Jesus or Burn

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]vroom wrote:
pookie wrote:
Those are the words of Paul, not Jesus. In my view, Paul was the first to realize that there was power and respect to be had by lording his “divine authority” over others. Yes, I know, you disagree. Still, Jesus Himself never said that.

I’ve tried to suggest the same to Steveo time and time again, but he conviently ignores the fact that the Bible contains the writings of multiple men, each colored by their own perceptions and purposes.[/quote]

(1) God, the Father, is obviously God.
(2) "In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and the Word[Jesus] was with God, and the Word [Jesus] was God . The same was in the begnning with God. All things were made by Him [the Word = Jesus]; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him [Jesus] was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:1-4
These verses demonstrate that Jesus is God.
(3)“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Acts 5:3-4

Lying to the Holy Spirit = Lying to God, therefore…

Holy Spirit is God.

So, Biblically I have established that The Father, The Son [Jesus}, and the Holy Spirit are all God. Therefore anything, such as Creation for example, that is attributed to God, is at the same time, attritable to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. [quote]

The men around Jesus were just men, and they have all the faults and frailties that men today have. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does Jesus say some of the things that Paul or others have said, when they mangle his message in order to reach the people they are talking to.

Neither is there any mention in the Bible about the special oratory or literary capabilities of his followers, just that they are plain men who chose to follow Jesus and learn what they could from him.[/quote]

Really, no mention? Well how about this:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old timed by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God, the Scripture (the Bible) was written by Jesus (as well as by the Father and the Holy Spirit). The Bible is very clear on this – [b] all the words of the Bible are God’s Words, and since Jesus is God, all the words of the Bible are Jesus’ Words whether or not he uttered them while he was here as the incarnate Son of God.

Therefore, you are plain wrong. [quote]

It’s sad to see the messages of Jesus twisted within the Bible itself. His teachings are so simple… and it would do so much good if people could live them, whether or not they were religious.[/quote]

The Bible cannot twist anything. If it is God’s Word, all of it must be infallable because God is infallable. No cafeteria – cannot pick and choose. [quote]

I think some of the problems come about because of the way that phrases and speech change over time. The way ancient things, such as books, anthems, states, conventions take on a mystical larger than life importances, though they were never meant to.

Steveo, it’s really funny, but you are in fact not spreading the word of Jesus, you are spreading your interpretation of the words of those that spoke their interpretations of his words. I have not once seen you offer anything but “threats” with a holier than thou attitude.[/quote]

Now that is just a plain lie. I have time and again told you that I am a sinner saved by God’s grace – nothing more and nothing less. I was in the gutter of my sin, and Jesus graciously rescued me and He can do that for everyone.

The “threats” as you call them, are not threats, but facts. Facts that Jesus Himself uttered. Look it up in the Bible and see for yourself. Jesus told everyone about Hell and where they would go, while at the same time being loving and merciful. He has provided the only way to salvation, but it is on His terms and not ours. The “attitude” that you attribute to me, perhaps, is your own hatred for God’s word and His plan of salvation. Don’t project your disdain for God onto me. I am only showing what the Bible says. Period. [quote]

There are many many verses in the Bible, spoken by Jesus (not just one of his followers who really don’t have anything important to say on their own) that place you on shaky ground indeed with the path you have been following.

Once again, I’d seriously suggest you think deeply about the concepts of idolatry, theft and trespass. I am sure many of us that you have condemned would be allowed to laugh at you from heaven if you didn’t make it in.[/quote]

Unfortunately, if you aren’t saved, you won’t get the chance.

203

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
I’ve tried to suggest the same to Steveo time and time again, but he conviently ignores the fact that the Bible contains the writings of multiple men, each colored by their own perceptions and purposes.

That’s why I’ve been concentrating on Jesus’ teachings and not the rest of the Bible. Interestingly, we have 4 gospels telling the same story and being in fairly good agreement with one another. No other book of the Bible has that peculiarity. (Ok, there are two Genesis and at least three versions of the Commandments, but it’s not the same.)

The men around Jesus were just men, and they have all the faults and frailties that men today have. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does Jesus say some of the things that Paul or others have said, when they mangle his message in order to reach the people they are talking to.

The base message is very simple. I don’t understand people’s fascination with the rest of it. Sometimes it seems like the message is so simple, that people need more and then they get lost in interpreting the details.

It’d be great if they’d put in the same effort in living the message.

Neither is there any mention in the Bible about the special oratory or literary capabilities of his followers, just that they are plain men who chose to follow Jesus and learn what they could from him.

It’s sad to see the messages of Jesus twisted within the Bible itself. His teachings are so simple… and it would do so much good if people could live them, whether or not they were religious.

Exactly.

[/quote]

Pookie,

See my response to Vroom.

The plain fact is that the Bible teaches:

The Father = Son = Holy Spirit = God

God = wrote the Bible and so all of the Bible’s words are God’s words.

Since Jesus = God, all of the Bible’s Words are Jesus’ words.

See how simple it is to study the Scripture? That is theological fact. Any other conclusion cannot be Biblical teaching, because it would be inconsistent with the Bible. So, to assert that only the “red words” are Jesus’ words is wrong, plain wrong.

Therefore all of the Bible holds authority even the parts that you don’t like – you know, the Lake of Fire stuff.

Bow or Burn – it’s Biblical!

P.S. Since you continued the thread, I felt I had no choice but to respond. Try to explain that to Professor X.

204

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
God = wrote the Bible and so all of the Bible’s words are God’s words.
[/quote]

God didn’t write the bible, some dudes from 2000 years ago did. Is there a book of GOD somewhere? All I see are Mark, Matthew, etc. and they aren’t GOD, that was Jesus, right? Is there a book of JESUS? No. He didn’t write anything – he was too busy providing cheap alcohol at parties and healing lepers and shit.

Just sayin’. Get your facts straight. I’m not even a Christian and I know this stuff.

205

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
The plain fact is that the Bible teaches:

The Father = Son = Holy Spirit = God

God = wrote the Bible and so all of the Bible’s words are God’s words.

Since Jesus = God, all of the Bible’s Words are Jesus’ words.

See how simple it is to study the Scripture?

That is theological fact. Any other conclusion cannot be Biblical teaching, because it would be inconsistent with the Bible. So, to assert that only the “red words” are Jesus’ words is wrong, plain wrong.[/quote]

(The red words? What red words?) Your assertion is ridiculous. When the Bible quotes Abraham, is it Jesus/God talking? When Joseph and Mary or Adam and Eve are quoted, is it Jesus/God talking? Is God only a puppet master who lends his voice to every character in the Bible? Your interpretation of the Bible is entirely wrong.

What I understand is that you prefer to see the Bible as “the literal Word of God” because it allows you to pick some of the barbaric pronouncements of the Old Testament, such as those in the book of Leviticus; and to justify your prejudices and bigotry with them.

[quote]Therefore all of the Bible holds authority even the parts that you don’t like – you know, the Lake of Fire stuff.

Bow or Burn – it’s Biblical![/quote]

No, it isn’t. Your understanding of the Bible is incorrect. It is not equal in all of its teachings and some commandments are greater than others. Jesus came to establish a New Covenant that replaces the old one. Some parts of the Bible are superceded by others. You can’t pick some random verse in the Bible and consider it equal in validity and authority to any other verse.

I’d recommend you go by Jesus’ teachings. You are a Christian, right? He is the Christ. You call yourself after Him, I think you should heed His words. (The red ones?)

Why?

206

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Really, no mention? Well how about this:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old timed by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-21
[/quote]

Two issues.

  1. This is not Jesus speaking. This is Peter. He is trying to convince the people listening to him that they must listen to him. This makes his claim suspect, because nowhere does Jesus make the additional claims, conditions and stipulations that his prophets do. Again, the words of Jesus are paramount and the words of men are suspicious and secondary.

  2. What meaning are you attributing to prophecies in this passage? What is the speaker referring to, in your estimation, when discussing this issue?

Again, there is no way that I will give credence to the words of man over the words of Jesus, as he is reported to have said them. You can play little logic games to try and comfort yourself if you wish, but you can’t prove the Bible is not the word of man because a man claims it isn’t.

Of course the men who wrote it will vouch for it!

I can hardly fathom that you would argue against the words of Jesus himself, as reported in the Bible. His words are the important ones and the rest are mens interpretations of his words. That is why there are discrepencies between them. If you could figure that out, it would eliminate the need for you to twist logic to the point of failure in order to support you viewpoint.

Man is flawed. Man is fallible. Man’s imprint is all over the Bible as represented by it’s discrepancies. There is no way divine perfection could result in such a convoluted and hard to interpret work. It’s just a series of histories, diaries and/or journals.

207

[quote]vroom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Really, no mention? Well how about this:

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old timed by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:20-21

Two issues.

  1. This is not Jesus speaking. This is Peter. He is trying to convince the people listening to him that they must listen to him. This makes his claim suspect, because nowhere does Jesus make the additional claims, conditions and stipulations that his prophets do. Again, the words of Jesus are paramount and the words of men are suspicious and secondary.

  2. What meaning are you attributing to prophecies in this passage? What is the speaker referring to, in your estimation, when discussing this issue?

Again, there is no way that I will give credence to the words of man over the words of Jesus, as he is reported to have said them. You can play little logic games to try and comfort yourself if you wish, but you can’t prove the Bible is not the word of man because a man claims it isn’t.

Of course the men who wrote it will vouch for it!

I can hardly fathom that you would argue against the words of Jesus himself, as reported in the Bible. His words are the important ones and the rest are mens interpretations of his words. That is why there are discrepencies between them. If you could figure that out, it would eliminate the need for you to twist logic to the point of failure in order to support you viewpoint.

Man is flawed. Man is fallible. Man’s imprint is all over the Bible as represented by it’s discrepancies. There is no way divine perfection could result in such a convoluted and hard to interpret work. It’s just a series of histories, diaries and/or journals.[/quote]

Vroom,

I am not arguing against the words of Jesus. If you wish, I can quote Him over and over and over again teaching on the subject of Hell and eternal punishment. Yes, He taught love and forgiveness, but God’s forgiveness has always been based on God’s justice.

What you assert here would be the same thing as saying, well since Jesus didn’t actually pen the Torah, then we should disregard what the first five books of the Bible have to say. The fact that Jesus uttered words while on Earth, actually do not make it more or less the Word of God. That is the whole point of God’s Word – it is all God’s Word as I have Biblically demonstrated.

When people pick and choose what parts of the Bible they will or will not accept, that is where people get into spiritual trouble and begin to invent their own religion, instead of having a proper relationship to God, based upon His word and His ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).

208

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
That is the whole point of God’s Word – it is all God’s Word as I have Biblically demonstrated.[/quote]

What about the parts that explicitely claim to not be of God?

1 Corinthians 7:12 - But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1 Corinthians 7:25 - Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The author explicitely writes that his following claims are not from God.

It is then Biblically demonstrated that not all of the Bible is from God. There are at least two verses that are from their human author.

Furthermore, your claim of the Pentateuch’s validity as the Word of God is also contradicted in the New Testament:

Luke 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

“until John” refers to John the Baptist. For you to claim that the Old Testament remains valid to this day is incorrect.

You might be better understood as a Christian if you took the time to understand the Bible correctly. Your misunderstanding and misapplication of it is what causes all the confusion.

210

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That is the whole point of God’s Word – it is all God’s Word as I have Biblically demonstrated.

What about the parts that explicitely claim to not be of God?

1 Corinthians 7:12 - But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1 Corinthians 7:25 - Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The author explicitely writes that his following claims are not from God.

It is then Biblically demonstrated that not all of the Bible is from God. There are at least two verses that are from their human author.

Furthermore, your claim of the Pentateuch’s validity as the Word of God is also contradicted in the New Testament:

Luke 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

“until John” refers to John the Baptist. For you to claim that the Old Testament remains valid to this day is incorrect.

You might be better understood as a Christian if you took the time to understand the Bible correctly. Your misunderstanding and misapplication of it is what causes all the confusion.
[/quote]

Good question Pookie!

That is addressd by the Apostle Peter when he writes (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that [b] “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc…,” and that the “prophesy [Bible] came from Holy men of God who spoke being moved (or bourne along) by the Holy Spirit.”

If God is not the ultimate Author of Scripture, the Scripture is not inspired, we cannot trust the word of God, everyone’s faith is in vain, and we will die in our sins. That is also a point Paul makes in one of his letters.

Either the Bible is the Word of God – all of it – or none of it is. I have faith given to me of God that it is all true and I am staking my life and my eternal destiny upon Him and His Word.

One more thing…if you study out fulfilled prophecy (really study it out) I think one cannot help but knowing that God wrote the Book – the whole thing!

211

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
You guys have had this converation many times before…retreading old ground is fun, Pookie?

You may as well be talking to a damn coffee table. You do a good job, but I don’t know why you bother.

Yea yea SteveO I know, bow or burn, bow or burn. Whatever.[/quote]

Join the discussion – I think it is a good one!

212

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
That is addressd by the Apostle Peter when he writes (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc…,” and that the “prophesy [Bible] came from Holy men of God who spoke being moved (or bourne along) by the Holy Spirit.” [/quote]

Again, the fact that Peter states thus does not make it so.

Your logic, as always, is poor. Honestly. Inspired has a very different meaning that the “literal word of God”. Anyway, the fact that someone expresses this opinion does not make it fact.

A lot of other people also have faith, but they don’t have your interpretation. Personally, I look to the fact that we have been given very capable brains to mean that we should use them.

Steveo, it is very common, and very easy, to believe what you think or prefer to be true. You have an apparent desire for the Bible to be literal and you discount anything that might point to another conclusion without giving such issues appropriate thought and consideration.

Honestly, your logic is not good. If you want to “prove” something you will have to come up with something other than circular self-supporting statements. Please don’t refer to “proof” as religion is based on “faith” and not “abolute knowledge”. The two are not often compatible.

If we had proof, we wouldn’t need faith at all, would we? So which do you have? Faith, or proof?

213

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
If God is not the ultimate Author of Scripture, the Scripture is not inspired, we cannot trust the word of God, everyone’s faith is in vain, and we will die in our sins. That is also a point Paul makes in one of his letters. [/quote]

Ummm… it says right in the bible where pookie pointed out at least twice that the people saying it WERE NOT SPEAKING FOR THE LORD BUT FOR THEMSELVES.

But they were divinely inspired to be wrong?

There is a third logical argument which you are erroneously discarding out of hand as a function of your fundamentalism, steveo:

SOME of the bible could be right.

Incidentally, this is the conclusion that makes the most sense. If the bible was 100% factually wrong, it would go against common sense and 3rd-party historical data. If the bible was 100% factually right, then there are occurrences and accounts in it that violate the laws of physics and science as we understand it today. Once again, violating common sense.

The only sensible conclusion we can draw is that some of the bible is fact, and some of it is fiction… or metaphor, whatever you prefer. This conclusion completely satisfies common sense, scientific fact, and historical fact.

But I suppose that’s not good enough for some folks, is it? :slight_smile:

215

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

The Bible cannot twist anything. If it is God’s Word, all of it must be infallable because God is infallable. No cafeteria – cannot pick and choose.
[/quote]

I am yet to see any chuch, or sections of the christian community prove their belief in this.

The bible says that both homosexuality and women speaking in church are wrong, yet the christian community has picked the one of these that they dont like and labelled it a sin, and the other is just ‘interpreted’ in such a way that it can be ignored and passed of as irrelevant.

216

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That is the whole point of God’s Word – it is all God’s Word as I have Biblically demonstrated.

What about the parts that explicitely claim to not be of God?

1 Corinthians 7:12 - But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

1 Corinthians 7:25 - Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

The author explicitely writes that his following claims are not from God.

It is then Biblically demonstrated that not all of the Bible is from God. There are at least two verses that are from their human author.

Furthermore, your claim of the Pentateuch’s validity as the Word of God is also contradicted in the New Testament:

Luke 16:16 - The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

“until John” refers to John the Baptist. For you to claim that the Old Testament remains valid to this day is incorrect.

You might be better understood as a Christian if you took the time to understand the Bible correctly. Your misunderstanding and misapplication of it is what causes all the confusion.
[/quote]

Pookie,

You certainly know your Bible. Are you a Theology student? I know you said to ‘not tithe’ (in another thread) so forgive my curiousity in these matters.

217

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
That is addressd by the Apostle Peter when he writes (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc…,” and that the “prophesy [Bible] came from Holy men of God who spoke being moved (or bourne along) by the Holy Spirit.” [/quote]

Where does Jesus say that we can trust the words of his apostles as if they were His own?

If Jesus says it, I might be more inclined to accept it. All the examples your giving me are apostles saying that we can trust them as we would Jesus, because they’re “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. What if they weren’t, but said so anyway? How can we be sure?

When the Bible was put together, some texts where excluded; some of the Gospels where not kept. Some of them are still available if you have a version of the KJV with the Apocrypha and others (such as the Book of Enoch) can be found (translated) with a little research. Now, how do we know that the books that were kept are the right ones and that those excluded aren’t? And if books could be kept of excluded, who can say if parts of those books could be “wrong” or not quite entirely right?

You seem to be under the impression that God Himself sat down at a desk and penned those pages; but that’s not what happened. If that is what He intended, why didn’t Jesus Himself never write anything? His writings would’ve been unequivocal for Christians as being “the will of God.”

Note too that the Latin Vulgate Bible still retains the Apocrypha; while it has been removed from the Protestant King’s James version. And yet more versions of the Bible exist.

In light of that, why is your version the correct, perfectly inspired one? Maybe the Latin one is the true version, who’s to know? Maybe the whole of the original scrolls would be the right one; or maybe none at all.

Jesus was not big on laws and commandments; he repeated 6 of the ten commandments as worth keeping and at another time, gave the two greatest commandments as being “Love God” and “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” On those two, He said, “hang all the laws and prophets.”

Apparently, Jesus believed that you didn’t really need a Bible if you could remember and apply those two commandments. Funny how Jesus’ words are always about simple, easy to understand things. “Mercy, not sacrifice,” “Forgive as you’ll be forgiven,” “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

For a Christian, I find that you tend to quote a lot of everything but Jesus to support your views. Maybe you should call yourself a Biblical or an Apostolic… It’s almost as if Jesus, the Christ, shared none of your views.

Yes, Paul. Peter. Paul. Peter.

What did Jesus, the CHRIST (from which “Christian”) say?

“I desire mercy…”

“Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

“Judge not…”

What about “some of it is and the rest is from man?”

Personally, the “none of it is,” appears to be the logical conclusion.

Why not simply follow Jesus’ teachings? The ones about love, compassion and mercy.

That’s another debate.

218

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You certainly know your Bible. Are you a Theology student? I know you said to ‘not tithe’ (in another thread) so forgive my curiousity in these matters.[/quote]

I’m a theology student in the same way that I’m a physics student. I have a lot interest for the subject, so I read a lot about it. I’ve read more about Christianity and the Bible than, say, the Koran or the Torah (although some of the writings from Rabbis in the Talmuds are quite interesting).

I’m not sure if real theology student also get to read the opposite, agnostic or atheist, view on these matters. Here too is quite a bit of food for thought.

As for tithing, I’m not a big fan of organized religion, so I’d rather it not be supported. The recommendation was a bit tongue-in-cheek, since tithing is generally “expected” from member of a church or congregation. In my view, that money would probably do more good if it was given to a local charity instead. We already support churches, whether we want it or not, by paying their taxes for them (since they’re tax exempt, but still use public services).

219

[quote]vroom wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
That is addressd by the Apostle Peter when he writes (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that “all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, etc…,” and that the “prophesy [Bible] came from Holy men of God who spoke being moved (or bourne along) by the Holy Spirit.”

Again, the fact that Peter states thus does not make it so.

If God is not the ultimate Author of Scripture, the Scripture is not inspired, we cannot trust the word of God, everyone’s faith is in vain, and we will die in our sins. That is also a point Paul makes in one of his letters.

Your logic, as always, is poor. Honestly. Inspired has a very different meaning that the “literal word of God”. Anyway, the fact that someone expresses this opinion does not make it fact.

Either the Bible is the Word of God – all of it – or none of it is. I have faith given to me of God that it is all true and I am staking my life and my eternal destiny upon Him and His Word.

A lot of other people also have faith, but they don’t have your interpretation. Personally, I look to the fact that we have been given very capable brains to mean that we should use them.

One more thing…if you study out fulfilled prophecy (really study it out) I think one cannot help but knowing that God wrote the Book – the whole thing!

Steveo, it is very common, and very easy, to believe what you think or prefer to be true. You have an apparent desire for the Bible to be literal and you discount anything that might point to another conclusion without giving such issues appropriate thought and consideration.

Honestly, your logic is not good. If you want to “prove” something you will have to come up with something other than circular self-supporting statements. Please don’t refer to “proof” as religion is based on “faith” and not “abolute knowledge”. The two are not often compatible.

If we had proof, we wouldn’t need faith at all, would we? So which do you have? Faith, or proof?[/quote]

Faith is the most important aspect. You are correct, you cannot ultimately prove it. Faith is the key and I say that honestly to you.

However, that being said, if you do study secular world history against the prophecies that are replete in the Jewish Scriptures (the Old Testament), this will bolster anyone’s faith in the Bible because only God could have produced such prophecies with such amazing 100% accuracy.

An example of this would be studying out the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanies and the fact that the Temple was cleansed and rededicated exactly according to the number of days given in Daniel Chapter 8!

Also, I agree but also disagree with your assertion that “inspiration” is not the same as the Bible being the literal Word of God. While the two terms are not theologically synonyms, the fact is that inspiration guarantees that the Bible is the literal words of God. Without being inspired, there is no way that this could be so.

Finally, and this is a point that very few people realize – 150 years ago, both in America and England the view that I hold about the Bible being God’s literal Word, was the majority opinion in “Christendom” (meaning all denominations of those calling themselves “Christian.”) It is only recent that very few “Christians” claim that the Bible is God’s literal Word. That also is predicted in the Bible in one of Peter’s letters about the “last days.” You see, the Bible even covers events that God knew would happen. There has to be a “falling away” from the faith before the end times, and that is exactly what we see going on today.

220

[quote]jjblaze wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Steveo has good intentions he just needs to rethink his methods.

Good intentions. Ahh, the paving material for the road to hell that we’re all apparently walking down by not listening to these lunatic ravings. I love good intentions, but not as much as I love this exercise in mental masturbation. [/quote]

More than you love and perform physical masturbation? No, say it isn’t so!