Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No hypocrisy Bruce, just some good advice, in case you might want someone to like you one day.
Here's another tip. Less sentences starting with "I".
Once again, scripture doesn't support your position.
In your stupid ignorant opinion, dumbfuck.
Maybe the difference between us is I've actually read the book.
Why are you so hateful?
Who needs a god to foment hatred and anger?
Doesn't man come to that quite naturally?
Beliefs are like nipples....
Every Monkey has a set, and no two sets are identical.
Some things a Monkey gets to decide for him/her self in the privacy of his/her own mind. What to believe about the origin of life and the destiny of the soft-ware that drives our flesh during the organic years is one of those things.
And thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that is so!
In your stupid ignorant opinion, dumbfuck.
Maybe the difference between us is I've actually read the book.
Why are you so hateful?
Who needs a god to foment hatred and anger?
Doesn't man come to that quite naturally?
Welcome to my ignore list, you waste of breath.
Bruce, the fact that you have a "growing" list of people that find you offensive should tell you that this is an abrasive personality issue, not a scripture contest.
No defense against what exactly? Heaven? It is real or Christ's is a liar. There ya go.
No defense against you shouting Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!? No defense necessary. That I don't have a growing list, is my best defense. Your blanket accusation that people not liking you is somehow a shortcoming of their faith, may be nothing more than you being short on personality.
Scripture is on your side regarding what? Your criticizing people that don't treat you the way you think a Christian should? That doesn't make you scripturally sound, any more than it makes them scripturally bankrupt. It just makes you look juvenile.
That you treat scripture like it's a tennis ball to be batted back and forth until a victor is declared, may be why you keep ending up with your balls to low to make it over the net. It's called a fault for a reason. Reading God's word without turning it into a projectile may benefit you more than what you are experiencing here at present.
So, how did Christ treat people that thought it was their duty to condemn others while puffing up their own piety? They thought they had scripture and law on their side. Turns out they missed the point also.
Scripture without love won't serve you any better than it did the Pharisees. You can see what it has garnered you so far. A big old list.......
Your last sentence of your post regarding scripture is the point.Bruce, the fact that you have a "growing" list of people that find you offensive should tell you that this is an abrasive personality issue, not a scripture contest.
No defense against what exactly? Heaven? It is real or Christ's is a liar. There ya go.
No defense against you shouting Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!? No defense necessary. That I don't have a growing list, is my best defense. Your blanket accusation that people not liking you is somehow a shortcoming of their faith, may be nothing more than you being short on personality.
Scripture is on your side regarding what? Your criticizing people that don't treat you the way you think a Christian should? That doesn't make you scripturally sound, any more than it makes them scripturally bankrupt. It just makes you look juvenile.
That you treat scripture like it's a tennis ball to be batted back and forth until a victor is declared, may be why you keep ending up with your balls to low to make it over the net. It's called a fault for a reason. Reading God's word without turning it into a projectile may benefit you more than what you are experiencing here at present.
So, how did Christ treat people that thought it was their duty to condemn others while puffing up their own piety? They thought they had scripture and law on their side. Turns out they missed the point also.
Scripture without love won't serve you any better than it did the Pharisees. You can see what it has garnered you so far. A big old list.......
Bruce, the fact that you have a "growing" list of people that find you offensive should tell you that this is an abrasive personality issue, not a scripture contest.
No defense against what exactly? Heaven? It is real or Christ's is a liar. There ya go.
No defense against you shouting Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!? No defense necessary. That I don't have a growing list, is my best defense. Your blanket accusation that people not liking you is somehow a shortcoming of their faith, may be nothing more than you being short on personality.
Scripture is on your side regarding what? Your criticizing people that don't treat you the way you think a Christian should? That doesn't make you scripturally sound, any more than it makes them scripturally bankrupt. It just makes you look juvenile.
That you treat scripture like it's a tennis ball to be batted back and forth until a victor is declared, may be why you keep ending up with your balls to low to make it over the net. It's called a fault for a reason. Reading God's word without turning it into a projectile may benefit you more than what you are experiencing here at present.
So, how did Christ treat people that thought it was their duty to condemn others while puffing up their own piety? They thought they had scripture and law on their side. Turns out they missed the point also.
Scripture without love won't serve you any better than it did the Pharisees. You can see what it has garnered you so far. A big old list.......
"Christ's is a liar"
There is a phrase that deserves examination.
No human being that could have been alive at the time bares witness to anything Christ ever said. There is no writing or tablets of stone or anything that can be shown it was made by Christs hand. All of the hearsay passed through several generations and eventually written into stories by several sources none of which can be proven to be factual exist. Many of these stories conflict and some are supposed to be written by people that couldn't have even been where and when they were supposed to be.
You couldn't convict someone of any crime today based on the kind of evidence you claim to have been uttered by Christ.
No you could not say with any truth that Christ lied. You could not say he told the truth either.
The hearsay is weak beyond the pale. It's not just hearsay..he said ..she said.. It's he said..he said...she said..he said ...he said.. and on and on for several generations by only word of mouth before being gathered for a written history.
It is highly likely..no..almost a certainty that nothing claimed to have been said by Christ was accurately and truthfully written.
Let me put it THIS way.. I'm sure that Christ was a nice fellow and everything but the dozen or so people between him and the people that finally documented any of it I'm not so sure about..
To demand that the bible contains Christ's or even more impossibly god's words as a starting point of a discussion with a non believer is rediculous.
In today's forensic lingo..there is no reliable chain custody of the evidense
Quoting the bible is bogus for the same reason. You can not prove anything in it.
Only a fool is going to grant your "faith" the status of fact.
Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 3036 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[19][20][21]
Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process
The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus, which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[24][25][2][3] Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[26]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][27][28][29] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[30][31] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[27] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time more so than any of his contemporaries with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[32] Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[12][25] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[25] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[29]
Bruce, the fact that you have a "growing" list of people that find you offensive should tell you that this is an abrasive personality issue, not a scripture contest.
No defense against what exactly? Heaven? It is real or Christ's is a liar. There ya go.
No defense against you shouting Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!? No defense necessary. That I don't have a growing list, is my best defense. Your blanket accusation that people not liking you is somehow a shortcoming of their faith, may be nothing more than you being short on personality.
Scripture is on your side regarding what? Your criticizing people that don't treat you the way you think a Christian should? That doesn't make you scripturally sound, any more than it makes them scripturally bankrupt. It just makes you look juvenile.
That you treat scripture like it's a tennis ball to be batted back and forth until a victor is declared, may be why you keep ending up with your balls to low to make it over the net. It's called a fault for a reason. Reading God's word without turning it into a projectile may benefit you more than what you are experiencing here at present.
So, how did Christ treat people that thought it was their duty to condemn others while puffing up their own piety? They thought they had scripture and law on their side. Turns out they missed the point also.
Scripture without love won't serve you any better than it did the Pharisees. You can see what it has garnered you so far. A big old list.......
"Christ's is a liar"
There is a phrase that deserves examination.
No human being that could have been alive at the time bares witness to anything Christ ever said. There is no writing or tablets of stone or anything that can be shown it was made by Christs hand. All of the hearsay passed through several generations and eventually written into stories by several sources none of which can be proven to be factual exist. Many of these stories conflict and some are supposed to be written by people that couldn't have even been where and when they were supposed to be.
You couldn't convict someone of any crime today based on the kind of evidence you claim to have been uttered by Christ.
No you could not say with any truth that Christ lied. You could not say he told the truth either.
The hearsay is weak beyond the pale. It's not just hearsay..he said ..she said.. It's he said..he said...she said..he said ...he said.. and on and on for several generations by only word of mouth before being gathered for a written history.
It is highly likely..no..almost a certainty that nothing claimed to have been said by Christ was accurately and truthfully written.
Let me put it THIS way.. I'm sure that Christ was a nice fellow and everything but the dozen or so people between him and the people that finally documented any of it I'm not so sure about..
To demand that the bible contains Christ's or even more impossibly god's words as a starting point of a discussion with a non believer is rediculous.
In today's forensic lingo..there is no reliable chain custody of the evidense
Quoting the bible is bogus for the same reason. You can not prove anything in it.
Only a fool is going to grant your "faith" the status of fact.
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 30–36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[19][20][21]
Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process
The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus, which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[24][25][2][3] Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[26]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][27][28][29] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[30][31] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[27] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time – more so than any of his contemporaries – with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[32] Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[12][25] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[25] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[29]
Huggy, you are a stupid ignorant jack ass.
Go fuck yourself...again.
How do you align yourself with the people on here professing their great devotion to the faith and spewing invective and vulgarity at people at the drop of a pin.
You can blame me if you like, but these people were like this when I came here as a mere observer and wasn't posting. This isn't about me. They need to take responsibility for the damage they are doing as witnesses
Who would want to follow a faith that created and supported this kind of behavior? You make yourself complicit by defending them.
If you think this is any different from my other posts, you either aren't paying attention or you are waking up.Bruce this is the first thing I've seen you say that hasn't been said from behind a giant defensive wall:
How do you align yourself with the people on here professing their great devotion to the faith and spewing invective and vulgarity at people at the drop of a pin.
You can blame me if you like, but these people were like this when I came here as a mere observer and wasn't posting. This isn't about me. They need to take responsibility for the damage they are doing as witnesses
Who would want to follow a faith that created and supported this kind of behavior? You make yourself complicit by defending them.
I don't blame you, I think you are culpable.
It has been pointed out many times here that Christians don't act very much like Christ. I wish I could disagree and say we are all the spitting image of the Lord, but instead we are all incredibly fallible. We all fall way short, but to confound the problem by reacting in like manner, when you had already witnessed before you began to post what might happen, scores just as low on the "fruits" scale. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Since you have read the Bible, do you remember the phrase, "a kind word turneth away wrath"?
If you knew the problem in advance, maybe instead of showing up to point out everyone's flaws, a better route might have been an encouraging word, a lifting up, praising a right when you saw it instead of judging a wrong, loving kindness instead of retribution.
Bruce, the fact that you have a "growing" list of people that find you offensive should tell you that this is an abrasive personality issue, not a scripture contest.
No defense against what exactly? Heaven? It is real or Christ's is a liar. There ya go.
No defense against you shouting Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!? No defense necessary. That I don't have a growing list, is my best defense. Your blanket accusation that people not liking you is somehow a shortcoming of their faith, may be nothing more than you being short on personality.
Scripture is on your side regarding what? Your criticizing people that don't treat you the way you think a Christian should? That doesn't make you scripturally sound, any more than it makes them scripturally bankrupt. It just makes you look juvenile.
That you treat scripture like it's a tennis ball to be batted back and forth until a victor is declared, may be why you keep ending up with your balls to low to make it over the net. It's called a fault for a reason. Reading God's word without turning it into a projectile may benefit you more than what you are experiencing here at present.
So, how did Christ treat people that thought it was their duty to condemn others while puffing up their own piety? They thought they had scripture and law on their side. Turns out they missed the point also.
Scripture without love won't serve you any better than it did the Pharisees. You can see what it has garnered you so far. A big old list.......
"Christ's is a liar"
There is a phrase that deserves examination.
No human being that could have been alive at the time bares witness to anything Christ ever said. There is no writing or tablets of stone or anything that can be shown it was made by Christs hand. All of the hearsay passed through several generations and eventually written into stories by several sources none of which can be proven to be factual exist. Many of these stories conflict and some are supposed to be written by people that couldn't have even been where and when they were supposed to be.
You couldn't convict someone of any crime today based on the kind of evidence you claim to have been uttered by Christ.
No you could not say with any truth that Christ lied. You could not say he told the truth either.
The hearsay is weak beyond the pale. It's not just hearsay..he said ..she said.. It's he said..he said...she said..he said ...he said.. and on and on for several generations by only word of mouth before being gathered for a written history.
It is highly likely..no..almost a certainty that nothing claimed to have been said by Christ was accurately and truthfully written.
Let me put it THIS way.. I'm sure that Christ was a nice fellow and everything but the dozen or so people between him and the people that finally documented any of it I'm not so sure about..
To demand that the bible contains Christ's or even more impossibly god's words as a starting point of a discussion with a non believer is rediculous.
In today's forensic lingo..there is no reliable chain custody of the evidense
Quoting the bible is bogus for the same reason. You can not prove anything in it.
Only a fool is going to grant your "faith" the status of fact.
Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4 BC and died 3036 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[19][20][21]
Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process
The question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure is distinct from the study of the historical Jesus, which goes beyond the analysis of his historicity and attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.[24][25][2][3] Nor does it concern supernatural or miraculous claims about Jesus, which historians tend to look on as questions of faith, rather than historical fact.[26]
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][7][8][27][28][29] In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity.[30][31] There is, however, widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings.[12] Robert E. Van Voorst states that the idea of the non-historicity of the existence of Jesus has always been controversial, and has consistently failed to convince virtually all scholars of many disciplines.[27] Geoffrey Blainey notes that a few scholars have argued that Jesus did not exist, but writes that Jesus' life was in fact "astonishingly documented" by the standards of the time more so than any of his contemporaries with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. The problem for the historian, wrote Blainey, is not therefore, determining whether Jesus actually existed, but rather in considering the "sheer multitude of detail and its inconsistencies and contradictions".[32] Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and virtually all scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[12][25] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[25] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[29]
Huggy, you are a stupid ignorant jack ass.
Go fuck yourself...again.
Hi Gracie sweetie. Happy Easter. Bruce and I are just getting to know one another.
Bruce, dear soul, Odd you accuse me of being the very thing that Christ referred to the Holy Spirit as, the Comforter. It appeals to me more than Judge.
Any fault you see in these people has been worked out at the cross. It has nothing to do with you. Satan afflicts, Christ heals.
Stop pounding your righteous chest, and promoting your lofty position. The only job Christ entrusted to us is to love our Father, and love each other. He will determine the appropriate level of comfort of the individuals here. He is the only one qualified to do so. Unless you are without sin son, put the rock down.
Christ handles a blatant case of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy:
Less than 24 hours after Peter assured Christ that Peter's love for Him would never fail, Peter was adamantly cussing and swearing that he had no affiliation whatsoever with that Jew from Nazareth. Then hid away in fear, while the one he professed to love was dying on a cross.
The way of our Lord:
The very first thing Christ did when He returned after 3 days was to find Peter and tell him that,
He understood, He loved him, He forgave him, and then made Peter the rock on which Christ's church would be built. Not so much as a whisper of condemnation or judgment. Just lifting him up with love made all the difference.
It changed Peter's life. The next time Peter saw Christ, the boat Peter was on was to slow getting to Christ on shore, so Peter jumped in the water and swam to get to the Lord faster and throw his arms around Christ's neck.
Bruce, if you are going to usurp the role, you have to follow the criteria set forth by the one true Christian, Christ.
Happy Resurrection Day Everyone:
to Irish.
