Well, I can't say I blame you for that.

And there are a lot of good reasons to believe that there is no "God" or any kind of spiritual or magickal basis for reality.

After all, I will be the first to confess that the number one problem for all religions and spiritual beliefs is the problem of evil.

Religions like Christianity try to deal with it by pinning the blame for Evil onto a demonic fallen angel and humanity in general. Personally I think that's a truly lame solution to the problem and doesn't genuinely address the problem sufficiently at all.

Eastern Mysticism tries to sweep the problem of evil under the carpet by pretending that it doesn't exist. It's just a human concept based on what humans personally don't like. In other words, from the universal picture there is no such thing as evil, all that exist are things that humans personally don't like.

That may seem like a cop-out, but from a purely philosophical point of view it has some merit.

In any case, atheism does indeed have the strongest case for so-called 'evil'. Evil is nothing more than imperfection really. And since in atheism the idea is that the universe is just a random freak accident then there's no reason to expect it to be perfect. On the contrary we're pretty darn lucky it turned out as well as it did! The problem of 'evil' is not a problem at all. Imperfection is to be expected in a random accident. So atheism has no need to explain it away, it's fits right in with their theory of life.

So I will grant you that atheism holds the strong hand when it comes to explaining the existence of 'evil' or imperfection.

For me, that's truly the strongest case for atheism right there.

I mean, the idea that mankind could be responsible for 'evil' or imperfection is utterly absurd. It's clear from what we know that the world was dog-eat-dog long before mankind come onto the scene. So the universe was 'evil' long before mankind ever had a chance to 'fall from grace'. So religions that rely on that explanation are truly lame now.

The Eastern Mystics still have a shot because they just claim that there is no such thing as 'imperfection' and that the whole concept is nothing other than a human construct based on what humans themselves judge to be 'imperfect'.

But the atheists can just say, "No. The universe is just a fu(ked up accident and that explains everything!".

I will grant you that one!

Say hi to your cat for me.

So in other words, you don't have an alternate picture to offer?

I'm not surprised in the least.

Nothing but hot air as usual.

I may as well say hi to my cat, it'll be every bit as deep as any conversation I've ever had with you.

It would have been nice to hear an alternative view. To bad you don't have one to offer.

Have a nice day.

Nope, same picture... You're wrong about what you claim the bible "demands" and cannot provide proof of your twisted claims.

It's time for you to put up or shut up! You haven't a clue and you're just spewing the same old garbage constantly. I've told you before, your insults do nothing but show your intelligence (or lack thereof) and character.

Just once I'd like to see you provide proof, but sadly you can't. I know you can't, as I know where your twisted view comes from. Instead you will continue the lame insults and denial of the facts.
(this is my prediction)(of course with zero evidence, maybe 7 paragraphs worth))

Why bother responding if you can't provide evidence? I'm just gonna bring up the fact that you cannot provide evidence if you continue your ad-hominem attacks and deflection tactics. If these so-called "demands" are in the Bible, why can't you point us to where they are??? (maybe twice?)

Please, leave your cat out of your conversations. No one and nothing should have to put up with your inane nonsense repeated ad-nauseam.

No veiled inuendos there, I said it, here's my proof:
http://mingle2.com/forum/show_posts_by_user/130401















back it up Forest and let's see who's full of hot air.

Exactly what "insults" are you talking about?

I see no merit at all in any of your personal ranting toward me. Moreover, it's against the forum rules to be attacking a poster like you continually do as you CONSTANTLY TROLL me.

You seem to be making some sort of accusation against me about not providing "proof" of my opinions which is an absurd notion in the first place.

Instead of attacking me directly why don't you just voice your opinions? (if you even have any)

YES, I do indeed hold the view that Christianity makes the 'claim' that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of Yahweh and was sent by Yahwah via a miraculous virgin of Mary, for the express purpose of being his "Sacrificial Lamb" to offer "Salvation" to mankind.

That's what I've been taught as a Christian. This is what I have heard being taught by every Christian I've ever met, and if I'm wrong about this I'm totally OPEN to hearing opposing views.

In the meantime you don't appear to even have an opposing view.

All you keep doing is demanding that I show "proof" of my claims about Christianity. As far as I'm concerned the so-called "proof" is obvious and self-evident. I don't see anyone offering an alternative view, not even YOU!

I'm totally open to hearing anyone's view that holds that Christianity does not claim that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of Yahweh, who was sent to Earth via the Virgin birth of Mary for the express purpose of offering Salvation to men as the "Sacrificial Lamb of God".

If anyone has an alternative view of what Christianity stands for, I'd be more than open to hearing it.

Also, if you find that "claim" to be "insulting", then what I can say? Evidently you are insulted by Christianity, not by me!

Don't be pushing the absurdities of Christianity onto me!

Either give an alternative explanation of what the religion actually stands for, or bug off.

I'm sick of your constant PERSONAL TROLLING of me.

If you're insulted by the claims of Christianity take it up with the Christians, don't be TROLLING ME with your unwarranted demands for "proof". The proof is in the pudding bud.

Do you have an alternative explanation of what Chrsitainity stands for? If not, then what the hell are you even barking about?

Personally I think you're just upset because I hit the nail square on the head, and you can't offer an alternative explanation because there isn't one to offer.

You KNOW that what I speak is the TRUTH!

Moreover, if you've been following my posts you should also KNOW that I am in complete disagreement with Christianity.

I personally don't believe that Jesus was the son of Yahweh, I don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and I don't believe that he was the sacrificial lamb of God who was sacrificed to pay for the salvation of mankind.

So, I personally don't buy into any of it.

And I even agree that such a "claim" would indeed be "insulting", it would be insulting to both mankind, and God. The whole religion is an abomination to both man and God.

On that point I'm in total agreement with you!

Of course, no proof.

I like how you changed "the bible demands" to "what Christianity stands for".

If you'd like for me to quote your various insults, I will. However, I recommend not asking me to do so.

And no, you are not open to other views of Christianity, you have your mind made up on that subject. You can't even acknowledge the pagan influence on the Catholic Church. If you want to learn what Christianity is about, learn about Judaism first.


And don't think it's personal, it's about the inaccuracies of your posts. I know there is no proof...


You know why there's no proof? Because you somehow believe in papacy, the Catholic's position that the church is infallible and has absolute authority. They claim that whatever they state is the truth. So they told you what it meant and you believed them. Is this why you think these demands are in the Bible???

So if you wish to support a bunch of pagan Romans whose sole intention was to brainwash and control the lowly pagan peasants, more power to ya. I myself, am not that naive.


And you really should look up the definition of "trolling", every anti-Christian post you've made would be considered a prime example.

I haven't changed anything. You're the one who's making all the absurd accusations, not me.

What exactly is it that you seek "proof" of?

That the authors of the Bible claim that Jesus was the son of God?


John.3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


I've never met a Christian who doesn't know this verse off by heart.

It's just common knowledge that this is what the religion stands for.

There have been major movies about the subject.

Have you ever seen a crucifix? They're a quite popular item you know.

It's common knowledge that the "Blood of Christ" will wash away your sins. In fact, nothing else will do according to the vast majority of Christian sects!



I would highly recommend that you cease your personal trolling and attacking of me personally as you are already well over that line!



Would it matter if I was open to other views of Christianity? You have yet to offer one, you're too busy making personal attacks directed squarely at me! You're way out of line in your personal attacking and trolling.

Moreover, I do acknowledge that there are indeed very minority sects that try to offer up Christianity in a way that doesn't fit the mainstream picture, but they are in fact, quite small in number.

Hells bells, I have my own version. In my version Jesus was a Buddhist and the whole messiah thing was a mistake, and Yahweh is a myth. How's that? Would you accept that view as 'mainstream Christianity'?

The problem is that the Bible doesn't agree with views that demand that the Bible itself is in error. In other words, if you disagree with John 3:16 then how can you truly claim that your version is in agreement with the Bible?

Clearly my version of historical events suggests that the New Testament is false.



There are no inaccuracies in my posts. I'm posting personal opinions and views! It's my personal opinion and view that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bohisattva and not "The Christ" as the authors of the New Testament try to make out.

That, my friend, is a personal opinion and cannot be "inaccurate". If you disagree with it, fine, but calling it 'inaccurate' is absurd. It's just a personal view which I'm entitled to.



That's just plain wrong.

Protestants are Protestants because the "Protested" against the original religion and went off to make up their own version of it.

It's right in their name. Protestants. They protested against the Church and became rebel Paper Popes trying to make up their own interpretations of things. Much like me actually!

I simply take Protestantism to the maximum and protest against the whole Bible as being totally incorrect.

I'm the ultimate Protestant.



That's all any form of Christianity basically does, even the protesting forms of it. They never truly dropped the brainwash and control schemes, they just tried to twist them around to oust the Pope and become Paper Popes themselves.



You my friend have been trolling me for over a week now! You continually make personal accusations about me and my views on the Bible. I have continually told you that if you have a different view of the Bible then just post your views but instead you keep attacking me claiming that I have no 'proof' of mine.

I don't need 'proof' of my views. I've given more than sufficient reasons why they are sane and sensible.

You say that I post, "Anti-Christian" views. So what? Christians post "Anti-all-other-religion" views when they demand that Christ is the Only Way To God and that everyone needs to accept Christ as their "Savior" or either perish or be damned.

I don't even make nasty threats to people who don't agree with my views. If you don't believe that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist it's not a problem.

You seem to have yourself all worked up in some ego-trap concerning 'Peter_Pan' versus 'Abracadabra'. I'm not interested in that sort of thing.

If you have alternate views to express concerning how you view Christianity please express them.

On the other hand, if you're going to continue trolling me claiming that I have no proof of my views, then please go find another hobby.

I have more than enough justification for the views I hold and I have posted my explanations on many occasions and will continue to do so.

By the way, disagreeing with the Bible, should not be seen as "Anti-Christian". The book itself claims to speak for the creator of all humanity. That gives every human the right voice their opinions about the book and the authors without exception.

I disagree with the authors of the Bible. It's a book. It's a book that claims to speak for my creator. That gives me the right to review it and post my views on it. Yes, it's true I personally feel that the book is utterly absurd and I totally disagree with the conclusions that many of the authors of the Bible have jumped to.

But I'm totally within my rights as a human being to comment and review a book that claims to speak for my creator.

I renounce the conclusions and views of those authors.

Since you didn't write the book I see no reason for you to be insulted by that.

Man, you just can't be truthful... You can call me a troll all you want, by responding to my posts with more stupid, egotistical, delusional and paranoid insults instead of facts just "DEMANDS" a response from me. (according to your logic, you shouldn't be insulted by this statement, right?)

I've said it before, everyone is welcome to their opinion. It's when they start trying to support them with "facts" that I'll point out the errors, hipocrisies, rudeness, whatever.

Your tactics are filled with false dilemas, false pretenses, ad-hominems, circular logic, deflections and a general lack of focus. I say "general", because you do have focus, and I can recognise where your posts will lead, it just doesn't matter how you get there.

So you now claim:
"I disagree with the authors of the Bible. It's a book. It's a book that claims to speak for my creator" and "The book itself claims to speak for the creator of all humanity."

I don't suppose it says that in the Bible somewhere? Show me proof of that one if you will. And don't just show qoutes from God either, show me where it claims the book speaks for God.

And by the same rights, if you claim to speak for Christianity, that gives every Christian the right to respond to you.

Don't think it's personal because you are getting frustrated with the fact I'm right...

You've been trolling me personally for over a week now with continued personal accusations about me. You haven't addressed the actual topic or subject of Christianity yet.

Apparently you're the one who's frustrated and basically incapable of coming up with a fruitful or productive reply.



That's absolutely correct. Any so-called "Christian", or anyone for that matter, is perfectly within their right to disagree with my views and offer their own views in return.

But you haven't done that have you? All you keep doing is accusing me of failing to give proof of my claims (which I have actually given in the form of Biblical Verses). I've backed up all my claims with Biblical Verses.

If you want to claim that John 3:16 is a lie, then that's up to you to offer your opinions and views on that. In the meantime everything you've claimed about me is an outright lie.

Clearly you're the one who's frustrated because you can't offer any evidence whatsoever that even remotely shows that anything I say is wrong.

Christianity is entirely dependent upon a totally innocent Jesus having been wrongfully crucified and raised from the dead.

In fact, a bit part of their claim is that Jesus was the totally non-blemished "Lamb of God", they often claim that Jesus has to have been without sin, otherwise he wouldn't have been "suitable" as a sacrificial lamb.

Clearly you don't even understand the mythology at all.

As soon as you try to suggest that Jesus wasn't the "sacrificial lamb of God" you run into all sorts of problems. That would mean that it wasn't God's intent to have Jesus crucified, but, OOPS! If it wasn't God's intent then the whole story is in big trouble because now you have a God who can't even save his own son from disaster. Moreover, it doesn't say much for a God who merely sent his son to teach love and ended up losing him to an angry mob instead.

Nope, the only scenario that can even work is if the crucifixion itself was indeed God's PLAN. And the only scenario in which that even begins to make any sense at all is the idea that Jesus was God's "sacrificial lamb" sent to pay for the salvation of man.


(Which is indeed the Christian view no matter how much you deny it)

But now you have a God appeasing himself with a blood sacrifice so he can forgive men of their sins, which is sicker than hell.

The story is stuck being what it is. As much as you wish that it was a different story it just isn't, and it really can't be twisted into a different story and still be made to make any sense at all.

The only "sense" it can make is if you assume God is appeased by blood sacrifices, and that he sent Jesus to be a blood sacrifice to appease himself.

That's the only scenario that can even work. And it's my view that such a scenario is utterly asinine and stupid.

Now if you have a different scenario to offer then by all means offer it.

If you don't, then all you can do is disagree with me that it's a stupid scenario.

But screaming that I'm somehow 'wrong' or that I need to 'proof' my claims is utterly absurd. Most people know the story well enough to fully understand that I've correctly depicted the story.

And, like I say, if they feel that my version is wrong, then all they need to do is offer a different version.

But so far, I haven't seen anyone step up to the plate on that one. Especially not [byou!

That's because you know perfectly well that what I say is indeed the truth.

So either put up, or shut up.

Give an alternative scenario for the story, or quit screaming that I need to 'prove' my claims. Because my claims are indeed the status quo!

The mere fact that you can't even offer an alternative scenario is proof that I've nailed the story.

If you had a different view to offer, I'm sure you'd offer it.

Clearly you don't. And that's why you are so frustrated. You know that what I say is true and you can't even offer an alternative view or scenario because no other scenario can work!

Your total inability to offer an alternative view is vividly apparent!

Yes I have, I stated my position that "your" version is paganism. You denied my claim using no actual proof and continued to avoid the challenges I made to your claims.



One verse? And of course it was something I never challenged. That was when you made the claim of "only begotten son", "virgin birth" and "sacrificial lamb of God", right? All 3 are pagan concepts, but only "only begotten son" is in the Bible, so of course I knew not to challenge that one.

I keep challenging you and you keep failing to meet the challenge, you then make a whole new claim which of course you cannot backup and the circle continues...
Your latest claim was that the Bible claims to speak for God. Care to back that one up?

You want me to show proof of a negative? I've told you the claims that you say the Bible "demands" are NOT in there. Do you want me to paste the entire Bible to prove it? Sorry, but I'm not gonna do that.




I thought it was dependant on "only begotten son", virgin birth" and "sacrificail lamb of God"... Oppps, there it is...



Clearly I do understand it. I also know the roots of that particular claim. Do you not remeber what I said about Ba'al??? Clearly you do not understand the mythology. So the Pagans make that claim, where in the Bible is that written???




False dilema based on a false pretense.

False pretense-God intentionaly had Jesus crucified.
False pretense-God intervenes in mankind's lives.
False dilema-the only scenario that works is based on your false pretense. That is not the only option.
The religious "leaders" (Jewish), may have felt threatened by Jesus.
or
The Romans felt threatened and had him executed.

I tend to lean towards the whole "Pharasies" story being fabricated by the Romans



And you have challenged me when I called that story BS, remember?
I quoted scripture which showed blood sacrifices were for "unintentional" sins only, and where it was said that God was NOT appeased by blood sacrifices. Not only that, I showed how those sacrifices were to made on an altar, which means Jesus couldn't have been offered up for sacrifice in accordance with Jewish law. Do you need me to describe an altar for you too?
That concept specifically was made up for those who worshipped Ba'al. They regularly scarificed their children as atonement for sins, children being "innocent". That is why the Roman Pagans made the claim Jesus was sinless.

So can you show me in the Bible where it says God sent Jesus to be sacrificed?




False dilema based on a false pretense again.




I have offered my scenario. My scenario is everything that you think is Christianity is in actuality, paganism. Once you accept that fact, then your story makes sense, except for the outrageous claims that you say are in the Bible, well, simply because they're not there... But the story makes sense...






Like when you asked me to back up several of my claims? Was it "utterly absurd" when you requested proof?

"Most people know the story well enough to fully understand that I've correctly depicted the story" -- I can say the same thing, wanna take a poll? I am fairly sure there are enough people here who know the truth, I've seen several of them post pretty much the same things I did.






What's wrong with you proving your claims? You want a different version of Christianity, go read the Bible for yourself.






Ummmmm, what?






I have been "putting up", I even managed to shut you up in this thread for over a week. Remember my paganism post?






Appeal to authority? It doesn't matter what others think, they're not here making the claims. You are.




Sorry, but those last 4 paragraphs were just a tad redundant, don't you think?

I've shown my views numerous times. You once said you would tolerate Christianity if I could prove that the Bible tolerated other religions (at first it was acknowledge other gods, but you changed it to tolerate other religions). I proved it, were you lying back then? Or are you a hypocrite now?

You've proven that you refuse to accept any one else's view of Christianity, you've made that abundantly clear. It's also clear that you compare all of Christianity to Catholicism. They're 2 different religions and I know for a fact that you're aware of this.


If you want me to "shut up", then don't respond to this post unless you have proof to meet any one of my challenges of your claims.
Your latest 2 were "infallible word of God" and "that the Bible "claims to speak for God".

Do I need to predict (again), that you will still provide no proof and possibly provide some obscure verse that proves something unrelated? I bet every time I make that prediction you go...

I already made it perfectly clear that I don't agree with your definition of "paganism".

As far as the rest of your post, I don't see anything new there at all. Just more empty babble.



Oh please! So you're attempting to suggest that the Christians don't hold that the Bible is the word of God?

Surely you jest! You're not even being sensible or realistic at all.

Who do you think wrote the Ten Commandments? Moses?

The Bible clearly holds that Jesus is the "Only Begotten Son" of God, therefore the Christians hold that the world of Jesus is indeed the word of God.

You're not even in the ballpark.

I'm not the one who makes these 'claims'. On the contrary I've held consistently throughout that I reject these very notions. I don't believe the Ten Commandments came from God, nor do I believe that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God.

That's precisely why I can't claim to be a Christian, I totally renounce the very pillars upon which the religion stands.

Now you're asking for proof that the Bible makes these claims?

You say:

I guess not. It wouldn't do you any good because the Bible clearly states the opposite! The Bible demands that God spoke to Moses, and gave him the Ten Commandments. The Bible demands that God spoke to Job. The Bible demands that God spoke to Joshuah. The Bible demands that God spoke to Noah. There's a whole lot more examples as well.

And then if Jesus is said to be the "Only Begotten Son" of God who was sent by God to deliver us a message and then be crucified to pay for our Salvation, then the very words of Jesus are recognized to be the "Word of God".

Now you're trying to "claim" that there are no such claims made in the Bible?

You're worse than me!

You're basically saying that the Christian are so full of it that the book they base their religion on doesn't even agree with their claims!

At least I recognize that the book does indeed make the claims the Christians demand.


So according to you then, the Ten Commandments did not come from God, and the nowhere in the Bible does the book claim to speak for God", and Jesus couldn't have been the "Only Begotten Son" of God?

Is that your claim?



I mean, if it is, that's fine with me, I won't ask you to prove it. I'll just tell you outright that I disagree with your views. I've read enough of the Bible to know that it does indeed claim to speak for God. And I've been around enough Christians to know that they view the Bible as "God's Word".

You've got to be living in la-la land if you're in denial of these basic fundamental tenants of the religion.

Try telling an honest Christian that the Ten Commandments are nothing more than the personal opinions of Moses and I doubt that you'll find many Christians who will agree with you.

Try telling an honest Christian that the teachings of Jesus were just the opinions of a mere mortal man and did not come from God, and I doubt that you'll find many Christians who will agree with you.

You're not even making sense in terms of what Christianity holds to be true if you're going to renounce the Bible as the "word of God".

That's heathen talk right there my friend.

You can deny the facts all you want. You can play semantic games all you want. Paganism, my definition, fits perfectly.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan
pa·gan   /ˈpeɪgən/ Show Spelled[pey-guhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

Well, I agree with you about #3, throw that one out.
The other 2 fit perfectly, especialy when I stated later "specifically, the religion(s) practiced by the Roman Empire between 1 AD - 400 AD" (which, if you remember, I've stated in other threads also)






2 things...
1. If the Bible was the word of God, it should have started "In the beginning "I" created the heavens and the earth". That right there tells you it's written by man.
2. It says in the Bible that no man can see God's true image or hear His true voice without dying. All references to speaking to God have been in visions, dreams, angels delivering messages or what have you.
God is ultimately unknowable from our perspective.


So we have here are OT stories that by Jewish tradition are to be interpreted and not taken literaly. I know you recognise that aspect of Judeaism, right? I also want to point out the the OT is most likely NOT corrupted. I remember your mention of no printing presses earlier and want to point out that the Israelites had a very effective error-correction technique for the scribes to use when making copies.
Each page had a word count, letter count, each word was assigned a number and key locations on the page were recorded in the margins. This assured accuracy when transcribing scrolls. You may want to call the Dead Sea Scrolls documented proof of lack of corruption.

You also acknowledged Jesus remarked about the "laws of man". That proves it can't be fully "the word of God". Now if you wanna discuss "inspired by God", start a new thread and I'll be happy to share my views about that subject.

As for my proof that the Bible is not infallible, nor is it guaranteed non-corrupted, I'll have to quote Revelations 22:18-19 ...
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I believe there is a similar verse in the OT, but my memory sucks and I really hate having to quote scripture.
But that one verse alone should be proof against infallibilty, it clearly recognises that words could be added to or taken away from the Bible.





I said I know that "Only Begotten Son" is in the Bible, I never disputed that one. Clearly another pagan concept, many mythologies had their gods taking human form. I'll call that churchianity and casually dismiss it, k?
And that chapter doesn't address the "sacrificial Lamb of God". It is only John who uses the term "Lamb of God", didn't you once call him a drunkard?



No, I'm saying the pagans are so full of it that the book they base their religion on doesn't even agree with their claims. (your claims too)
If it "does indeed" make the claims, then why are you so reluctant to provide proof of what I challenge instead of changing the subject constantly?



Don't even start with that dishonest crap again. Pay attention to what I write, not want you want to hear, ok?







blah, blah, blah.
"I've read enough of the Bible to know that it does indeed claim to speak for God"

Prove it...

I already told you I don't feel a need to. If you disagree with my views, then more power to you!

If you believe that the authors of the Bible never even claimed to speak for God, that's fine with me! I have no problem with that.

But there are many religious people who do indeed claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of God sent to pay for the salvation of men.

If you're not one of those people, then just ignore my posts because clearly you're already in agreement with me.

By the way, I already agreed that Christian bigots define "Paganism" in a way that I disagree with. So posting their definitions for "paganism" doesn't impress me. I've already conceded that Christians use the term "Pagan" and "Heathen" interchangeably.

But the people who actually consider themselves to be 'pagans' couldn't care less about Christian bigotry. And I'm sure they don't define themselves as an irreligious or hedonistic persons.

You've got to really be sucked into Christian bigotry to fall for those definitions. Do you honestly believe that "pagans" consider themselves to be irreligious or hedonistic people?

You may as well toss the word in the trash can if you're going to allow the Christians to define it.

To a "Pagan" paganism means to revere nature, or Mother Earth, or the cosmos itself as being a divine entity of which we are merely a facet. It's a totally wholesome and loving spirituality.

The Christians are the ones who turned the term into a hateful degrading term. If you want to know what paganism means to a pagan ask a pagan, not a Christian.

Typical answer from someone with zero evidence!
If you can't provide proof, then you are no better than what you think of the authors of the NT. Nothing but hearsay, no actual eyewitness accounts, possibly a drunkard, egotistical and I'm sure I'll get a few more insults from your words somewhere.

You "don't feel the need to", because you'd look foolish if you said the truth, that YOU CAN'T provide proof!!! Of if you tried to show proof and failed.

You expected me to present my views knowing full well you would not back up your bigoted claims. All I ever see if you offering your delusional opinions, with the "claim" that they are fact.






That's a lie! You cried and moaned that no one gave an alternate view because you CAN'T prove your propaganda. You expect other people to prove their points, why can't you prove yours?

yeah, yeah, I know, but "I don't feel the need to", "every one is aware of that fact", "my mommy told me so" and "everyone else does it" are NOT proof.
And some off-tangent verse that isn't related to the topic at hand is not proof either.






Yet another claim... One with no supporting evidence provided I might add. I'm sure you could provide evidence of that one, so I'll not challenge it. Since you make that claim and consider yourself "religious" or specificaly "spiritual", it proves itself.

However, notice how you changed the context of the previous claim, from "the Bible" to "religious people"... Quite dishonest of you, tsk, tsk.
I'm not disagreeing with "religious people", I'm disagreeing with YOU and YOUR claims about what is in the Bible.


And stop extrapolating, else I will start finishing every post with "so unless you can provide proof, then you, Abra are clearly in agreement with my statements". Actually, you are if you think about it. I say there is no proof of your claims and you can't provide any evidence, and you prove it by not presenting any.





You really need to get a dictionary, "bigotry" describes your views more than a Christian's. You are the one who is not open to other beliefs or ideas. You are the one who is intollerant. I've shown you verses which clearly proves the tollerance of other religions. And I recognise that you are directly calling me a bigot with this statement "By the way, I already agreed that Christian bigots define "Paganism" in a way that I disagree with." So with that in mind, I'm going to re-define the religion(s) of ancient Rome just for you.


I am not surprised that you would waste 6 paragraphs on the semantics of "paganism". After all, you have no basis for your other claims, so this would be the only subject that you can dispute.
Ignore the fact that I gave my definition of the term from the dictionary. Ignore the fact that documented history calls the ancient Roman religions Paganism. Ignore the fact that modern pagans recognise what the Romans have done to their religion. But mostly, ignore the fact that by the definition I provided, "paganism CANNOT be considered Christianity". So I see why you must play the semantic game as your entire rant against Christianity would have been mis-directed...

Tell you what, since you don't want to be associated with the ancient Romans by me calling them Pagans, and I don't want to be linked to them by you calling them Christians, how about we agree on a new name for them? Say, Morons... Practicing Moronism taught by Moronic priests? Yeah, I like that, I think I'll use it.

So we have ancient Roman Pagans and early Christianity co-existing for what, 300 years? The Romans persecuted the Christians regularly during that time. You can deny that fact but I'll just say you're delusional if you try.
The Hebrews had a "truce" with the Romans, so their religion was "tolerated", but any other religion that contradicted the Romans' was banned, with the penalty of death for practicing it. I wonder how many Christians were fed to the lions or otherwise publicly executed?

So later, the Roman leaders decided that they needed to "unite" all of their empire under one religion. They recognised the popularity Christianity was gaining so they took Christianity and intermingled pagan rituals, beliefs and mythologies into a new religion, "Moronism". They decreed "Moronism" to be the national religion and tried converting as many morons as they could. Not to worry though, most of the Pagans and Christians were already morons, they just didn't know it.
Now to truly be a Moron, you had to believe every word the Moronic Priest spoke was the truth unquestionably. You also had to believe there was good, Moronic reason that you were not allowed to read the Bible.
One of the smartest things the ancient Roman Morons did was to gather up all of the scriptures they could find about Jesus and being a Christian.
Two of the dumbest things the Morons did was fail to destroy all of the originals, and/or simply re-write the Bible from scratch.

So then the head Morons decided to add to their "Bible" a few pagan beliefs such as "God walking amongst man", the "virgin birth", and the biggest claim, "sacrificial lamb of God". Only a moron would believe that one could atone for sin by commiting another. That is truly a Moronic concept if I've ever heard one.
The main moronic problem is that the Morons forgot to redact the contradictory claims of the Bible itself.
Jesus himself denies being God...
The OT was mistranslated and misapplied to reference Jesus. "virgin" should have been translated "young maiden"...
The Bible clearly states that human and child sacrifice are an abomination...

That didn't matter though, there were plenty of morons to be converted still. The Moronic leaders wanted more power and praise, so they forcibly converted as many morons as they could. Morons were happy to be blind sheep though, so the conversions were quite a success.

Some Morons were so enthralled with Moronic teachings that they went against what the Bible said, made an oath of abstinence and went to Moron school to become Moronic Priests.

So now we have Morons teaching Moronic philosophy to young Morons. What a truly Moronic concept!


Sorry, but I'm not a Moron, you will have to prove your claims if you wish for any non-moron to believe you...

So you're suggesting that the King James Version of the Bible that is the basis of most of modern Christianity was written by morons?

You won't get any argument from me on that one.

That's basically what I've been saying all alone.

With every post you make you seem to be in more agreement with me.

I'll accept this as your opinion, as I realize that this is all that it is. However, since you're so big on demanding proof of views may I ask if you have proof that these authors of the Bible were indeed morons?

Not that I really care, but since you're always demanding proof of other people's views I figured that you must be prepared to offer proof of your views. It might be interesting to see what you consider to be 'proof'.

But overall, I'm in agreement with you, the things that were written into the modern day bible are indeed absurd. That's the point that I've been making all along.

You seem to be confirming it with you view.

I cannot believe that you would take the most insulting post I've ever written and somehow think it supports your views.

I'm saying that only a Moron would believe something was in the Bible when it wasn't. Only a Moron would believe the ideas supported by purposeful mistranslation. Only a Moron would be oblivious to the facts.

Well, based on what you've stated above that would be about 99.9% of all Christians, since it's the Christians who preach that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God born of a virgin and was sent to be the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for the sins of man.

As far as I can see you're just calling the bulk of Christianity to be morons.

Not to mention that you'd be calling the Authors of the New Testament morons as well.

Are you going to deny John 3:16?


John.3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Are you going to deny Matthew 3:17


Matt.3:14 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


I'm sorry but I'll just have to disagree with your views. As far as I can see you're either just not very well educated in what the Bible actually says, or you're rejecting it's content based on some idea that you feel it has been misinterpreted, or that the authors were morons.

The Bible clear claims that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God

The Bible clearly claims that God himself has spoken to confirm that the authors of the Bible do indeed speak for God.

You're position that the authors of the Bible don't claim to speak for God simply can't be supported. They do this all the way through the book.

It's like you don't even have a clue what the Bible stands for if your attempting to deny that it supposedly speaks for God.

By the way, you has asked for me to prove that the authors of the Bible claim to speak for God, I already gave you many proofs of this. Starting with God giving Moses the Ten Commandments.

However, I just now posted another blatant example of this with Matthew:


Matt.3:14 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.


If that's not claiming to speak for God I don't know what is!

And then you have John 3:16 that also claims that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God:


John.3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


How many times do I need to post these before you realize that these men are attempting to speak for God?

In fact John goes on to say


Jonh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


John is clearly demanding here that the words he speaks come directly from God and that if you refuse to believe his words, you are rejecting God himself.

Who are you trying to kid Peter_Pan? Yourself?

You must be, because you certainly aren't coming close to kidding me!

The authors of the Bible claim to speak for God all the way through the book. There can be no denying it. Yet that's precisely what you're attempting to do!

Either that or you're calling the authors of the Bible morons and demanding that everything that's in the modern King James Version of the Bible is all utterly confused misinterpretations.

However, if you actually hold that view, you could potentially be in agreement with me. But I too believe that these authors of the New Testament were either deluded themselves, or purposeful con artists who were attempting to use the rumors of Jesus to support their religious views.

I don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or was the sacrificial lamb of God, or even the Only Begotten Son, of God.

I don't believe any of it. But that doesn't change the fact that the authors of the Bible most certainly tried to make a case for those very things!

You seem to be suggesting that the authors of the Bible didn't even claim to speak for God.

Good luck with convincing anyone of that.

This just proves that you see and hear only what you want.
I told you not to extrapolate. I'm calling the Roman Pagans Morons, I'm calling you a Moron as you bought into their BS and are obviously still supporting their main beliefs.

Now let me explain what you did here... You took the 1 claim you made that I said I'll not challenge and post it several times as if it proves something. Do you want to post the only other 2 verses where that appears? Maybe you could prove nothing some more...
You made 3 claims in that one statement, virgin birth, only begotten Son, and sent by God to be sacrificed. I challenged the other two, care to prove those claims? You may not believe in those things, but you made the claim that they were in the Bible.


It would appear that I don't have to convince anyone, people already know...
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_defn4.htm#org

"The primitive Christian movement: circa 30 CE:

Before the religious conversion of Saul/Paul, the only Christian group seems to have been the Jewish Christians in Palestine. It was formed by the followers of Jesus and was led by James, who was referred to as the brother of Jesus. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves as a Jewish reform group. They attended and supplied animal sacrifices at the Temple, celebrated the Jewish seasonal festivals, practiced circumcision of their male children, and followed the strict dietary and behavioral laws in the Hebrew Scriptures. They regarded Jesus as a prophet anointed by God, and not in any way divine. Beliefs such as the virgin birth and Trinity, were unknown to them. Church organizations, including priests, bishops, formal creeds, etc were not part of their practice; these developments only appeared in Christianity decades or centuries in their future."


I never claimed the authors were morons, on the contrary, I claim that the members of the "church" and the Roman leaders were the morons. They clearly added to the stories, both oral traditions (not in the Bible) and written texts (clear forgeries). I specifically challenged those oral traditions that you claimed are in the Bible which are not.
I know that they're not, by now, you should know that they're not.


We may not come to any agreement regarding what you deem a "claim that the authors speak for God" Here's my take on it.

Abra says: "Good luck with convincing anyone of that." Am I speaking for you? Or quoting you? I say quoting...

Abra likes green beans with mustard and maple syrup. Am I speaking for you or quoting? I'd be speaking "for" you there... (unless you really like that)

Everything I say is the words of Abra. Here I'd be "claiming" to speak for you.

I said earlier that a quote from God would not prove your claim to me, yet you try to use one as evidence? Valiant effort, but I'm not buying it. The whole inerrant word of God idea is a Roman Moronic concept. Supported by the Moronic position that the leader of the church has the authority to speak for God. I would need proof before I believe that any man has the authority to speak for God or that the Bible directly claims to be inerrant or to speak for God. Now there are some stories where God is said to instruct men as to what they should say, but I don't recall God giving anyone authority to speak for Him.

So, as a non-beleiver, are YOU trying to claim Biblical inerrancy??? Wasn't that your latest claim too? "infallible word of God"? How about support of that one?


You can try to imply that I'm uneducated, delusional or pretending all you want. You are the one who admited to not knowing any Christians that believed as I did. Even if I am pretending, I obviously know more than you. Maybe if you started pretending too, we'd actually start seeing some evidence.

Nope...and can't say that I would do anything different because God already knows my every thought and action before even myself.

But I don't buy into any of it.

I don't believe that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh. I don't believe that Jesus "paid" for anyone's salvation. And I don't believe that Jesus has the power to "save" anyone. I don't even believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead, or any of that.

It's the Christians who keep preaching that sort of thing, not me.

You need to keep better track of who's buying into what.