GirlFriendTess GirlFriendTess

Delusional beliefs and their harm to humanity

▼

Delusional beliefs and their harm to humanity

from JoeUser Forums

To classify a belief as delusional, it must meet the following requirements:

  1. It cannot be based on our physical reality in any way because it must be miraculous, beyond human ken. 
  2. There can be no real world evidence for its existence because some might eventually think to look for it.
  3. Nothing else matters.

Faith is unreliable, harmful and so unnecessary.  If one has evidence, there is no need of faith because you have the evidence. But those who only have faith do not have any evidence and don’t require any, nor will they accept any. Based on the scriptures of our monotheistic religions, they all have their own ‘Last Prophet’, the last human being to converse with their particular god in the real world … the same god mind you. Christians believe Jesus was the last prophet. In Islam, Muhammad was the last prophet. In Jainism, Mahavira is also claimed to be the last prophet. Mani, founder of the Persian faith Manichaeism claimed to be the last prophet. In Mandaeanism, John the Baptist is considered the last prophet. I wonder where Joseph Smith stands here having been born ~307 years ago???

Miracles Modern style: Catholics claim that a communion wafer is transformed by blessing it, into the literal physical flesh of Christ which they then feel compelled to eat every Sunday. Pentecostals believe that speaking in tongues is something besides one Christian pretending to understand the other. Christian ‘scientists’ believe in faith healing by ‘the laying on of hands’ or ‘the bowling of people’ to spirit away whatever ails them. Latter-Day Saints believe that Joseph Smith was gods’ last prophet which if true alone would prove all the other religions false. Whose delusions do you want to believe and why can’t you believe the others? Most religious folk believe in intercessory prayer but it only seems to work in the successful cases which just happen to coincide with the medical prognosis. Well even I as a free thinker believe in homeopathic miracles, hahaha. Don’t even want to discuss exorcisms, not going there because I can only take so much BS.

Then there are those with confirmation bias where they only read literature from people who already agree with them or like with the bible, they skip the distasteful parts. The only thing they seem to know about the outside world is what they read in their hate mail … which is quite obvious by the way. Let’s not forget the conviction card that goes like this: I believe something to be true because I believe it to be the word of god. Conviction is just a measure of how much you believe in something (doesn’t matter why) and doesn’t have anything to do with reality or the truth … you believe … so what I say … I believe in things too but mine are real and provable???

It is amazing to me when I think of all the holy books there are around the world … all of which is considered to be the inerrant  word of one god or another (don’t ask me?). Even more amazing (is that possible?) is that the god of our modern monotheistic religions is the same one … and he left us with different instructions almost as if it were a test or something. Simply stated they all cannot be true (they can’t), then what evidence do we have to help us make a choice if one is inclined? Well we don’t have any evidence, but we have figured out the only way this anomaly can happen in the real world. We began to see a pattern and as it turns out, wherever you were born and who raised you are the only determining factors and in most cases it is a lifelong belief.  The only people around the world who murder other people they do not even know due to a difference of opinion over a fictional character ... are believers of god, in one guise or another. It doesn't take faith to say you don't know something; it just takes a little humility and nothing more.  Just doesn’t make any sense to me?

 

ethics
30,763 views 104 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top

Lula, you are so hell-bent on your damnation pilgrimage that you do not seem to be able to hear all the words

“For many centuries, the Pope has claimed to be the owner of the entire world (and you so know this is true) and this STARTED with a bogus document … actually a fraud back in the Middle Ages when the Church produced the document in question …” Oh this is silly. If you want to know what he said, try listening to him and stop your nonsense. You seem to feel that all you have to do is change the subject and I am supposed to let you do it, not.

I am sorry I cannot watch them for you and tell you what they all mean; you have to be responsible for something. Now, what part of the clip is a lie?

PS - Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Lula you are a real trip if nothing else.

Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 46
I know you won't listen to me, how about the Pope then?

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 46
“Therefore the Catechism of the Catholic Church can rightly say that Christianity does not simply represent a religion of the book in the classical sense (cf. par. 108).  It perceives in the words the Word, the Logos itself, which spreads its mystery through this multiplicity and the reality of a human history.  This particular structure of the Bible issues a constantly new challenge to every generation.  It excludes by its nature everything that today is known as fundamentalism.  In effect, the word of God can never simply be equated with the letter of the text.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080912_parigi-cultura_en.html[/quote]

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 46
I was going to remove this clip because I had difficulty verifying it. But I forced myself to read the whole speech and was able to verify it, so it stays.

I'm glad you found it...and read it in its entirety. It's great....the Pope teaching us about Sacred Scripture. It doesn't get any better than that! 

on the video you provided it is written "Pope Benedict publicly admits that Christianity is not, in the classical meaning, a religion of the book"......

Is what is written on the video screen supposed to be a "gotcha" moment? 

 

It's not...all you've got to do is understand what PBXVI means by "word" (the Bible, the written word) and "Word" (Jesus, the "Logos").  

First, let's check out what the Catechism # 108 teaches..."Still, the Christian Faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word", but the Word which is incarnate and living." If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Now, to fully understand it read St.John 1:1-14 who describes the Word, the Logos...

[1] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

[6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. [7] This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light. [9] That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world. [10] He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

[11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not. [12] But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. [13] Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [14] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 

 

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 50
And you believe an anti-Catholic guy in a video who says the Pope owns the world
Yes I do but only because it is true, I don’t care what his faith is or is not. I researched the video before I put it up as I usually do. I am not overly concerned who is on the videos as long as they agree with me. Is there some reason I should do otherwise? Good luck trying to argue that it was of no import or not used by the very (only) people who knew it to be a false document at the time and for hundreds of years.

Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 52
First, let's check out what the Catechism ...
I told you Sunday school was OUT. Is there some reason why RCC-C would mean anything to me? I am sure that I have told you often that the bible is a work of fiction. I give it as much credibility as “Huckleberry Finn” as a guiding light and for the same reason. All bibles are written for one purpose and that is to keep their own victims under the leash of their chosen god through the application of eternal darnation whatever that means. It is too bad that you do not fear your hell enough to actually act Christ like. Do you think that anyone who has their own gods (or none at all) are concerned or influenced in any way because of what you think or what you think your god thinks. I have asked you repeatedly just to communicate in your own words but you just do not seem capable of it. You constantly fetch your internal nonsense meant for you not someone who understands the science, and somehow you are want to apply them to me. This is why we make no progress at all; they do not apply to me regardless of what you believe. All this brouhaha is so unnecessary when all you have to do … all you have ever had to do was to prove that your god exists and that no other gods do.  How you are going to do this by regurgitated doubletalk from you own internal documentation (without a lick of real proof for any of it), to the exclusion of everything else in the whole world is beyond me. According to you no Christian throughout history had a corrupt bone in his body or an agenda of their own … kind of like you do not have an agenda hahaha. The fear of hell and the wrath of your god don’t seem to mean much to the priests that abuse your children … I don’t think the scribes were overly concerned either. You make a fairy tale about all the unnecessary torture, death and destruction that was deemed necessary for the RCC to spread the word of your gentle, kind and merciful god.

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top

You consistently misrepresent the beliefs of Christians and Catholics, then disagree with that.

After we tell you what Christians and Catholics really believe, you act as if we had said nothing, usually stating "Why should I care what you actually believe?" 

It's not only rude, but it makes you sound stupid.  You have been informed, but you don't become smarter for it.

Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 55
You consistently misrepresent the beliefs of Christians and Catholics, then disagree with that.
I don't represent anything Christian or Catholic so you must have me confused with someone else. By the way you used a double negative again. How many years have you spent as an atheist studying atheism (please cite source of study) and badmouthing all the gods, from whence comes your expertise of atheism?

Just as an aside, I despise the word ‘atheism’ because it has no real world meaning but it is the only one a decomposing Christians like you seems to comprehend.

Well, I was a Christian for more than forty years (having been brainwashed by my parents too) and a Catholic for much of that time. So stop whining about how I don’t understand Christianity because I am not one now. You put your pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us so stop with this ‘I am Superior’ crap.

I am tired of you claiming that only a Christian is capable of reading, writing, learning, understanding, figuring things out, being honest or tell the truth. I have caught you in several lies already and your contradictions are a joke. If you believe in something so be it, why should I care … I don’t believe it. It will have no impact whatsoever on or in my life, as it should be. Grovel yourself to the grave if you like. You are just going to die no matter what you believe and well … then you will be dead too. This is not conjecture it is reality. Whatever you think happens after that is your business but I will just be dead like the trillions before me. Way before religious servitude and persecution reared its ugly head. You have never asked me what I think of the bible literally, as a rendition to a lost culture or whatever. You have never asked me if there was no ‘good’ to be gleaned in the bible all the while you pretend there is no evil in it. You do not seem to know much about that book you would shove down my face as the words of a god … the first half of which you don’t need any more because …?

Is this idea you have that the OT is not necessary or applicable to Christians anymore the word put forwards in your ‘Baptist’ like church too, surely you didn’t just make it up?

You my friend are backward looking, backward thinking and backward acting but for some reason you hate “backward looking (??)” science, go figure. Least you forget I am sure nobody else has, this is your (crude) unbiased expert opinion of the value of science as of a couple days ago anyway (no telling what it is now though):

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 42
“Your historical scientists look at something sitting here today, ask "How did this happen?" and then make stuff up, and call it science. Then, they look at something else, and say, "It's like this one... so that must be the same thing that happened as that." Now that looks a lot more like science, and so it perpetuates itself, but it all came from someone making stuff up.”

When you learn to speak coherently, you might entice someone to respond hopefully not in the un-rude Christian manner. I am not concerned about looking stupid when I am chatting it up with you.

Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 51
Lula, you are so hell-bent on your damnation pilgrimage that you do not seem to be able to hear all the words

“For many centuries, the Pope has claimed to be the owner of the entire world (and you so know this is true) and this STARTED with a bogus document … actually a fraud back in the Middle Ages when the Church produced the document in question …” Oh this is silly. If you want to know what he said, try listening to him and stop your nonsense. You seem to feel that all you have to do is change the subject and I am supposed to let you do it, not.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 51
Now, what part of the clip is a lie?

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 51
“For many centuries, the Pope has claimed to be the owner of the entire world

From his first sentence on is a lie. 

No Pope has ever claimed to be owner of the entire world. 

He and and now you are confusing temporal or civil jurisdiction with universal, world-wide ecclesiastical, spiritual jurisdiction. The Pope, ever since St.Peter has indeed always had universal ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction of the whole world.  In reply 50 I pointed this out saying Christ appointed St.Peter and from him on, the Popes are the unique possessor of universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

That's far different from this guy's claim "the Pope has claimed to be the owner of the entire world."

 

 Next lie is when he said ....."This forgery was used by the CC to justify its claim that it owned the entire world, even though Constantine obviously didn't own the entire world, just Western Europe, but they used that to justify.. so late in the 1400's Pope Nicolas creates this bill called Romanus Pontifex that says the entire world is owned by the Catholic Church and he can take it away from any non-Christians and give it to and Christian he wants which is what he did. He said any Christian can go and conquer the entire world from non-Christians and it's fine because it's already owned by the Pope."
 
 
Re: the highlighted part is the next lie. 
 
 
Here's the link. I can't find anything even remotely close to his claim. Can you? 


 

 

And notice if you will the Background information about the Romanus Pontifex. 2nd paragraph says it is an important example of the Papacy's claim to spiritual lordship of the whole world and of its role in regulating relations among Christian princes and between Christians and unbelievers......."

Hmmm...spiritual lordship of the whole world is far different from owning the entire world.  

 

The Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455.

Background

The kingdoms of Portugal and Castile had been jockeying for position and possession of colonial territories along the African coast for more than a century prior to Columbus' "discovery" of lands in the western seas. On the theory that the Pope was an arbitrator between nations, each kingdom had sought and obtained Papal bulls at various times to bolster its claims, on the grounds that its activities served to spread Christianity.

The bull Romanus Pontifex is an important example of the Papacy's claim to spiritual lordship of the whole world and of its role in regulating relations among Christian princes and between Christians and "unbelievers" ("heathens" and "infidels"). This bull became the basis for Portugal's later claim to lands in the "new world," a claim which was countered by Castile and the bull Inter caetera in 1493.

An English translation of Romanus Pontifex is reproduced below, as published in European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Frances Gardiner Davenport, editor, Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1917, Washington, D.C., at pp. 20-26. The original text in Latin is in the same volume, at pp. 13-20.

 
Reply #58 from JoeUser Forums Top

Jesus has spiritual Lordship over the entire world.  The Pope is a usurper.

Now here's a delusional belief - that the Pope can say things that contradict scripture and the teachings of Jesus and it counts for more, just because it's more recent.

Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 57
The Pope, ever since St.Peter has indeed always had universal ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction of the whole world.

 

Quoting Jythier, reply 58
Jesus has spiritual Lordship over the entire world. 

Absolutely true...St.Matt. 28:18 teaches it...."And Jesus said to them, "All authority on earth and heaven has been given to me." 

But the text doesn't stop there. The verses that follow give testimony that Christ is telling that the authority He is giving them to equip them to carry out their mission to the whole world derivies from His own Divine authority. The authority 

Quoting Jythier, reply 58
The Pope is a usurper.

If you believe this is true, then you can't believe the mass of Biblical evidence such as St.Matt. 16:13-20; St.Matt. 18; and  that teaches otherwise is true. You can't have it both ways.

 

The fact that Christ, the Eternal Rock selected Peter upon which to build His Church and gave him His Keys (Authority) is proof sufficient to claim that then St.Peter, today his 265th successor Pope Benedict XVI, is the universal ecclesiastical or spiritual jurisdiction head of Christ's Church and the entire world.

In other words, while all authority comes from God, the selection of the men who exercise His authority in His Church comes from the will of God. This was true in Jewry during its Levitical priesthood days that are no more, when the ecclesiastical authority centered in the High (Aaronic) pries, the Pope of Jewry so to speak! The Mosaic Law was fulfilled and a more perfect priesthood in the Church Christ established displaced the priesthood of the Temple. There the governing power resides in the hierarchy of the Church of Christ's making.  The Book of Acts teaches how that authority was passed down and exercised. 

The Catholic hierachial priesthood can be traced historically back to the Apostles through the occupants of the Chair of Peter. Right reasoning and a simple reading of these passages causes Catholics to accept the Christ delegated ecclesiastical authority, in matters of faith and morals bearing in mind the fact, that Christ Our Lord commanded us to "hear the Church" and if they would not "hear the Church" they would be like the heathen and the publican, condemned. 

That you claim the Pope is a usurper comes from Protestant denial and is spread by inherited prejudice against the Pope and his Christ-delegated authority. 

Even Protestant scholars have affirmed that history sustains the Catholic affirmation that Christ established the primacy of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the person of St.Peter,  and that his primacy is perpetuated in the person of the Roman pontiffs, yet, these scholars seem to have done little in breaking up the prejudice of the Protestant rank and file.

      

Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 58
that the Pope can say things that contradict scripture and the teachings of Jesus

Care to provide a bona fide example? 

Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 60
Care to provide a bona fide example?
Been waiting a while for this discussion among allies! Jythier, you are about to get your ass handed to you and you will not even know it was done, but I have already given you one example of this Pope nonsense. If you ask someone else, they could probably find more for you. Surely you don't want me to answer this for him ... do you Lula? I will leave you alone then to take care of business as long as you leave science out of it. Have fun!!!

 

Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top

GFT, we talk about this stuff all the time.  It really isn't a big deal.  The Catholic church misinterprets scripture here, or the Protestants do, but someone's wrong, but it doesn't matter.  As long as they believe that Christ died for their sins and that people are saved by grace through faith, they're saved.  There's a line somewhere that Catholics tend to cross where people's works mean that they are saved, not Jesus' grace.  And that line may mean they're not saved by the free gift, because they're too busy trying to earn it to just accept it.  I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, because it's not up to me, and God is just - and I don't see him sending people who are desperately seeking Him to hell, but if they're not seeking Him, all bets are off.

The problem is, you say Christ decided to build the church on Peter, but that's incorrect.  The rock he was referring to was NOT Peter.  That's all I need to say and all the rest of your arguments go out the window - but since you won't interpret it that way, we're stuck.

Surely Lula, the Catholic Church only has ONE way to heaven, and doesn't bother talking to saints about it?  Who came up with that one, was it a Pope?

Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 62
The Catholic church misinterprets scripture here, or the Protestants do, but someone's wrong, but it doesn't matter. As long as they believe that Christ died for their sins and that people are saved by grace through faith, they're saved. There's a line somewhere that Catholics tend to cross where people's works mean that they are saved, not Jesus' grace. And that line may mean they're not saved by the free gift, because they're too busy trying to earn it to just accept it.
Jytheir do you ever proofread your own posts even? She is not at all done just in case you are interested. So as long as they just pray to your god (your way what else) they are saved, but the rest of those wascally Catholics, Muslims, Jews (cannot forget them and their nasty OT), Hindus and Protestants (to name a few) are just doomed ... but it just doesn’t matter to you, the good Christian? What the hell kind of a Christian are you anyway? Sorry Lula, I will TRY and go away now.

PS - Wasn’t really talking to you Jythier … just about you! There is little to be gained trying to tell you anything … guess I should have worded it differently, I will be more careful in the future.

Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top

What are you babbling about now?

Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top

There has to be a god to have a son I expect, so until the OT god YHWY, the original god has been proven to exist, Jesus is of no concern to me and shouldn’t be for anyone else who cannot make the OT god work either. Christians who can no longer believe the OT fairytales need to ask themselves, from whence Jesus came if not from the OT? This one is just for you Jytheir, hahaha!

God the psycho   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5JtxrR6msg&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is amazing that a 54 second clip has more truth in it that the complete bible. Just have to love the simple things in life.

Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 62
GFT, we talk about this stuff all the time. 

We sure do.  ;)   The interchange of thought by discussions has led thousands from erroneous ideas to the truth on innumerable  subjects. Why should a discussion about politics or science be right but one about religion be wrong?

Quoting Jythier, reply 62
As long as they believe that Christ died for their sins and that people are saved by grace through faith, they're saved. 

This is you repeating Martin Luther's "saved by faith alone" heresy. That's why he called St. James epistle "a book of straw" and wanted to throw it out of the Bible (along with the 7 OT books he threw out!). 

To be saved, Christ taught that Baptism, and along with the supernatural virtue of Faith, having Hope and practicing Charity (love of God and neighbor) are required too. Sin enters into it as well for it makes a difference how one lives or ends his life. "There shall not enter into it (Heaven) anything defiled or that worketh abomination, or maketh a lie..." Apoc. 21:27. Christ did His part now we have to cooperate with Him by doing ours to pass through the narrow gate. If we are to pass through the gate, our soul must be undefiled ...in the right spiritual state. 

 

Quoting Jythier, reply 62
There's a line somewhere that Catholics tend to cross where people's works mean that they are saved, not Jesus' grace. 

All complete and utter nonsense, but something the Protestants like to think we believe. Concerning faith and works, Catholics believe St.James 2:18-20. "But some man will say, "Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well; the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" 

 

Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top

Was that the apocrypha he threw out, that were only recognized later?  I believe James.

Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 68
Was that the apocrypha he threw out, that were only recognized later?  I believe James.

Luther inaugurated Protestantism in 1517, yet the Catholic Church set the Canon of Scripture, (73 Books---46 OT and 27 NT) in 397.  

The 27 Books of New Testament Scripture, including St.James,  was specified in the Council of Laodicea in 367 and was officially adopted in the Council of Carthage in 397 after being sent to the Pope (Pope St. Siricius) for confirmation.

For 12 centuries, the Holy Bible with its 73 inspired Books was accepted throughout the world until Luther created his own Bible and set his own canon. He dubbed as apocrypha the Epistle of St. James (because it refutes his "saved by faith alone" heresy). He threw out the OT Books of Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Machabees. His bible also omits chapters from Esther, and certain passages of Daniel...as a result the Protestant Bibles contain 66 Old Testament Books.

The Council of Trent (1546) therefore deemed it expedient to declare, ex cathedra, that is by infallible authority of the CC, that the same 73 Canon of Books officially adopted at the Council of Carthage is the authoritative, the finally determined, collection of writings composed under Divine inspiration. 

Protestants scorn Catholics because we rely on the Christ-delegated authority of the Church, (teaching Magisterium)  but as far as his Bible, he relies on the authority of Luther..who made himself his own magisterium. 

Luther rejected the supreme teaching authority of the Pope, claiming that Scripture alone was sufficient. When Zwingli and Calvin appeared on the scene they too joined Luther in rejecting a visible Church established by Christ which possesses Divine authority. Embracing the principle of Scripture Alone, Zwingli and Calvin ended up not only opposing the CC, but Martin Luther and each other as well. Instead of presenting a unified teaching of faith and morals, Protestantism quickly fractured into a multiplicity of sects, each read the Bible and make up their own minds what it means, then make up doctrines and teachings. In the wake of all this confusion, during the 17th century, skepticism arose in England and France which regarded belief in revealed religion itself as superstitious.   

 

 

  

 

 

Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 66
It is amazing that a 54 second clip has more truth in it that the complete bible.

The headline on the clip reads, If God does not exist, then who wrote the Bible?

Why are you are touting this? 

It begins with the word "IF". 

"If" means supposing that, on condition that, in case that....

 

 

Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Jythier, reply 58
that the Pope can say things that contradict scripture and the teachings of Jesus and it counts for more, just because it's more recent.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 60
Care to provide a bona fide example? 

Quoting Jythier, reply 62
Surely Lula, the Catholic Church only has ONE way to heaven, and doesn't bother talking to saints about it?  Who came up with that one, was it a Pope?

I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I still can't figure out what you mean.

 

Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 69
Reply #69 lulapilgrim
If you and the hell bound see some reason to banter your Christian propaganda under the OP entitled "Delusional beliefs and their harm to humanity", well that's mighty Christian of you. I told you I would try and leave you alone on your posts but I made no commitment here. If you have some new information to explain your seeming insanity (your absolute need to believe the unreal), you would be better served by relating it instead. You lost the Creation battles and the ID battle (both pointless) in court. The Christian (or god) ploy has never been accepted as valid in a court of law even when the jury is predominantly Christian (that I know of). You have not been successful in your bigoted attempts to control the lives of other people in this country except with your hate (love) speech. The more you fight the moral dictates of society, the more you fuel the fires of your opposition. There can only be two outcomes to this RCC vs. all the societies of the world nonsense. You will win or you will lose.  You offer the world no options whatsoever on how they must live or what they have to believe and even what they cannot believe. Oh you make a big show of telling people willing to believe your lies that they are always free to choose. In most religions this would in fact be the case. This wouldn’t register with most rational people simply because they have their own gods (or none) which are not at all influenced by someone else’s choice of gods and it wouldn’t with yours either … but for the fact that the RCC (not Christianity) would affect the secular laws of Nations and FORCE people to comply with their internal nonsense. How is that a choice at all?

Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 70
"If" means supposing that, on condition that, in case that....
Try actually looking at the video silly, it is only 54 seconds long, geese. I didn't title it I just thought the parody thoughtful. SO as the truthful Christian, who seemingly couldn't get past the first word, what was insulting about it ... besides her use of the word if I mean. If this all knowing approach is how you review things, there should be no wonder why you are clueless even about something this mundane.

Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 66
It is amazing that a 54 second clip has more truth in it that the complete bible. Just have to love the simple things in life.

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 70
The headline on the clip reads, If God does not exist, then who wrote the Bible?

Why are you are touting this? 

It begins with the word "IF". 

"If" means supposing that, on condition that, in case that....

 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 73
Try actually looking at the video silly, it is only 54 seconds long, geese.

I did. It's not only the headline of the video, it's also the gal's first statement.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 73
I didn't title it I just thought the parody thoughtful.

Apparently by your comment introducing the clip, you thought it was a little more than just thoughtful.

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 73
SO as the truthful Christian, who seemingly couldn't get past the first word,

In this case the first word "if" regulates the rest of the statement. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 73
SO as the truthful Christian, who seemingly couldn't get past the first word, what was insulting about it ... besides her use of the word if I mean.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said or even indicated it was insulting.  

God indeed exists and it's really a waste of time, energy, etc. (useless) trying to persuade that He does not. We know God exists by right reasoning. 

As far as the who wrote the Bible..it is a collection (Canon) of Books written by numerous writers inspired by God. We know this by supernatural Faith. 

Quoting GirlFriendTess, reply 73
If this all knowing approach is how you review things, there should be no wonder why you are clueless even about something this mundane.

Ah, funny how you begin by touting the clip as containing more truth than the complete Bible, but end by calling it something this mundane. 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top

GFT is sitting somewhere, laughing at us for responding to her at all.