So they filled them up to the brim.

I haven't filled any waterpots as a Christian....do you think  my salvation might be in jeopardy? To make the situation even more dire for me they filled up 6 of 'em!

[velkyn]

sorry for the length, but this is just such a good bit to show just how Christians mangle their bible to get what they want.

They wouldn't understand what "freedom and liberty" would gain for them except hypothetically?Why did they come here in the first place?

Wow.  Slow down, OS, your desperation makes you misread my posts in your race to show how I’m wrong.  Yes, as I said, the soldiers in the continental army were only working on hoping that the freedom and liberty promised them by the continental congress would be as good as they hoped.  They were living under a repressive rule by the British, you know the reason that there was a revolution?   Many of them were born into that situation, as the descendants of colonists for other powers. Remember, there had been Caucasians in the Americas for at least several *centuries* before the rebellion.  They came for wealth, to spread their religion and to get ability to practice their religion as they wanted (of course while trying to prevent others from having the same ability).  I suggest you familiarize yourself with the history of the US. A good place to start is here: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/God-Government-and-Roger-Williams-Big-Idea.html

Do you think right now, as we  communicate, there aren't forces at work around the world working diligently to deny us our freedom and liberty?

Yep, there are. So?  What does this have to do with this discussion and your baseless claims? 

Our military personnel have constantly had to risk everything for liberty and freedom, both of which have very concrete benefits.  They’ve even risked it for others to enjoy the same things.  Peal Harbor, the missile crisis (my dad was in during that, manning a Nike-Zeus missile site, sure he would be vaporized soon), all demanding good men and women who did their jobs. 

I would have to assume by " everything"  that might include :
Luke 18 :
29) “Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children ....
The men and women in the military who " sacrificed all" in Iraq understood loyalty and commitment and they weren't drafted.They did leave behind all of the things listed in Luke.Christians, whether you like it or not, feel as strongly and have for nearly 2000 years, about service to their King.They sacrifice their own well being every day for the sake of others.Prison, torture and death in many cases.

ROFL.  Oh my.  First, I see you can’t support your strawman you used and that I called you on.  Nice attempt to try to ignore that you’ve been caught lying about me.  It’s a shame you can’t quite remember this is a medium that doesn’t vanish when you want it to. 

You seem to be also unable to see that JC is not saying come with me for a tour of duty and then you can go back.  If you do think this is what he’s saying, support it.  I have yet to see a Christian leave their family, their work, etc even as much as the soldiers do.  Please do show me where they do, OS.   Yes, we do have a few missionaries who do as you say.  We also have just as many Muslims, Hindu, atheists, etc who do the exact same, who do good by their fellow man for their own reasons.  But millions of Christians *don’t*.  Are the only real Christians those who actually do sacrifice something?

And again, you ignore that you’ve lied about me not understanding loyalty and commitment.  How nice.   

The other point I think needing to be made here is that the scriptures you used for your point don't even say what you propose that they do say.They aren't commands.Explanations of peoples rewards for choosing to make sacrifices seems to me how they read.

  And more claims with no evidence to support them.  Waving your and screaming “no they don’t, no they don’t” with no evidence of this is rather amusing but worthless.  I just see one more Christian whose interpretation is just one more in a big pile to excuse himself from doing what his supposed savior required.  A command is saying “do this”.  You should refresh yourself in grammar.  We see JC giving commands, saying “do this” to achieve salvation, repeatedly.   

“Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Luke 18
“21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Matthew 19
“43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” – Matthew 5

and I could go on.

Exactly...for something they believed in.If your Dad was vaporized I guess that may have qualified as having "left everything".
 Then the real bummer, as a Christian man, you did say your parents were Christians as I recall, he would have come home from the strain of being almost vaporized, only to think he was to pack up and " leave everything for Jesus "? Did he leave? Your mom , did she go and leave you to fend for yourself like you claim The Bible says she must?

  yes, my father at the Nike Zeus site, my brother in GW 1, all served because they believed in something, or they wanted the experience, needed a job, etc.  And as you’ve noted so very well, most Christians don’t do what your supposed savior has said is required.  It’s also very nice too that you’ve shown so well that the military doesn’t require people to love it more than their families, or to leave their wife forever or their jobs, or their children.  They can come back.  Again, where does it say the apostles can come back and still have their magic presents?  Oh yes, it doesn’t.  It’s only after JC dies and doesn’t come back as promised to bring his kingdom that the story changes. We have Paul rewriting the religion to excuse this failure.  We have where Christians need to work since it’s more than obvious that God will not take care of them like the birds of the air or the lilies of the field.   

Just that nothing we have in the US came without rancor and bloodshed.I didn't think it was about 'potluck suppers'.If that's what you mean I have indeed been to picnics and such that were  secular and without rancor and bloodshed.Well, at least the ones where they didn't serve alcohol.

Ah, I think I understand.  Yes, our freedoms are bought with blood.  We initially had to fight against those who thought kings had a divine right from a god.  We had various sects of Christians harming each other for not being the right kind of Christian.  And we had them harming the natives because their religion said that anyone who didn’t believe like them was evil.  Then we had a group of men who realized the harm religion, especially associated with the state, can do and who created a constitution that intentionally restricted this involvement.   This is my point, that religion has no concrete benefits like liberty and freedom do, none that can’t just as easily be enjoyed without the hatred and intolerance that religion engenders. 

Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement".

  False, I have fabricated nothing.. I have supported that it is a requirement with your own bible’s verses.  Read the verses I posted above.  Do you want to be come perfect and get your magic presents or not?

I’ll even add one more bit:  “25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” – Luke 14

Please do show me where the military says you have to hate your family and your life. 

They risk their lives.

  No, OS, *some* risk their lives, and non-Christians do the same.   Where do you risk your life as a soldier does, OS?  Surely you can tell me.

You never grew up in a Christian household? Your parents split up and hit the mission field? What exceptions are you looking for?Your parents sold 'everything" and gave it to the poor? Maybe they understood better than you what the Bible says.Is that why you are mad at God? He asked more of you than you thought you should have to give?

Not talking about a Christian household since we both know that Christians pick and choose what they follow.  I’m talking about your bible.  And ah, now we have one more lie told by a Christian about an atheist.  Sorry, OS, but no, I’m not “angry at God”.  I know you really really hope I am but I’m not.  I am no more angry at this god than I’m at Mars or Odin or Tezcatlipoca.  And hmm, now Christians should give up their family, wealth, etc?  (see bolded)  Which is it now, OS?  Does your god ask you to give up things or not?  And again, where in the bible says that there are exceptionsn to being “perfect”? 

Because Velkyn you seem to think you can be a Christian without God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus ..God's Son or the Bible.I can say and believe that Jesus is the Messiah who has come in the flesh...can you?

  Sorry, you fail again.  I never said you could be a Christian without the belief in God, the HS or the bible or Jesus.  Again, your argument depends on you proving that your god exists and it’s not just a belief.  Can you prove this? Can you even show the slightest bit of actual evidence?  I once said that Jesus is the messiah who came in the flesh, when I believed, just like you do now.  Show me that you don’t simply believe like I did.  I’ve asked and asked and you’ve failed to produce anything. 

There are still 10s of millions of believers in Tezcatlipoca being added annually like Christianity?Did Tez bring back the Aztecs like God restored the Nation Israel?Is he planning to ,you think?

  Aw, a logical fallacy just as expected, namely the appeal to popularity.  So, OS, does this mean that as soon as there are more Muslims than Christians, they’ll have the one true religion?  How about the Scientologists?  I don’t see a restored Israel at all.  Please do define how it was supposedly restored.  Why are there various sects of Judaism that don’t agree? Why are there Jews living all over the world? Why is modern Israel not the same land as archaeological evidence shows as Israel was supposedly?   

Or like in your own case here, invent stuff that isn't there to try and make The Bible look bad.You really see a command in this Scripture?

And more baseless claims of course with nothing to support the accusations.  Please do show how I “invented” anything that is not supportable in your bible. 

Matthew 19:29  Mark 10:29  Luke 18: 29

cut to save space.  Not in this one but take a look at the verses I quoted in this post. Luke 14, Luke 18, Matthew 19 (Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”)   See, I can read the *whole* bible and know how commands are written, OS and not try to depend on quote mining to give me an answer I want.  That’s so cute to see done to the bible.  Usually Christians try to do that to scientists. 

[velkyn]

And some of His commands aren't  "universals" and some things he said aren't commands. For an example

  7Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. So they filled them up to the brim.

I haven't filled any waterpots as a Christian....do you think  my salvation might be in jeopardy? To make the situation even more dire for me they filled up 6 of 'em!

Gee, OS, you should tell Christians that they don't need to follow Paul's words then since they  are mostly, if not *all*,  are to the various "churches".  If we can ignore whatever a Christian says doesn't apply to them then we can ignore the commandments too!  They were to only teh Jews right?   Why, I've just succeeded in making Christianity totally accepting of homosexuals, and whatever else they claim that their god doesn't want them to like.

[kaziglu bey]

“Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  Matt 10 : 37

 A simple reading of the parallel text for that quote gives a fuller understanding of the meaning.If the originals were written to people in the Ancient Near East don't you think their   languages and culture are going to be factors?

But the problem is, Matthew 10:37 is NOT saying the same thing as Luke 14:26. And since Luke 14:26 is, as you agree later, a command, wouldn't it override any non-command statements to the contrary? And why is there a contradiction at all? Why wouldn't Jesus be more consistent in his message, if his message is SO important?

I said what she was interpreting in the Scriptures I quoted was incorrect.Now you have in fact found a Bible verse that is a command and I agree with it.The verses I quoted are right there in your post ...do you think they read as commands by Jesus ?

Do the verses you posted read as commands? Perhaps not. But a simple reading of the parallel text for that quote gives a fuller understanding of the meaning. See Luke 14:26 where it is in fact a command from Jesus. See how I can do that too?

You shouldn't play so' fast and loose' with a word that carries that kind of weight.Think first, post second.

Maybe not, but when you say that scripture doesn't say something, while ignoring the scriptures that do, it doesn't strike one as being very honest. Though now that I look back you said "Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement". I misunderstood you to mean "Scriptures" not just the ones Velkyn had referred too. Still it seems dishonest to deliberately overlook the scripture that does in fact support Velkyn's assertion. Perhaps it was an honest mistake.

Correct, those Scripture do not make a requirement of all Christians to leave, ...
Matthew 19:29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

  See above, I think I misunderstood what you means by scriptures. But still, as I feel the need to point out, other scriptures not posted previously (Luke14:26) make it clear that it is in fact a command from Jesus to hate your mother, father, spouse, etc.

He does, I agree.The verses you quoted which I quoted don't contain any though.They are about rewards for those that do them.You don't reward someone for just doing what is required of them I would think.

but the verses that I quoted which you quoted leave out Luke 14:26, which makes it clear that you can get a reward ONLY if you hate those people. Again, did you omit this out of ignorance or deception?

And some of His commands aren't  "universals" and some things he said aren't commands. For an example

no, but the one to hate your mother father etc clearly is.

  7Jesus said to them, Fill the waterpots with water. So they filled them up to the brim.

I haven't filled any waterpots as a Christian....do you think  my salvation might be in jeopardy? To make the situation even more dire for me they filled up 6 of 'em!

Well gee maybe you should consider the "context" of what Jesus is saying here then    Jesus doesn't say here that you must fill a waterpot with water in order to be his follower, now does he? So clearly within the "context"of that quote, Jesus needed them to fill up their waterpots so that he could "demonstrate" his alleged ability to turn water into wine. Clearly Jesus is not commanding all of his followers to fill their waterpots so he can turn every believers water into wine.[1] One might also question whether turning water into wine is advisable, since water is necessary for human life (and a vital resource in the Middle East), and too much wine can kill you. But I guess that's neither here nor there.

1.	If this was the case, and believers routinely filled waterpots that were magically transformed into wine, there would probably be a lot more believers because yay wine!

[Ivellios]

A simple reading of the parallel text for that quote gives a fuller understanding of the meaning.If the originals were written to people in the Ancient Near East don't you think their   languages and culture are going to be factors?

Of course, they're factors. The culture there is the way it was/is because of Perfect Guidence from God! They are closer to perfect than we are. That is who we are supposed to model our society after! Since they are God's example to the world, we should be trying to emulate them!

This is tantamout to a Christian saying that trying to be like Jesus is not a factor in determining whether you are a Christian or not. Isn't Christian supposed to mean "Christ-like" as the ones in Antioch called them?

It is in human nature to rebel against the Divine nature of God. You do so with every fiber of your being. You are far from perfect and you know it. It is like being at sea level and at the base of a pole as high as Mt. Everest and being told by our All-Loving God, "Climb!" You want in heaven so bad, you start climbing. It is hard. Your body cries out, "This cannot be the only way!" Then someone tells you, "You're doing what!? That isn't the way! This easier way, is the Way!" So you leave it for the easier way, because the True way violates your sensabilities, because it really is that hard, but you're doing it the lazy way. However the lazy way is the way of the majoriety. To take the path less traveled, you have to dare to tread where they do not. Because, "It's too hard," or, "Surely God didn't mean everyone." We all know there the road heavily traveled upon goes: to ruin and the lake of fire.

Then you say, "It isn't a requirement, you only get 100x times the rewards if you do!" So, you're saying you only want the base reward? Gee, I Love God sooooooo much! Yep, I love him so much I will only give him the absolute minimal I can do because, well, he isn't worth any real amount of time in my life. 1 Hour a week is all he's worth to me. To sell everything I own, leave home, rely only on God as I become a missionary and put into places where I might be risking my life... ME!? Why would I do something like that? God isn't worth going out and witnessing and saving a soul of someone that wouldn't have heard of him otherwise. **** THAT! ****  Go... err... God I love you soooooo much!

Yup, God reads you like a book. He knows you inside and out. He knows how you think, what you think. He knows your motivations. He knows what you really think of him.  Really, think about it.... you go out somewhere to witness, some locals don't like it and you get killed. You think that's it? You gave the ultimate sacrifice for Jesus! For Jesus! You died for JESUS! Nothing in this world should make you happier! Not only did you do his will, you're now with Jesus. Then Christians will rally in prayers and use you as inspiration to prove to others that Jesus is REAL! Because you WOULD NOT have done that if Jesus wasn't real. So not only do you get to be with Jesus, your death can bring many more to Jesus. Isn't that worth giving up all your worldly treasures that can rot and decay for heavenly ones? Yes?

This IS the Great Comission. It is what every Christian is called to do. Yet none do. Not a single one. You see, every Christian can perform the same miracles as Jesus, Every single Christian, and he even says so himself in John 14:11-14. It is also a concern of the Apostles to know who is true and who isn't.... something about Roman Persecution or something... so they had to know a sure-fire way to tell a true Christian from someone who was a poser or someone who only thought they were a true Christian. You see, those miracles weren't only supposed to be for Jesus and his 12, but for every single person that believes in him. (and didn't have a faulty baptism)

I know, I know ministers today will say he's only speaking in metaphores, but they would say that wouldn't they? Otherwise you would know the truth, and that truth is that they are posers. Wolves in Sheep clothing to lead you away from the truth, so that you cannot experience LIFE.

So which is it? Follow Jesus or the False Prophet that Prophesied that Jesus would return in his lifetime, and made Christianity 'easy' to appeal to the masses but lead no one to Heaven?

1 Timothy 2:9-15 is also a lovely batch of stuff if you go to a Chrurch where women can do anything but keep silent. I like how modern ministers try to put the spin: You can deliberate, but once the man has made his final deciusion, then you are to remain silent and submit.
Ignoring (of course) that men are superior to women in every single way (so why listen to a woman?), and that ALL sin comes from Satan -> Woman -> Man, so once again, Why listen to a woman? Ah, the illusion that the man is listening to the woman, but told by God himself to completely disregard everything she says, but then he does tell women, 3 times, in 3 different ways to, "SHUT UP!" The other things for women: no jewlery, let hair fall loosely, dress modestly, profess religion and finally, last but not least, "If a woman wants salvation[1], to shut up and make babies."

Gee, if I was a woman, I'd be bashing Christianity every chance I got on those verses alone. Think Paul's a little sexist? Jesus himself calls women "bitches."

He doesn't call her a bitch, he calls her a "little dog"

So let's analyze this:

• "little" in a might makes right society, size means everything. ie. she's inconsequential because, she's a woman.
• a woman called a dog. a female dog, ie a bitch.

or... is the "All-Loving" Jesus instead racist? Or is he Both? I'd say he's a sexist and racist.

When he finally decided to include us gentiles, the outcasts, was when he became an outcast himself. How nice of him, eh?

1.	ie. not burn in hell forever and ever

[onesteward]

 But the problem is, Matthew 10:37 is NOT saying the same thing as Luke 14:26. And since Luke 14:26 is, as you agree later, a command, wouldn't it override any non-command statements to the contrary? And why is there a contradiction at all? Why wouldn't Jesus be more consistent in his message, if his message is SO important?

I find that universally any experts I've read do take them to mean the same thing.The issue, as was pointed out ,it defining the term hate.One example of a debate on the issue is here:http://christianthinktank.com go to the topic index and look for "hate".For various commentaries check here: http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm. It lists 17 or 18 parallel versions and then I believe 8 commentaries on the verse.
As far as Matthew 10: 37 is concerned I think the language is strong enough and by virtue of no options to what He said that it is a command.

Do the verses you posted read as commands? Perhaps not. But a simple reading of the parallel text for that quote gives a fuller understanding of the meaning. See Luke 14:26 where it is in fact a command from Jesus. See how I can do that too?

I don't think they are parallels though.I don't see where you can take Lu. 14 :26 as a command ( which I do )and apply that to these Scriptures :  Matthew 19:29 , Mark 10:29 and  Luke 18: 29

Maybe not, but when you say that scripture doesn't say something, while ignoring the scriptures that do, it doesn't strike one as being very honest. Though now that I look back you said "Which you fabricated from Scriptures that don't say it is a "requirement". I misunderstood you to mean "Scriptures" not just the ones Velkyn had referred too. Still it seems dishonest to deliberately overlook the scripture that does in fact support Velkyn's assertion. Perhaps it was an honest mistake.

This is  Velkyn assertion:"We have in your verses from Mark, a god that says abandon your family for him and that you’ll get hundreds of houses, sisters, brothers, children, lands, in this life and eternal life “in the age to come”.  This is an exchange of one family that you have for a promise of an even “better” one."
She compares it to Job's situation.And gets it all from here:

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

I can't see where she gets it.If you can then I'd appreciate any clarification.
Of course with "the persecutions"
  in Mark 10 : 30 above  why would they  consider it , as she said, a better one.

but the verses that I quoted which you quoted leave out Luke 14:26, which makes it clear that you can get a reward ONLY if you hate those people.

 Rewards I take to be for believers.What your verse Lu 14 : 26 addresses is the very basics of our salvation.The only thing I say is  the term hate is closer to what is described in Matthew 10 when put in the context of The ANE.I am going with the Christian consensus on that.

 Again, did you omit this out of ignorance or deception?

Neither. That verse wasn't part of the original ' discussion' but the 3 you quoted were.I left it out intentionally.Not as a dodge but like I said to keep it on the actual topic.

Well gee maybe you should consider the "context" of what Jesus is saying here then 

Point taken.


 

[12 Monkeys]

OS you are funny the U.S. liberty and freedoms were established by stomping out a race of people on THEIR land. How exactly do you think the U.S. was established?

 They left the opressive overlords found some new land and devastated the original inhabitants of the land.....they themselves becoming opessive overlords

[kaziglu bey]

I find that universally any experts I've read do take them to mean the same thing.The issue, as was pointed out ,it defining the term hate.One example of a debate on the issue is here:http://christianthinktank.com go to the topic index and look for "hate".For various commentaries check here: http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm. It lists 17 or 18 parallel versions and then I believe 8 commentaries on the verse.

But you see I disagree. saying that you must hate your mother, father etc. in order to be a follower of Jesus excludes the possibility of loving them at all, not just less than you love Jesus. So, Luke 14:26 excludes any other claims made by Jesus, because, as you concede, those other quotes were not commands.

As far as Matthew 10: 37 is concerned I think the language is strong enough and by virtue of no options to what He said that it is a command.

I see you are not nearly concerned with examining the "true meaning and context" of a verse that you feel fits neatly into what you believe and say. It's always a bunch of word games and logical hoops to get verses that say something a believer doesn't like in order to justify it's presence in the Bible. We really get tired of that  you know.

 

I don't think they are parallels though.I don't see where you can take Lu. 14 :26 as a command ( which I do )and apply that to these Scriptures :  Matthew 19:29 , Mark 10:29 and  Luke 18: 29

But what I'm saying is that if you take Luke 14:26 as a command, which you in fact do, then those other three verses you state are irrelevant. If you hate your mother,/father//children etc. then loving them at all is not even an option. Can't you see where a command would over-ride anything that asserts less than the command?

This is  Velkyn assertion:"We have in your verses from Mark, a god that says abandon your family for him and that you’ll get hundreds of houses, sisters, brothers, children, lands, in this life and eternal life “in the age to come”.  This is an exchange of one family that you have for a promise of an even “better” one."
She compares it to Job's situation.And gets it all from here:

29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

I can't see where she gets it.If you can then I'd appreciate any clarification.

  You don't see it? How about this? whoever leaves (or hates) his home or brother or sisters etc. will be rewarded a hundred times as much as they have in this present age. While not a command, it is not necessarily inconsistent with Luke 14:26.

Rewards I take to be for believers.What your verse Lu 14 : 26 addresses is the very basics of our salvation.The only thing I say is  the term hate is closer to what is described in Matthew 10 when put in the context of The ANE.I am going with the Christian consensus on that.

But the Christian consenus is trying to twist the words here to mean something they do not. Hate means hate. It is a command from Jesus to hate. I agree that the rewards are for believers, who according to Jesus according to Luke 14:26, must hate their loved ones in order to even be considered a follower and thus eligible for reward.

Neither. That verse wasn't part of the original ' discussion' but the 3 you quoted were.I left it out intentionally.Not as a dodge but like I said to keep it on the actual topic.

But I think that Luke14:26 is entirely relevant to the topic.

Point taken.

It's about time! 

[Graybeard]

Kaziglu Bey is quite right, “Hate means hate” just as it does today and did in the Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles.

There is a reason for this: If your family were all Christians and followers of Christ, there would be no need to leave them or hate them. However, if they were not then:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

This is backed up in the NT by:
Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Lu:19:27: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

John 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

2nd Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Thessalonians 1:8 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

So the choice was simple; you converted your family or you hate them and leave them. This ensured more of the faithful and no one trying to stop you being a godbotherer.

This is typical of a cult – they replace everyone important to you in your life; you are now under their power.

[onesteward]

So the choice was simple; you converted your family or you hate them and leave them. This ensured more of the faithful and no one trying to stop you being a godbotherer.

This is typical of a cult – they replace everyone important to you in your life; you are now under their power.

1 Peter
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

I don't see the " hating and leaving" like you do I guess.

[velkyn]

I find that universally any experts I've read do take them to mean the same thing.

and as always, OS can't actually say who these "experts" are or quote them. 

and again, makes the claim that he can't see where "she (velkyn) gets it", of course ignoring all of the explantion I've given.  How wonderfully deceitful.  I wonder, OS, do you think your claims of ignorance make what I said magically untrue?  It's rather like the bugblatter beast of traal. Your claims of being unable to understand something would never make a valid argument untrue.  and sadly for you, that's all you have anymore.   

and finally, you of course run to Paul for an excuse.  It's always amusing to see a  Christian show just how much Paul and their supposed savior disagree at the most basic level.

[Ivellios]

and finally, you of course run to Paul for an excuse.  It's always amusing to see a  Christian show just how much Paul and their supposed savior disagree at the most basic level.

Of course, he likes 'Easy Mode' Christianity. Christianity made to appeal to the masses. When Paul says something that contradicts The Son of God, go with Paul!

I thought I read in the OT that if someone prophesies, and they are proven to be false, you are supposed to discard all thier words. Even if .00000000001% of what they say is wrong, the rest is suspect and must be tossed out. After all, the Bible, all of Scripture is supposed to be 100% God's words. If it isn't God's words, it shouldn't be there. Paul prophesied. Paul Lied. Paul needs to be fried. Plus he contradicts Jesus like there's no tomorrow, as if he's calling Jesus, the Son of God a liar. Really, you're standing before Jesus and he's looking thru all his books and asks you, "Who is more important to obey: Me[1], or Paul?" If you Claim to be a Chriatian, it would come with the assumption that you worship Jesus and God, so what do you get if you place Paul's counsel higher than Jesus'?

1.	the one who decides whether you enter Heaven or Burn.

[onesteward]

and as always, OS can't actually say who these "experts" are or quote them. 

I did provide this link though. Yesterday as a matter of fact.Same thing for you ...follow the scriptures down and you will come to the 8 commentaries on Luke 14 :26.
http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm.
A couple of other ones: A.B. Bruce, F.F. Bruce,BW Johnson. Brian Bell, Mcgarvey & Pendleton and there are others. And this too: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/family

and again, makes the claim that he can't see where "she (velkyn) gets it", of course ignoring all of the explantion I've given.

That is correct.You and nobody else I've pointed out to you above, see it your way.It seems anyone who any background regarding the ANE-  completely disagree with your assessment of those scriptures.So, yeah I don't know where you get it.

  How wonderfully deceitful.  I wonder, OS, do you think your claims of ignorance make what I said magically untrue?

And what you do...propose blatant untruths which you pull out of thin air ,seemingly, and expect you can just be abrasive and get your own way and make them 'magically ' true.

 It's rather like the bugblatter beast of traal. Your claims of being unable to understand something would never make a valid argument untrue.  and sadly for you, that's all you have anymore. 

Your references from your private fantasy world don't mean anything to me.

and finally, you of course run to Paul for an excuse.  It's always amusing to see a  Christian show just how much Paul and their supposed savior disagree at the most basic level.

Oh, the dread " Paulianity" claim.Who came up with that non-sense anyway?

[onesteward]

OS you are funny the U.S. liberty and freedoms were established by stomping out a race of people on THEIR land. How exactly do you think the U.S. was established?

They evolved right there on the land? Just a bunch of peace loving happy go lucky folks?They never took what wasn't rightfully theirs, correct?

 They left the opressive overlords found some new land and devastated the original inhabitants of the land.....they themselves becoming opessive overlords

How 'bout these guys....:CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842: American Indians as Slave Owners
 CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842 ^ | 1996 | Art T. Burton

By 1860, the Cherokees had 4,600 slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344; the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500. Some Indian slave owners were as harsh and cruel as any white slave master. Indians were often hired to catch runaway slaves; in fact, slave-catching was a lucrative way of life for some Indians, especially the Chickasaws.

 People are just people..all of us.We are fallen rotten bastids from the word go.No people is exempt Monkeys.

[12 Monkeys]

OS you are funny the U.S. liberty and freedoms were established by stomping out a race of people on THEIR land. How exactly do you think the U.S. was established?

They evolved right there on the land? Just a bunch of peace loving happy go lucky folks?They never took what wasn't rightfully theirs, correct?

 They left the opressive overlords found some new land and devastated the original inhabitants of the land.....they themselves becoming opessive overlords

How 'bout these guys....:CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842: American Indians as Slave Owners
 CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842 ^ | 1996 | Art T. Burton

By 1860, the Cherokees had 4,600 slaves; the Choctaws, 2,344; the Creeks, 1,532; the Chickasaws, 975; and the Seminoles, 500. Some Indian slave owners were as harsh and cruel as any white slave master. Indians were often hired to catch runaway slaves; in fact, slave-catching was a lucrative way of life for some Indians, especially the Chickasaws.

 People are just people..all of us.We are fallen rotten bastids from the word go.No people is exempt Monkeys.

  Wow you use a small example of a large group of people who conformed to their masters.....I would either go into the "slave trade" as you put it,or be killed as a heathen by the newcomers....WOW what a hard choice.

 Then there is the first point.....of course there were wars between tribes.....for good hunting grounds,water sources,slaves,breeding stock.
  Where did I say it was always peaceful......Do you dismiss the American Indian genocide? How fucking dare you.... but then NO American or Canadian would want to have how their countries were truly established in the record books. Westerns of the hero cowboy killing the Indian is a good enough history lesson for YOU.

 The northwest coast people (my teritorry) had slaves as well,they killed each other in war and pretty much stuck to their teritorry in times of peace....Slavery was mastered by the Christians in early America.....but slavery was never exclusive to them.

[velkyn]

I did provide this link though. Yesterday as a matter of fact.Same thing for you ...follow the scriptures down and you will come to the 8 commentaries on Luke 14 :26.
http://bible.cc/luke/14-26.htm.
A couple of other ones: A.B. Bruce, F.F. Bruce,BW Johnson. Brian Bell, Mcgarvey & Pendleton and there are others. And this too: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/jesus/family

  My mistake, sorry.  And ah, Jews for Jesus, aka Christians.  It’s so cute when they try to claim both religions and make the same faulty claims that both religions make.  They do show a nice job on how the bible again contradicts itself, when showing that yep, JC says to honor one’s father and mother but then says that they are to be hated and left as long as you follow JC.  It’s again the picking and choosing of what commandments to follow when convenient.  The commandments also say to kill your children if they disobey.  But we don’t see Christians doing that either.  I guess abandoning them if they don’t believe in JC *is* better than murder.

Your commentaries are pretty amusing.  We have the first one trying to say that hate means the same as “Matthew” saying  those who love their parents more than JC aren’t worthy.  Problem is that if they mean the same, why weren’t the same words used if they mean the same?  Alas, for Chrsitians, the word hate means hate, not “love more” or “love less”, which are quite possible in the language.  Which version is what God “really” meant?  Poor god, can’t get his message through clearly again.  The second interpretation is pretty clear that hate is accurate, with the writer saying that families are indeed to be “yea, these are to be neglected and forsaken, and turned from with indignation and resentment, when they stand in the way of the honour and interest of Christ, and dissuade from his service: such who would be accounted the disciples of Christ, should be ready to part with their dearest relations and friends, with the greatest enjoyment of life, and with life itself, when Christ calls for it; or otherwise they are not worthy to be called his disciples.”  People’s New Testament also agrees with this.  Scofield has a made up claim that “All terms which define the emotions or affections are comparative.” which only works if he ignores the verses about hate.  We have the second to last showing how Mark 8 also says one must give up everything.  And ah the last ignores the problem completely.  I love those ones, very common in various interpretations when something unpleasant is claimed by thet bible.  You see this also in Luke 19, that last bit of the parable of the ten minas not so strangely seems to vanish to an interpreter. 

So again, it seems that Christians can’t agree and of course have no way to show that their version is any more correct than the next. 

Essentially the main arguments against the idea of hate is that “hate” is “sometimes” meaning just a ranking of affection.  This of course requires the magic decoder rings to come out.  If we say that hate is just a ranking, then Christians have nothing to claim when they insist that they were such martyrs, indeed, the bible “really” only says that believers will only be liked less than other people.  In Malachi, God didn’t really hate Esau and he didn’t really turn his inheritance over to jackals or his home into a wasteland. Poor JC, all of the sudden his prophecies aren’t being fulfilled at all, with his claims that people will hate his followers.  Romans 9 suddenly becomes pointless since the dichotomy that is shows with “Jacob I loved, and Esau I hated” becomes “Jacob I loved and Esau I kinda loved a little less”. 

Of course, you’ll insist that in the instances that are important to you, hate magically means hate again.  I love the hypocrisy. 

That is correct.You and nobody else I've pointed out to you above, see it your way.It seems anyone who any background regarding the ANE-  completely disagree with your assessment of those scriptures.So, yeah I don't know where you get it.

Please do show me where they *all* disagree that the instance of Job gaining a “better” family and wealth is reflected in the teachings of JC in that your family is not important but only following him is.   

Darn, did a google search and showed you wrong with no problem. One of your fellow Christians agrees with me here: “Nevertheless, our responsibility to God is to obey Him, to trust Him and to submit to His will, whether we understand it or not.” http://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Job.html )  Seems that these folks have no problem in obeying what JC says of course, until it makes them decide that hate doesn’t “really” mean that: http://www.gotquestions.org/hate-father-mother.html   I do enjoy this excuse: “The love of a Christian for a non-Christian is almost always seen as hatred, intolerance, bigotry, etc.”  and the immediate martyr claim that Christians are “hated” too.  Again, such convenience for determing what hate means so the Christians can feel better about themselves.

But I need to go no further than your magic book. here’s my quote from earlier

We have in your verses from Mark, a god that says abandon your family for him and that you’ll get hundreds of houses, sisters, brothers, children, lands, in this life and eternal life “in the age to come”.  This is an exchange of one family that you have for a promise of an even “better” one.  I see this as the same exchange in Job, one family for a replacement supposedly better. In that I love my family and would not abandon them for anything, not even a magic promise of something “better”, this is why I’m glad I’m not in your family because from your bible and what it says, and if you find it to be obeyed as god’s word, it would indicate that you find that it’s okay to leave them as long as you think your god will give you something better. If I am wrong in this assessment, do tell me.
Oh and OS, again, do tell me how I can know your god was responsible for monarch butterflies.  And do give me the evidence for your other claims that I’ve asked for repeatedly and show me why you think I’m wrong in how I have presented your bible.  It does get tedious to have to repeatedly ask.

and you claim that you have no idea how I get this from Mark 10: 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”  and here is the chapter in Job that has this god replacing Job’s family with more and “better”: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+42&version=NIV 
 Let’s see, a promise of better things if you follow JC and abandon all you have out of obedience to this god and how Job had everything taken away from him, still obeyed god and got something better.  In both you supposedly get benefits for obeying god and not questioning it.  Do you get it now? I’m going to guess that you don’t, but not from my efforts but your need to deny that your god requires something difficult from you.  No matter, it doesn’t make the argument less valid.  You may keep your head in the sand if you wish.

Oh yes, and I am still waiting for evidence that your god exists and is responsible for butterflies and Tez isn’t.  Also wondering how you’ll address the problem I presented of how the validity of your religion seems to only rest on the popularity fallacy.

And what you do...propose blatant untruths which you pull out of thin air ,seemingly, and expect you can just be abrasive and get your own way and make them 'magically ' true.

Aw, and again, OS can’t show that I’ve done any such thing.  How cute. Please do show how I’ve proposed any blatant untruths, and how you can show them to be untrue.  I’m waiting.  I’m sure I’ll get none, but it is fun to watch you again and again “sin” against your god in you attempt to disprove my arguments.  Or, hmmm, is “false witnessing” one of those commandments that don’t apply to you?

Your references from your private fantasy world don't mean anything to me.

Oh, they don’t have to.  I’m sure that your ignorance is far more important to you.  And not my fantasy world at all, simply one I like and one you could learn about if you weren’t so afraid by simply googling.

Oh, the dread " Paulianity" claim.Who came up with that non-sense anyway?

Oh, Christians : http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html  http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Paulvsall.html  http://www.jesusfamilies.org/wwbelieve/paul.htm .  I’m guessing you’re shocked, Christians who disagree with OS and his declaration of what God “really meant”.  Paul makes a much easier religion since he was stuck with unfulfilled promises and had to excuse them.  No reason to make your audience too uncomfortable by requiring them to follow the commands of a supposed savior who didn’t get his prophecies right.  Now, I’m sure you’ll claim that those people who disagree with you are mistaken and aren’t really Christians.  Then we’re back to where we started, how you can show that your version of the bible is any more right than theirs, that you are in any communication with any divine being and if that divine being even exists.     

[onesteward]

Posted by: velkyn
« on: Today at 10:49:03 AM »

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Paulvsall.html 

I didn't have time today to get into a reply, hopefully tomorrow.This one ministry you used though...they can be considered one of your " go to guys'?
These are the same people I believe, do agree with this as well?:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Walmart.html

[velkyn]

Posted by: velkyn
« on: Today at 10:49:03 AM »

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Paulvsall.html 

I didn't have time today to get into a reply, hopefully tomorrow.This one ministry you used though...they can be considered one of your " go to guys'?
These are the same people I believe, do agree with this as well?:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Walmart.html

Why, OS, it seems that it's the same domain, so they probably do agree with that essay on alternet.  And hmmm, why do you ask?  What does this have to do with your qustion on who started the idea that Paul and Jesus disagree and how one can consider following Paul's words rather than JC's to be "Paulianity"?  Could it be you are again trying to change the subject?  Oh say it ain't so!