Second Coming

[alaric99x]

And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....

[duroz]

Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that I’m curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? I’m just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. I’ll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. It’ll be fun.

Good luck to you.

You're obviously a complete idiot that doesn't even understand the fundamental doctrine of your own religion.  According to your beliefs I shouldn't have to give any account to your god, because he should already know without requiring any explanation from me.  I shouldn't need to tell him face-to-face what I've written because, according to your doctrine, he should already know.  Furthermore, I don't have to whimper, shiver or cry because, again according to your doctrine, he's such a loving and forgiving god, so he'll forgive my confusions and welcome me into his heavenly kingdom anyway. 

And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....

alaric99x-
Wow! Who knew you were so much FUN!!

You should really stop mincing words, and say what you mean though....
                                                                                                (J.K.!!) 

It's not good for you to hold things in........so just let it out!

 

[falcon9]

Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that I’m curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? I’m just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. I’ll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. It’ll be fun.
Good luck to you.

You're obviously a complete idiot that doesn't even understand the fundamental doctrine of your own religion.  According to your beliefs I shouldn't have to give any account to your god, because he should already know without requiring any explanation from me.  I shouldn't need to tell him face-to-face what I've written because, according to your doctrine, he should already know.  Furthermore, I don't have to whimper, shiver or cry because, again according to your doctrine, he's such a loving and forgiving god, so he'll forgive my confusions and welcome me into his heavenly kingdom anyway.

And the final comment that you make is one of extreme vengeance where you'll be munching popcorn while enjoying the suffering, those who didn't have the sense to bow down before your god.  Good for you, expressing pleasure at the suffering of others, that really makes you a very exemplary christian.  Idiot....

alaric99x-
Wow! Who knew you were so much FUN!!

You should really stop mincing words, and say what you mean though....
                                                                                                (J.K.!!) 

It's not good for you to hold things in........so just let it out!

 

Indeed.  My response sounded almost politely-circumspect in comparison?
 

[SherylsShado]

Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that I’m curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday, and He requires you to give an account of all your nasty, cruel, and vile posts about Him and Christianity, I wonder if you will have the guts like you do behind a computer screen to tell Him face-to-face everything that you have written? Or will you whimper and shiver and cry like big, cowardly babies, making lemonade (or fudge) in your pants? I’m just curious. I hope I get to see this someday. I’ll be sitting back, munching on popcorn and having me a heavenly brew while watching. It’ll be fun.
Good luck to you.

 
So now that the "usual insults and attacks have begun" as you say, just a few things that I am curious about.
    
1.) Why call a non-believer a "Bible-basher" when you're the one attempting to "beat" others with your Bible?  Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or they challenge your thoughts...they are automatically entitled to be served hatred from you?   Maybe you should consider getting one of those moving graphics like falcon9 has of "beating a dead horse" only have a character "beating" others with a Bible, I'm sure it would be no time before several others would have to have one too.

   2.)  Which version of the Bible did you base your comments on?  I use many versions when studying while tending to rely most on the King James.  I ask because I cannot find any verses in any of those versions about there being any "lemonade", "fudge" or "pants" for that matter on Judgment Day.  Nothing about popcorn or any sort of "heavenly brew for you" either, sorry.  I am really curious as to what Bible you spend time in.  Does yours have  Matthew 22:37-40  "Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."  
    
      Doesn't that mean Christians are to love God AND love their fellows...

3.)  What about the verse where Jesus says:  (John 14:15)
      “If you love me, you will keep my commandments."
      
     Doesn't that mean if one loves Jesus, they will have the love of God inside them and it will reflect in the words one uses, the deeds one does, and how one treats others?  
      
     I'm not seeing the love in your post above.

4.)  Is this definition of love in your Bible?

1 Corinthians 13:4–8 (NIV)
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."
    
     How is it that so many can call themselves a Christian and yet ignore God's FIRST and GREATEST COMMANDMENT as well as the SECOND that He Himself said was 'like unto it"?  
  
5.)  Your post reflects "pride, arrogance, conceit, and is boastful" which is quite the opposite of the Bible's definition of love.  The words in your posts are a reflection of what is in your heart nonetheless and you know--- it was those same attributes that got Satan the "boot".  
    
On Judgment Day, be sure you're not guilty before God of blocking the way for others seeking to enter into the kingdom of God.  
Good luck to you.

[Cuppycake]

Somebody better tell the queen!

... of Nines or, the one who wore earplugs during the musical portion of her diamond jubilee and maybe 'knighted' the wrong guy? 

  Now THAT'S just plain HILARIOUS!!!    

          

YAY falcon9!!

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

[jcribb16]

    Let’s start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  

    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iran’s nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould


“The notion that faith in 'xrist' is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'”
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

   "Ezekiel Chapter 38 is where I found the Russian/Iranian alliance during the end times, which is the time period after the restoration of the State of Israel. In the second verse of Ez 38 you will find the words “The Chief Prince” of Meshech and Tubal. The Chief Prince is the word Rosh in the Hebrew language. It should have been translated “the head, or leader of Rosh.” The words Meshech and Tubal are regions near the Caucasus, which is now modern Armenia and Georgia, both former Soviet states.

     In verse 5 you will find Persia (Iran), Ethiopia (Kush or Africa), and Libya (Phut or North Africa). The verse says that these nations, most prominently Persia, will be with the leader of Rosh, or Russia.

     In verse 8 you will find that the time period for this prophecy is during the latter years, or the end times. It also states that these nations will attack Israel, a land that has been brought back from the sword (The Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians around 600 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians around 400 B.C.), and was gathered out of many peoples (The Israelites returned to the State of Israel in 1948, coming out of Europe, Asia, and other places.)

     In verse 14 the subject changes back to Gog, which in verse 2 is the nation of Rosh. It states Rosh will come from the North country, and if you find Jerusalem on a map and go north, you will almost intersect Moscow, the capital of Rosh, or Russia.

     A better translation of Ezekiel 38 can be found in the James Moffatt translation of the bible."         

[duroz]

YAY falcon9!!

(hmmmm...where'd those dang cheerleading gals git off to now....dagnabbit, just when we need 'em...)

Thank YOU Cuppycake!!

YAY Cuppycake

   
   

[falcon9]

    Let’s start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  

    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iran’s nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

I've already challenged the assumptions posted in « Reply #5 on: 02-06-2012, 19:29:49 » Message ID: 546967.  The OP decided that the "debate" was over before it had begun.  

As for dubious biblical interpretations of "gog and magog" relating to any current events being "prophesies", the contextual references to events occurring at the time they were written of are being speciously-transposed to force-fit current events.  Throughout history, alliances have fluidly come and gone - yesterday's "enemy" becomes today's "friend", etc., (look at Japan & Germany vis`vie the U.S., for instance).  Such do not constitute "prophesy" unless a liberal dose of blind faith is applied to obscure reasoning abilities.

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

[falcon9]

Well, I see that debating & discussing the issue is over, and the usual insults and attacks have begun. There is one thing that I’m curious about, however, and that is if you bible-bashers do have to face God someday ...

So now that the "usual insults and attacks have begun" as you say, just a few things that I am curious about.

Of course such was seen to begin when "rghvac69" began them ...
    

1.) Why call a non-believer a "Bible-basher" when you're the one attempting to "beat" others with your Bible?  Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or they challenge your thoughts...they are automatically entitled to be served hatred from you?   Maybe you should consider getting one of those moving graphics like falcon9 has of "beating a dead horse" only have a character "beating" others with a Bible, I'm sure it would be no time before several others would have to have one too.

I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

  2.)  Which version of the Bible did you base your comments on?  I use many versions when studying while tending to rely most on the King James.  I ask because I cannot find any verses in any of those versions about there being any "lemonade", "fudge" or "pants" for that matter on Judgment Day.  Nothing about popcorn or any sort of "heavenly brew for you" either, sorry.  

You know how they've got books out like "Windows For Idiots", "Debating For Idiots", "Bible For ... "?

[jcribb16]

    Let’s start with the Russian/Iranian alliance.

Let's stop using 'biblical' sources which are self-referential, (which is a logical fallacy and rejected not only on that basis but, on the basis of a self-serving agenda of "it says so in the 'bible' and that's believed without question" - when it is questioned), and are loosely-interpreted as "prophesies".  Such dubious references have no foundation in reason and rely instead entirely upon belief and yes, blind faith.
  

    Now, when I watch the current events on the news, and hear of Russia and Iran becoming allies, and partners in Iran’s nuclear program, and their threats (especially Iran) against Israel, I think of this chapter, and to me, at least, is evidence that this prophecy is correct.

Not only is your "evidence" specious, it does not constitute evidence according to the definition of that term.  What it does constitute is textual hearsay and hearsay is questionable 'witness' testimony, not evidence, (except perhaps of perjory).

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of
their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science --or any honest intellectual inquiry."
-- Stephen J. Gould

I'm waiting for you to "debate" the rest of rghvac's response to you - I was surprised you didn't comment on any of the core comment with regards to history.  Thanks.

I've already challenged the assumptions posted in « Reply #5 on: 02-06-2012, 19:29:49 » Message ID: 546967.  The OP decided that the "debate" was over before it had begun.  

As for dubious biblical interpretations of "gog and magog" relating to any current events being "prophesies", the contextual references to events occurring at the time they were written of are being speciously-transposed to force-fit current events.  Throughout history, alliances have fluidly come and gone - yesterday's "enemy" becomes today's "friend", etc., (look at Japan & Germany vis`vie the U.S., for instance).  Such do not constitute "prophesy" unless a liberal dose of blind faith is applied to obscure reasoning abilities.

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.

[falcon9]

I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.

Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

[duroz]

I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

I believe you MAY perhaps find your desired images if you just look to the sea for a message bottle.....

[falcon9]

I'm still trying to locate a .gif of a fundie beating/thumping some 'non-believer' with a bible - upon success, others will quickly know, (although I did find another related one ...)

I believe you MAY perhaps find your desired images if you just look to the sea for a message bottle.....

One can never tell just what may wash up on-shore sometimes, (mostly it's kelp but, not always).
 

[jcribb16]

I agree you addressed his first and last parts.  Now you address the "gog" part.  However you still have not addressed the core middle 3 paragraphs.  You never not respond to anything like that, which makes me question you on this.  Either you can disprove him or you can't.  That's all I'm wondering.

Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!

[falcon9]

Those paragraphs relied directly upon translated/retranslated/interpreted/reinterpreted 'biblical passages' which, as you're already aware, I regard as dubious reference sources at best.

I'll take it then, that you are unable to disprove them.  Thanks!

That's the second inaccurate assumption you've made within minutes of one another.  The burden of proof rests with the one making the claim, (that would be the OP), not with the one challenging that claim, (nor by logical fallacy 'challenges' to "disprove" someone else's unproven claim).
In realizing that you've previously demonstrated a distinct unfamilarity with logical fallacies, the opportunity to emphasize when you've done it again was taken.