Conquer Club

OnlyAmbrose wrote:But unlike the "testimony" of someone whose arm apparently grew back, this "testimony" grew into one of the largest Churches this earth has ever seen.

And that makes it a all real? Gee, I wonder how that church grew so fast back in the early days. Maybe it was that whole crusade "join us or die" thing.

"There's a sucker born every minute" - PT Barnum.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:There is, of course, a great leap of faith in believing that Jesus rose from the dead

Yes there is...a Grand Canyon sized leap. Why leap at all? Why doesnt your god just wave his almighty hand and be done with it? Why the mystery? Why the all the tests? Are we just rats in a maze who will either get cheese or electric shocks when we reach the end? I dont think so.

I believe it's all one big game of telephone where the story kept growing with each re-telling.

jay_a2j wrote:OA there is really no need to respond to backglass. It is futile.

LOL...ok Jay. I agree it's probably better if you stop engaging me. You are only going to become more angry as you have no leg to stand on other than shady "testimony" from other brainwashed cultists and the utterly fantastic campfire stories of a 2000 year old primitive people.

Backglass wrote:
... fantastic campfire stories of a 2000 year old primitive people.

Primitive people 2000 years old? I think we have a wimmer. Backglass, could you please step foward?

Not only has he been an atheist moron who annoys people in his long existence, he fails to realize that FAITH is something that MAKES SENSE to Christians and will never make sense to arrogant scientific jack a**es who try to prove everything through evolution and the Big Bang, which is completely irrelevant because they are not mentioned in the Bible in any way, shape, or form, so are therefore useless in testing it! Come share your campfire stories! And don't worry if you miss them, it'll be rerun, followed by joyous clapping, on the Oprah show for the next week-and-a-half!

happysadfun wrote:Primitive people 2000 years old?

Yes. Very much so. Surely you cant deny that.

happysadfun wrote:not only has he been an atheist moron who annoys people in his long existence, he fails to realize that FAITH is something that MAKES SENSE to Christians

Sooooo....if I disagree with you I am just a moron. Gotcha! How very Christian of you! You will make a fine leader of the church.

...and you are correct. Blind Faith in anything is something I will never accept or do. Not from a Doctor, Lawyer OR Priest.

happysadfun wrote:arrogant scientific jack a**es who try to prove everything through evolution and the Big Bang, which is completely irrelevant blah blah blah

BUZZZ. Please dont change the subject. I never said I believe in any of those things so please dont lump me in with them. Just the part about there being no gods, angels, demons, pegasus & leprechauns.

happysadfun wrote:Come share your campfire stories! And don't worry if you miss them, it'll be rerun, followed by joyous clapping, on the Oprah show for the next week-and-a-half!

Huh? Sorry I have NO idea what you are trying to say but it sounds like every show I have ever passed by on the religious channels.

jay_a2j wrote:

Mirak wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:OA there is really no need to respond to backglass. It is futile.

That's right...ignore awkward questions

btw I miss the dancing bear

He rarely poses questions, if at all. He just denies, makes fun of, or twists the notion of God as he happily sits in the playground of the blind.


Yeah, the bear avatar is by far the most popular in my collecetion. That and Kermit.

Kermit is good to


He may not ask specific questions with a but his comments certainly raise alot of questions

And you don't deny, make fun of or twist the notion of rational debate while sitting in the playground of the gullible?!!!!

happysadfun wrote:

Backglass wrote:
.

Primitive people 2000 years old? I think we have a wimmer. !

Indeed we do have a wimmer.

reverend_kyle wrote:Indeed we do have a wimmer.

...and I would rather be a "wimmer" than a "looser".

Backglass wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:Indeed we do have a wimmer.

...and I would rather be a "wimmer" than a "looser".

Wasn't Wimmer a soccer player?

You might do well to relax a tad happysadfun, calling nonbelievers nasty things never tends to help our cause eh?

Backglass wrote:And that makes it a all real? Gee, I wonder how that church grew so fast back in the early days. Maybe it was that whole crusade "join us or die" thing.

It should probably be noted that the whole "crusade join us or die thing" didn't begin until well after the Church was established... and well after corruption had seeped into it.

In the beginning, the Church consisted of little more than a dozen people. Quite the contrary to what you are saying, in the Church's "early days", Christians were a hunted people; indeed people like Saul, who would later change his name to Paul after his conversion, were Jewish aristocrats of sorts charged with stamping out the new religion- similar anti-Christian officials were common all over the Roman Empire. It was largely the work of Paul the Apostle that the Church spread, and obviously no violent means were used. It was not until Emperor Constantine of Rome, nearly 300 YEARS after the Church was founded, that violence unfortunately began to seep into the Church's methods. A sad turn of events, to be sure, but the Church had been steadily growing for 300 years as a PERSECUTED cult, not a PERSECUTING Church.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:It should probably be noted that the whole "crusade join us or die thing" didn't begin until well after the Church was established... and well after corruption had seeped into it.

In the beginning, the Church consisted of little more than a dozen people. Quite the contrary to what you are saying, in the Church's "early days", Christians were a hunted people; indeed people like Saul, who would later change his name to Paul after his conversion, were Jewish aristocrats of sorts charged with stamping out the new religion- similar anti-Christian officials were common all over the Roman Empire. It was largely the work of Paul the Apostle that the Church spread, and obviously no violent means were used. It was not until Emperor Constantine of Rome, nearly 300 YEARS after the Church was founded, that violence unfortunately began to seep into the Church's methods. A sad turn of events, to be sure, but the Church had been steadily growing for 300 years as a PERSECUTED cult, not a PERSECUTING Church.

This is very true, however it doesn't exactly forgive all of the Church's sins. Yes, violence is a learned behavior, and it certainly does change an organization, however there comes a point when the organization must step back and go "Whoa, dude, that was harsh."

Luckily, it seems that the Church has started doing that. Pope John Paul II was one of the greatest men of all time, and a total pimp if you look at his photos from the 1970s and 80s. He was GQ-Pope. I'm sure that in the next 10-30 years we'll see a rebirth of sorts within the Church and perhaps a new direction and ideal will come out of it.

Here's hoping.

vtmarik wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:It should probably be noted that the whole "crusade join us or die thing" didn't begin until well after the Church was established... and well after corruption had seeped into it.

In the beginning, the Church consisted of little more than a dozen people. Quite the contrary to what you are saying, in the Church's "early days", Christians were a hunted people; indeed people like Saul, who would later change his name to Paul after his conversion, were Jewish aristocrats of sorts charged with stamping out the new religion- similar anti-Christian officials were common all over the Roman Empire. It was largely the work of Paul the Apostle that the Church spread, and obviously no violent means were used. It was not until Emperor Constantine of Rome, nearly 300 YEARS after the Church was founded, that violence unfortunately began to seep into the Church's methods. A sad turn of events, to be sure, but the Church had been steadily growing for 300 years as a PERSECUTED cult, not a PERSECUTING Church.

This is very true, however it doesn't exactly forgive all of the Church's sins. Yes, violence is a learned behavior, and it certainly does change an organization, however there comes a point when the organization must step back and go "Whoa, dude, that was harsh."

Luckily, it seems that the Church has started doing that. Pope John Paul II was one of the greatest men of all time, and a total pimp if you look at his photos from the 1970s and 80s. He was GQ-Pope. I'm sure that in the next 10-30 years we'll see a rebirth of sorts within the Church and perhaps a new direction and ideal will come out of it.

Here's hoping.

Oh, I was hardly trying to justify the Church's actions. I hope that's not how my point came off.

Backglass simply seemed to think that the Church began as a Church which forced people into its folds at the tip of a sword, when, for the first 300 years of its phenomenal growth, it was hardly CAPABLE of doing that- and hardly corrupt enough to conceive of doing so either. I was clarifying that the Church's origins are planted in TRUE conversions, or at least not FORCED conversions. Quite to the contrary, early conversions were often a known danger to the one who converted, which is why I find the Church's survival in its early years astounding.

Backglass---you really need to stop posting. By taking the words right out of my mouth, you're leaving me with nothing left to post!

spring1 wrote:Backglass---you really need to stop posting. By taking the words right out of my mouth, you're leaving me with nothing left to post!

Then you could have responded to my rebuttal to his point of course

Mirak wrote:And you don't deny, make fun of or twist the notion of rational debate while sitting in the playground of the gullible?!!!!

LOL! I am far too busy untwisting, correcting and pointing out the truth to be doing any of the above. If I am "gullible" for believing Gods word (in which we disagree anyways because it is perfect and infallible) what does that make you? Wolf in Sheeps clothing?

vtmarik wrote:

Backglass wrote:

reverend_kyle wrote:Indeed we do have a wimmer.

...and I would rather be a "wimmer" than a "looser".

Wasn't Wimmer a soccer player?

I think he was a swimmer

jay_a2j wrote:

Mirak wrote:And you don't deny, make fun of or twist the notion of rational debate while sitting in the playground of the gullible?!!!!

LOL! I am far too busy untwisting, correcting and pointing out the truth to be doing any of the above. If I am "gullible" for believing Gods word (in which we disagree anyways because it is perfect and infallible) what does that make you? Wolf in Sheeps clothing?

You don't know that they are God's words, that is all I am trying to point out...believing in God is a decision for every individual...but to blindly believe everything you read or hear because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy is naive at best and gullible to the extreme...examples I could mention such as limb regeneration as testified by a couple of missionaries in bongo bongo land...or the miraculous driving feats of someone on route from NY to Florida

Even you as a believer should have a little sense of scrutiny

Taking everything in the Bible as literal fact as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical in my view discredits and undermines the very thing that you cherish...just my opinion and if that makes me a wolf in sheeps clothing ( please note the metaphor) then OK...but to be honest I didn't really understand what you were getting at by using that phrase...

Mirak wrote:as testified by a couple of missionaries in bongo bongo land

TESTIFY!

Mirak wrote:Taking everything in the Bible as literal fact as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical in my view discredits and undermines the very thing that you cherish...just my opinion and if that makes me a wolf in sheeps clothing ( please note the metaphor) then OK...but to be honest I didn't really understand what you were getting at by using that phrase...

Maybe I should set up another thread for this, but I was assuming people wouldn't want this forum cluttered with another religious thread...But what does everyone make of Non-Realism? I have a link to a BBC page below (it's very short) but this stuff is prevalent amongst UK Christians (as far as I'm aware) particularly in the Church of England, and I have to say, as an atheist, it makes me SICK. I suspect it might annoy others here too, INCLUDING Christians, but what do you make of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... eism.shtml

No one's responded to my pwnz0r post

Stopper wrote:Maybe I should set up another thread for this, but I was assuming people wouldn't want this forum cluttered with another religious thread...But what does everyone make of Non-Realism? I have a link to a BBC page below (it's very short) but this stuff is prevalent amongst UK Christians (as far as I'm aware) particularly in the Church of England, and I have to say, as an atheist, it makes me SICK. I suspect it might annoy others here too, INCLUDING Christians, but what do you make of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... eism.shtml

Interesting. They sound like athiests who go to church...and purely for the social/charity aspects.

I liked the part where there's nothing outside themselves yet they sing worship songs.

cuckoo.

Stopper wrote: but what do you make of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... eism.shtml

Its a bunch of rubbish is what I make of it. Its one authors oppinion (yet he states them like they are facts).

Backglass wrote:Interesting. They sound like athiests who go to church...and purely for the social/charity aspects.

It isn't just the people who go to church either...it was quite a few years ago, so I can't remember the names, but there was at least one CoE bishop who said he didn't believe the resurrection or the virgin birth happened...I remember reading that and thinking, so what exactly are you for?

2dimes wrote:I liked the part where there's nothing outside themselves yet they sing worship songs.

cuckoo.

Ah, but as it says on the site, you'll see that this is intellectually sophisticated cuckoo.

Basically he's taking all of the secular benefits of Christianity and forsaking the spiritual ones... morally, this is probably not a bad thing but I would argue that anything which says that God doesn't "actually" exist shouldn't have the term "Christian" attached to its name.

Just sounds like a bunch of morally grounded atheists to me... nothing special, I know plenty of those

Stopper wrote:

Mirak wrote:Taking everything in the Bible as literal fact as opposed to allegorical or metaphorical in my view discredits and undermines the very thing that you cherish...just my opinion and if that makes me a wolf in sheeps clothing ( please note the metaphor) then OK...but to be honest I didn't really understand what you were getting at by using that phrase...

Maybe I should set up another thread for this, but I was assuming people wouldn't want this forum cluttered with another religious thread...But what does everyone make of Non-Realism? I have a link to a BBC page below (it's very short) but this stuff is prevalent amongst UK Christians (as far as I'm aware) particularly in the Church of England, and I have to say, as an atheist, it makes me SICK. I suspect it might annoy others here too, INCLUDING Christians, but what do you make of it?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... eism.shtml

before even reading it, it made me sick... after i read it, it seemed like a big joke... the last 2 "benifits" are also part of real christianity, at least in my church... 1) the Devil cannot force you to do anything, he simply puts things in your head, God could, but does not controll you, he just guides you... 2) the same thing the first answer works for this one too... the rest are simply crazy...

jay_a2j wrote:

Stopper wrote: but what do you make of it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... eism.shtml

Its a bunch of rubbish is what I make of it. Its one authors oppinion (yet he states them like they are facts).

Oh, you're right that this is just one author's opinion, but you should be aware that this kind of thought is not uncommon amongst certain people in Britain, and I dare say, the US...It was someone (I forget who, and I can't find it) who posted recently on either this thread or the "Logic Dictates..." who reminded me of it, because s/he said they only went to church because they liked the ritual, songs, community, etc..etc