Tweet
Well i am going to now make alot of you
simple and "humble" people here very happy
and leave this godforsaken forum to all the
self proclaimed "true christians" that recide
here, whose only quest in life,
seems, to be as ignorant as humanly possible.
I must admit that i through my 28 years of life
have experienced all sorts of stupid, one worse
than the next, but you people in here preaching
the socalled "word of God" most definately take the prize,
telling people that your view on life is the only true
view on anything.
You claim to live by every single letter of the
bible down to the last letter and never interpreting
a single word that is written in there and yet
at every nick and turn you choose to twist, deform
and deface every word of compasion and forgiveness
that your own lord Jesus Christ speaks of.
When asked about simple referances to certain passages
that go against, all that you say and stand for,
you either simply deny that it is there, you give
references to other passages that has nothing to
do with the subject at hand, come with rediculous claims
that give no sense what so ever, most of you reading this
will allready have read my previous posts in here and
if some of you should be of some (however little) common
sense you should be able to see what i speak of,
but for those of you out there reading this that havent i
can give one of my favorite examples where these peoples highly
loved and devoted holy man pastor of "diversity" and "tolerance"
(words wich meaning he on many occations has proven that he has
no grasp on whatsoever, read a dictionary dude,
I know you can read)
Ezekiel Bathfire (come on how much more cheesy does it get)
concludes that when jesus speaks of stray sheep and
leaving a herd of 99 sheep unatended to go look for one,
clearly is good buisness sense!?
ofcorse then he backs it up with the notion that the sheperd
ofcorse left the herd with other shepherd, guard dogs or
something else and 'if it isnt directly revealed to you by God,
then you must take it on face value',
but as i see it (based on their own claims) that is pretty much
what defines interpretations, you know seeking to understand
what is written between the lines and making assumptions
based on their own "logical" thinking (with i read in a thread in here
is a demonical pracsis), so this ofcorse cant be true
since you wouldnt dare to interpret the "holy word of God"
so to conclude this little section NO it isnt good decent
buisness sense to risk loosing your herd for a single sheep
and since jesus on many occations in the bible
is refered to as the sheperd of man for example:
Isaiah 40:11 (King James 1611 version) He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
he shall gather the lambs with his arm,
and carry them in his bosom,
and shall gently lead those that are with young.
This is the old testament speaking of the comming of the messiah
and i would highly suspect that Jesus Christ is just that
so when he speaks about sheep in any context would it not
be the locical thing to asume that he is speaking of man
(and here i actually mean man as a species not the gender)
and not actual sheep (how dim must you be to claim otherwise)
Well this is just one out of many delightful examples i have come
across and picked up in here by these socalled holy men,
with the only true view on life, i even fell over two men that
seriously concerned me (there where many more, but these two especialy)
when they spoke about why it was ok to burn children with
chemicals to save them from hell (trust me, the children in your care
are already living in hell)(and if any people of authority is reading this,
wich truly i hope, i am speaking of bobby-jo and billy bob jenkins in here).
i also really like the fact that these people believe that a man born
around 2000 years ago in the middle east was born caucasian with
blond hair and blue eyes (this is REALLY likely YEEEEES,
for those of you that missed the point of that little statement
it was SARCASM and i will let yourself reserch the meaning of that word)
These people claim that the King James 1611 version of the bible
is the only true bible and is the only true word of god
and thus people if they want to learn the true word of God
they have to learn english since this must definately be
the language that God intended for his word to be preached.
To this i cant stop wondering why he had'nt then let the messiah be born
in england back in the day instead of israel and why did he not
create his own bible (or atleast let Jesus write it) instead of letting
a number of strangers that never met Jesus or experienced
any of the old testament stories write it for him?
and why wasnt it after about 1600 years after the messiah died that
he decided to release the ACTUAL version of the bible in english,
is this because he made a mistake in writing it in greek or latin
or whatever language it was originally written in, but this cant be cause
God dont make mistakes does he? (or she?)
and in this section i think that it is time that you people in here now
learn a new word:
Apocrypha:
The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious",
"of questionable authenticity", and "Christian texts that are not canonical".
The word is originally Greek (ἀπόκρυφα) and means "those having been hidden away".
Specifically, ἀπόκρυφα is the neuter plural of ἀπόκρυφος, a participle derived from the verb
ἀποκρύπτω [infinitive: ἀποκρύπτειν], "to hide something away."[1]
The general term is usually applied to the books that the Protestant Christian Church considered useful
but not divinely inspired. As such, it is misleading to refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or
Gnostic writings as apocryphal, because they would not be classified in the same category by orthodox believers.
Non-canonical books are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the work is seriously questioned.
Given that different denominations have different beliefs about what constitutes canonical scripture,
there are several versions of the apocrypha.
During 16th-century controversies about the biblical canon, the word acquired a negative connotation,
and has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false". This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts
that are plausible enough to be commonly considered true. For example,
Laozi's alleged authorship of the Tao Te Ching,
Napoleon Bonaparte's self-coronation rather than at the hands of Pope Pius VII,
and the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree, are all considered apocryphal.
There is disagreement about how to depict a modern equivalent term to the ancient word apocrypha.
Some would argue that it was like "top secret government files". Thus, in ancient China,
"the divine chapters and esoteric charts are certainly to be held in the Metal Bound Box and stored in the Stone Room ...
never been recorded in formal documents":[2] "The description indicates that these esoteric ...
apocryphal writings were well-kept in the Southern Qi imperial library without publication in a common catalogue.
"[3] (Their not being mentioned in the public catalogue would indicate their being accessible only to government
agents having a "top secret" security-clearance.)
However, although some would like to promote conspiracy,
the word simply refers to the author or authenticity which has not been substantiated and so is hidden.
and just to step in it for those that havent gotten the point yet:
Biblical apocrypha:
The biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος meaning hidden)
are books published in a separate section of some editions of the Bible despite not necessarily
being considered part of the canon. For this reason they are typically printed in a third section of the Bible
apart from the Old and New Testaments. In many editions they are omitted entirely.
Different churches and congregations have differing views on what,
if anything, constitutes their Biblical Apocrypha. The biblical apocrypha are sometimes called simply
"the" Apocrypha. For extra-biblical works sometimes referred to as "apocrypha",
see the articles on apocrypha and on Pseudepigrapha. For biblical works sometimes classified as "apocrypha"
despite being considered canonical by non-Protestant Christians (the majority of all Christians),
see the article on deuterocanonical books.
Although the term apocrypha simply means hidden,
this usage is sometimes considered pejorative by those who consider
some such works to be canonical parts of scripture.
And why are we learning these fancy new terms you ask?
well let me tell you, i personally recently discovered what i found pretty damned funny
concidering the view these people have on their only true bible.
'The original KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha. Is only part of the KJV 1611 or is all of it inspired by God?
How can it be the perfect translation if it has the Apocrypha?'
this is a quote from a site on the web that will definately have its link removed
from this post after i put it here but for those of you willing to learn a bit
and gets to press it before that happens then it is as follows:
this is a site made by a apparently religious man studying the scriptures and LANGUAGES!
wich i would say was a pretty important thing to do concidering that the
king james version of the bible is still a translation of older texts
and within this site he points out several flaws in the king james version
of the bible such as a paragraph that says 'then cometh judas' instead of 'then cometh Jesus'
i would like to think that this is a pretty big mistake...
but if this isnt enough to convince you the lets try this little dumpling:
William Kilburne in 1659 found 20,000 errors in six different KJV's.
In 1701 Bishop Lloyd added the chronology of Bishop Ussher.
Even today there are differences between the KJV published by Oxford, Cambridge,
and Nelson publishers (See The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation by
Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker, 1981).
ofcorse many of the people in here will claim that these facts are merely the
work of satan to discredit the word of God, but come on,
you cant just do as the ostridge and stick your head in the ground and expect
the rest of the world to just dissapear, you cant just close your eyes and
say that it isnt true and then open your eyes to see that it really happened,
i know that it is true about kids when their having nightmares and such, but here
we are talking about the real world, not imaginary boogeymen and stuff
that go bump in the night.
Grow up people get a grasp of reality, im not saying that your god doesnt
exist (though i seriously doubt it), but lets for a second asume that he does;
then i atleast know one thing for sure and that is, if the words of the bible is
GOD's testament to this world and if people truly (according to your version),
go to both Heaven AND Hell (since very few other examples than YOUR version
even mention hell) then you guys are the last people to end up in heaven by his side,
but then on the other hand, as a wise man once said:
'in heaven all the interesting people are missing.'
and perhaps this is actualy what your counting on,
because it seems to me that when reading any book
whatsoever (im just noting that i havent read every book in the world
but ive read my fair share by now) you get to the conclution
at the later parts in the story and not in the beginning,
(and now im just asuming that god would also do it like this
if he would want to make any sence with his book whatsoever)
so wouldnt the teachings of christ in the late parts of the story?
and the reason im asking this is that every time one asks
one of you people about the teachings of christ,
his ideas of love, tolerance and forgivenes, then you quote the
old testament to make excuses as to ignore this (even though
you say to follow the words to the letter),
i would personaly think that god even though he had been
an angry bastard (and if you look up the definition of the word 'bastard'
you will see that he was) in the beginning, he like
most other people grew older and not so hot tempered as he was
in the beginning and isnt there a saying about
being a big enough man to admit your mistakes?
and if MAN can be big enough to admit ones mistakes
wouldnt it be possible for an omnipotent being like God
would be big enough to do the same and i know that in the
beginning he was all; IIIM ALMIGHTY AND ALL KNOWING AND
CAN NEVER EVER BE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING AND I WILL SMITE THEE
TOO DEATH AND HELL AND FIRE AND SULFUR AND PHOSPHOR!!!'
oh whait that one was you guys, but yeah, you get the point,
but isnt every kid think like this and isnt it with age
that you learn responsibility and consecuence and isnt it when god got
older and sent jesus that he started telling about being all
nice to eachother and doing good to all the small little
bunnywabbits and generaly be a nasty little goodygoody tooshoes.
Now personally i believe that even though your a deity you still
get older and thus wiser since good doesnt control us
(that whole free will thing that i know you people hate)
and thus he must every step of the way get wiser and if he
does exist why wouldnt he want to and if he never got
wiser or more knowledgable on anything at all, wouldnt
one asume that he'd by now, had been thrown in to a deep psychosis?
doe to the fact that he would never experience anything he didnt already
would have known about millenia ago and i know that
you people think that the world has existed in more than
sixsomethousand years ago, but if God is really all that great he will
never die right? he is eternal and all right?
then in that case he will have plenty of milenias left right
and he would know every little thing that would happen at every single point in,
before and after his existance, wouldnt one atleast asume that
he would seek the unknown aswell?
well this lack of NEW knowdledge let to that whole free will(y) thing
and thus follows God learning new stuff all the time...
anyway the point being that in creating free will God told us
that he would not control us completely and thus he would not be able to decide
what we did and with this one would asume that God also has free
will and in such he cannot not know everything, else his free will
would be pointless in not having to make any decisions based on knowing everything
and thus would never make a choise since at forehand knew what choise he would take.
What im saying is that God has the ability to learn and thus he
will NOT always make the right decision in all situations and
with this in mind i bring us back to my previous point,
God MUST be able to at sometime make a mistake no matter how
amazing he is and if he can make a mistake wouldnt he also be able
to admit it with him being so great and big and all?
so therefor one must asume that when jesus spoke of reform
(and with Jesus being God himself) then it was Gods way of admitting
to these mistakes that he had made?
To sum up, you guys are idiots and if God exsist and DOES in fact throw people
in eternal damnation and all, YOU people are going first, fastest and
deepest in the pits, for defacing and warping his own teachings!
Oh yeah and one more thing ive noticed before i leave you.
For some reason you people tend to talk about the devil assraping
people in hell but where in the bible does it say anything about that
and to this i cant stop thinking about some guy in here
telling me that my ass was filled with deamons allready and he hoped that Jesus
would come and replace them, but if i really have to choose between the two
i choose the devils and stuff, since i really cant feel anything down there now
nothing other than the wet sticky feeling of sweat becasue of the heat.
but other than that i think that atleast the deamons in that time
ass im burning in hell will make it interesting...
and to those of you that are interested in the wise man i quoted
earlier about the interesting people, then that guy ofcorse was
Friedrich Nietzsche and to make you all happy here is a few more
quotes from the worlds greatest thinker.
'A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.'
'A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation.'
'All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails
at a given time is a function of power and not truth.'
'Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.'
'Faith: not wanting to know what is true.'
'Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.'
'God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight.'
'I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.'
'In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.'
simple and "humble" people here very happy
and leave this godforsaken forum to all the
self proclaimed "true christians" that recide
here, whose only quest in life,
seems, to be as ignorant as humanly possible.
I must admit that i through my 28 years of life
have experienced all sorts of stupid, one worse
than the next, but you people in here preaching
the socalled "word of God" most definately take the prize,
telling people that your view on life is the only true
view on anything.
You claim to live by every single letter of the
bible down to the last letter and never interpreting
a single word that is written in there and yet
at every nick and turn you choose to twist, deform
and deface every word of compasion and forgiveness
that your own lord Jesus Christ speaks of.
When asked about simple referances to certain passages
that go against, all that you say and stand for,
you either simply deny that it is there, you give
references to other passages that has nothing to
do with the subject at hand, come with rediculous claims
that give no sense what so ever, most of you reading this
will allready have read my previous posts in here and
if some of you should be of some (however little) common
sense you should be able to see what i speak of,
but for those of you out there reading this that havent i
can give one of my favorite examples where these peoples highly
loved and devoted holy man pastor of "diversity" and "tolerance"
(words wich meaning he on many occations has proven that he has
no grasp on whatsoever, read a dictionary dude,
I know you can read)
Ezekiel Bathfire (come on how much more cheesy does it get)
concludes that when jesus speaks of stray sheep and
leaving a herd of 99 sheep unatended to go look for one,
clearly is good buisness sense!?
ofcorse then he backs it up with the notion that the sheperd
ofcorse left the herd with other shepherd, guard dogs or
something else and 'if it isnt directly revealed to you by God,
then you must take it on face value',
but as i see it (based on their own claims) that is pretty much
what defines interpretations, you know seeking to understand
what is written between the lines and making assumptions
based on their own "logical" thinking (with i read in a thread in here
is a demonical pracsis), so this ofcorse cant be true
since you wouldnt dare to interpret the "holy word of God"
so to conclude this little section NO it isnt good decent
buisness sense to risk loosing your herd for a single sheep
and since jesus on many occations in the bible
is refered to as the sheperd of man for example:
Isaiah 40:11 (King James 1611 version) He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
he shall gather the lambs with his arm,
and carry them in his bosom,
and shall gently lead those that are with young.
This is the old testament speaking of the comming of the messiah
and i would highly suspect that Jesus Christ is just that
so when he speaks about sheep in any context would it not
be the locical thing to asume that he is speaking of man
(and here i actually mean man as a species not the gender)
and not actual sheep (how dim must you be to claim otherwise)
Well this is just one out of many delightful examples i have come
across and picked up in here by these socalled holy men,
with the only true view on life, i even fell over two men that
seriously concerned me (there where many more, but these two especialy)
when they spoke about why it was ok to burn children with
chemicals to save them from hell (trust me, the children in your care
are already living in hell)(and if any people of authority is reading this,
wich truly i hope, i am speaking of bobby-jo and billy bob jenkins in here).
i also really like the fact that these people believe that a man born
around 2000 years ago in the middle east was born caucasian with
blond hair and blue eyes (this is REALLY likely YEEEEES,
for those of you that missed the point of that little statement
it was SARCASM and i will let yourself reserch the meaning of that word)
These people claim that the King James 1611 version of the bible
is the only true bible and is the only true word of god
and thus people if they want to learn the true word of God
they have to learn english since this must definately be
the language that God intended for his word to be preached.
To this i cant stop wondering why he had'nt then let the messiah be born
in england back in the day instead of israel and why did he not
create his own bible (or atleast let Jesus write it) instead of letting
a number of strangers that never met Jesus or experienced
any of the old testament stories write it for him?
and why wasnt it after about 1600 years after the messiah died that
he decided to release the ACTUAL version of the bible in english,
is this because he made a mistake in writing it in greek or latin
or whatever language it was originally written in, but this cant be cause
God dont make mistakes does he? (or she?)
and in this section i think that it is time that you people in here now
learn a new word:
Apocrypha:
The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious",
"of questionable authenticity", and "Christian texts that are not canonical".
The word is originally Greek (ἀπόκρυφα) and means "those having been hidden away".
Specifically, ἀπόκρυφα is the neuter plural of ἀπόκρυφος, a participle derived from the verb
ἀποκρύπτω [infinitive: ἀποκρύπτειν], "to hide something away."[1]
The general term is usually applied to the books that the Protestant Christian Church considered useful
but not divinely inspired. As such, it is misleading to refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or
Gnostic writings as apocryphal, because they would not be classified in the same category by orthodox believers.
Non-canonical books are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the work is seriously questioned.
Given that different denominations have different beliefs about what constitutes canonical scripture,
there are several versions of the apocrypha.
During 16th-century controversies about the biblical canon, the word acquired a negative connotation,
and has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false". This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts
that are plausible enough to be commonly considered true. For example,
Laozi's alleged authorship of the Tao Te Ching,
Napoleon Bonaparte's self-coronation rather than at the hands of Pope Pius VII,
and the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree, are all considered apocryphal.
There is disagreement about how to depict a modern equivalent term to the ancient word apocrypha.
Some would argue that it was like "top secret government files". Thus, in ancient China,
"the divine chapters and esoteric charts are certainly to be held in the Metal Bound Box and stored in the Stone Room ...
never been recorded in formal documents":[2] "The description indicates that these esoteric ...
apocryphal writings were well-kept in the Southern Qi imperial library without publication in a common catalogue.
"[3] (Their not being mentioned in the public catalogue would indicate their being accessible only to government
agents having a "top secret" security-clearance.)
However, although some would like to promote conspiracy,
the word simply refers to the author or authenticity which has not been substantiated and so is hidden.
and just to step in it for those that havent gotten the point yet:
Biblical apocrypha:
The biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος meaning hidden)
are books published in a separate section of some editions of the Bible despite not necessarily
being considered part of the canon. For this reason they are typically printed in a third section of the Bible
apart from the Old and New Testaments. In many editions they are omitted entirely.
Different churches and congregations have differing views on what,
if anything, constitutes their Biblical Apocrypha. The biblical apocrypha are sometimes called simply
"the" Apocrypha. For extra-biblical works sometimes referred to as "apocrypha",
see the articles on apocrypha and on Pseudepigrapha. For biblical works sometimes classified as "apocrypha"
despite being considered canonical by non-Protestant Christians (the majority of all Christians),
see the article on deuterocanonical books.
Although the term apocrypha simply means hidden,
this usage is sometimes considered pejorative by those who consider
some such works to be canonical parts of scripture.
And why are we learning these fancy new terms you ask?
well let me tell you, i personally recently discovered what i found pretty damned funny
concidering the view these people have on their only true bible.
'The original KJV 1611 included the Apocrypha. Is only part of the KJV 1611 or is all of it inspired by God?
How can it be the perfect translation if it has the Apocrypha?'
this is a quote from a site on the web that will definately have its link removed
from this post after i put it here but for those of you willing to learn a bit
and gets to press it before that happens then it is as follows:
this is a site made by a apparently religious man studying the scriptures and LANGUAGES!
wich i would say was a pretty important thing to do concidering that the
king james version of the bible is still a translation of older texts
and within this site he points out several flaws in the king james version
of the bible such as a paragraph that says 'then cometh judas' instead of 'then cometh Jesus'
i would like to think that this is a pretty big mistake...
but if this isnt enough to convince you the lets try this little dumpling:
William Kilburne in 1659 found 20,000 errors in six different KJV's.
In 1701 Bishop Lloyd added the chronology of Bishop Ussher.
Even today there are differences between the KJV published by Oxford, Cambridge,
and Nelson publishers (See The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation by
Jack P. Lewis, published by Baker, 1981).
ofcorse many of the people in here will claim that these facts are merely the
work of satan to discredit the word of God, but come on,
you cant just do as the ostridge and stick your head in the ground and expect
the rest of the world to just dissapear, you cant just close your eyes and
say that it isnt true and then open your eyes to see that it really happened,
i know that it is true about kids when their having nightmares and such, but here
we are talking about the real world, not imaginary boogeymen and stuff
that go bump in the night.
Grow up people get a grasp of reality, im not saying that your god doesnt
exist (though i seriously doubt it), but lets for a second asume that he does;
then i atleast know one thing for sure and that is, if the words of the bible is
GOD's testament to this world and if people truly (according to your version),
go to both Heaven AND Hell (since very few other examples than YOUR version
even mention hell) then you guys are the last people to end up in heaven by his side,
but then on the other hand, as a wise man once said:
'in heaven all the interesting people are missing.'
and perhaps this is actualy what your counting on,
because it seems to me that when reading any book
whatsoever (im just noting that i havent read every book in the world
but ive read my fair share by now) you get to the conclution
at the later parts in the story and not in the beginning,
(and now im just asuming that god would also do it like this
if he would want to make any sence with his book whatsoever)
so wouldnt the teachings of christ in the late parts of the story?
and the reason im asking this is that every time one asks
one of you people about the teachings of christ,
his ideas of love, tolerance and forgivenes, then you quote the
old testament to make excuses as to ignore this (even though
you say to follow the words to the letter),
i would personaly think that god even though he had been
an angry bastard (and if you look up the definition of the word 'bastard'
you will see that he was) in the beginning, he like
most other people grew older and not so hot tempered as he was
in the beginning and isnt there a saying about
being a big enough man to admit your mistakes?
and if MAN can be big enough to admit ones mistakes
wouldnt it be possible for an omnipotent being like God
would be big enough to do the same and i know that in the
beginning he was all; IIIM ALMIGHTY AND ALL KNOWING AND
CAN NEVER EVER BE WRONG ABOUT ANYTHING AND I WILL SMITE THEE
TOO DEATH AND HELL AND FIRE AND SULFUR AND PHOSPHOR!!!'
oh whait that one was you guys, but yeah, you get the point,
but isnt every kid think like this and isnt it with age
that you learn responsibility and consecuence and isnt it when god got
older and sent jesus that he started telling about being all
nice to eachother and doing good to all the small little
bunnywabbits and generaly be a nasty little goodygoody tooshoes.
Now personally i believe that even though your a deity you still
get older and thus wiser since good doesnt control us
(that whole free will thing that i know you people hate)
and thus he must every step of the way get wiser and if he
does exist why wouldnt he want to and if he never got
wiser or more knowledgable on anything at all, wouldnt
one asume that he'd by now, had been thrown in to a deep psychosis?
doe to the fact that he would never experience anything he didnt already
would have known about millenia ago and i know that
you people think that the world has existed in more than
sixsomethousand years ago, but if God is really all that great he will
never die right? he is eternal and all right?
then in that case he will have plenty of milenias left right
and he would know every little thing that would happen at every single point in,
before and after his existance, wouldnt one atleast asume that
he would seek the unknown aswell?
well this lack of NEW knowdledge let to that whole free will(y) thing
and thus follows God learning new stuff all the time...
anyway the point being that in creating free will God told us
that he would not control us completely and thus he would not be able to decide
what we did and with this one would asume that God also has free
will and in such he cannot not know everything, else his free will
would be pointless in not having to make any decisions based on knowing everything
and thus would never make a choise since at forehand knew what choise he would take.
What im saying is that God has the ability to learn and thus he
will NOT always make the right decision in all situations and
with this in mind i bring us back to my previous point,
God MUST be able to at sometime make a mistake no matter how
amazing he is and if he can make a mistake wouldnt he also be able
to admit it with him being so great and big and all?
so therefor one must asume that when jesus spoke of reform
(and with Jesus being God himself) then it was Gods way of admitting
to these mistakes that he had made?
To sum up, you guys are idiots and if God exsist and DOES in fact throw people
in eternal damnation and all, YOU people are going first, fastest and
deepest in the pits, for defacing and warping his own teachings!
Oh yeah and one more thing ive noticed before i leave you.
For some reason you people tend to talk about the devil assraping
people in hell but where in the bible does it say anything about that
and to this i cant stop thinking about some guy in here
telling me that my ass was filled with deamons allready and he hoped that Jesus
would come and replace them, but if i really have to choose between the two
i choose the devils and stuff, since i really cant feel anything down there now
nothing other than the wet sticky feeling of sweat becasue of the heat.
but other than that i think that atleast the deamons in that time
ass im burning in hell will make it interesting...
and to those of you that are interested in the wise man i quoted
earlier about the interesting people, then that guy ofcorse was
Friedrich Nietzsche and to make you all happy here is a few more
quotes from the worlds greatest thinker.
'A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.'
'A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation.'
'All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails
at a given time is a function of power and not truth.'
'Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.'
'Faith: not wanting to know what is true.'
'Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.'
'God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight.'
'I cannot believe in a God who wants to be praised all the time.'
'In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.'
Comment