What is sin and mans relation to God?

That's not a sin. Just keep in inside marriage. Originally Posted by ExNYer

It's a sin not to fuck inside a marriage. It is a mutual duty. Tell that to all your frigid wives.

The relevant passage of St Paul is very clear, and shows he had a much better understanding of human nature than some (e.g. OH) realise.

OH spends most of her time giving atheists a bad name. Originally Posted by ExNYer

ExNYer quoting OH: I believe I was quite clear that I said I made the decision prematurely to decide I was an atheist. I was making a decision based on limited information.

ExNYer quoting OH: I couldn't care less who people worship or how.It's their business.
For someone who couldn't care less, you sure spend a lot of time telling Christian what their religions are really about and what they are really supposed to believe.

OH's response: I am just absolutely sick to fucking death of Christians aggressively proselytizing a religion that I personally do not agree with and feel is THE bane of humanity for the last 1,600 years.

ExNYer quoting OH: I just want to be left out of it. I don't want the Christian Right in my bedroom. I don't want to be witnessed to. I don't Christian "values" legislated. It's not my business, but therefore who and what I worship is none of anybody elses. And I damn sure don't want to continually have to defend my religion against the aggressive Christian values and ideas.
Speaking of aggressive....

OH responding: How is this aggressive Einstein. I am just pushing back. Christianity is hyper-aggressive and I for one am sick of having your values legislated to me. Seriously, explain how it's aggressive then I'll think of you as something other than a belligerent and over-reaching sound-bite idiot.

OK, that makes no sense. Are you an atheist or a Jew? Originally Posted by ExNYer

I said I was an atheist at 11 than became a Jew by Choice later in life.

Strictly speaking, you CAN"T be Jew unless your mother was a Jew. That's the traditional rule. Especially if you view being Jewish as an ethnic thing, not a religious thing.And if you are talking about it from a religious point of view, then you can't be an atheist and claim to be a "religious" Jew. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Read what I wrote not what you wanted me to write. We're not overly impressed with your knowledge of what makes you a cultural Jew.

Or are you saying you WERE an atheist and THEN became a religious Jew? If that is the case, that makes the least sense of all. Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, it doesn’t. It means that I changed my mind. You've stuck with all the decisions you made at 11?

I'm not going to stand up and speak on behalf of Christianity, but the New Testament has the Old Testament beat hands down.If an atheist had to pick one of the other to follow, I can't see the Gospels losing out to the dense body of laws and customs laid out in the Torah and Talmud. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Because why? It's easier to live by? I'm sure it is. You can be a Hitler and on your death bed you can take Jesus as your Savior and BOOM! All your sins are forgive and you get to go to Christian heaven with all the good guys? Sounds like grown-up Santa Clause to me. Besides, what do you REALLY know about the religious texts and do you do the difference between the Law and dogma? I'll bet you don't.

It's a sin not to fuck inside a marriage. It is a mutual duty. Tell that to all your frigid wives. Originally Posted by essence

Essense, what's with the above and post 80. When and where were we talking with marital sexual relations? Your wife cut you off and we are now after pages of you trying to convince me that Christianity is the Way we are finally getting to your bitch and reasons for having such a loving and inflated idea of Saul?

The relevant passage of St Paul is very clear, and shows he had a much better understanding of human nature than some (e.g. OH) realise. Originally Posted by essence

Saul was a celibate.

@ IB,

Quoting IB: But first and foremost, the Arians were still “Christian”, so the murder and mayhem was Christian on Christian. Plus, where they were dominant, the Arians persecuted the Catholic.

OH's Response: They were Christians in that they were followers of Christs' teachings, but they did not hold Jesus out as a God of any kind.

Quoting IB: Constantine took Christianity as his religion as a political move and only as he was dieing. He ruled as a Roman Emperor observing the Roman Gods. His conversion, according to historians, was heartfelt and genuine: not political opportunism.

OH's Response: Some historians say that, and some say that it was a purely politically motivated. The victors wrote the history so perhaps the history is lost. Don't know.

IB quoting OH: Constantine had a co-Emperor (I can't remember his name.) in the West, and he moved his capital to New Rome. He eventually defeated his co-Emperor,, but the split was underway.

IB's response to OH in above quote: During the last decade of his life, Constantine was a Christian, and he ruled as sole emperor over a unified Roman Empire.

OH's Response: Like I said, it was the beginning of the end of the unified Roman Empire. Constantine moved one of the capitols; he had a co-Emperor; he fought civil wars, he only had a unified empire for the last ten years, according to you I didn't look it up, yet he lived to be an old man. I believe we are in agreement. He ruled over the beginning of the end.

IB quoting OH: That's one way of looking at it. Another is that Christians were doing as Saul and the Church demanded - Spreading the word and converting souls. Well that and the Orient had some mighty fine treasure and some choice real estate.

IB's response to OH in above quote: No. It's a simple matter to verify historically. Islam began its onslaught against Christian domains in the 7th century, and the Crusades were the Christian response to those attacks.

France, England, Spain and Portugal had holdings in the Middle East? I was not aware of that. It was my impression that the Middle East was controlled by Christian rulers not necessary Western European nations. The Christians were defending the faith and culture not holdings of legally controlled lands. If the people of the Middle East want to be Muslims then it's their fucking business not Richard the Lionhearted and a few popes business.

Follow the money. It was a response to Muslims conquoring the lands formerally held by independent nations that were Christian and thereby cutting off the money and the power the money bought. There were no nations named Christian in the Middle East just nations with Christian people paying tives to the Church. I'm not saying the Muslims didn't attack anyone, I'm saying they attacked independent nations and the ONLY dog in the fight the West had was the money flowing back to Rome.

Quoting IB: Read Henry Kamen (or at wiki), those are the numbers Kamen ascribes to the Spanish Inquisition. There were other Inquisitions, but those Inquisitions were short lived and their numbers are even lower than those ascribed to the Spanish Inquisition and cumulatively insignificant and far less than the seven million the Japanese killed during WWII.

OH's response: ere were 65 million people killed in WWII. Christianity and it's constant wars with Muslims and it's own people has decimated the villages, towns, cities, nations and cultures. It's not the benevolent love fest the it's followers seem to think and want it to be. This thread is evidence of that. Why do Christians feel the need to continually try to prove not just that non-believers are wrong, but that we should believe as Christians do. Personally I don't, and I never will.


IB quoting OH: I didn't say it was ok to kill Christians back.


IB's response to OH in above quote:Actually the circumstances are vice versa, and that, nevertheless, is what happens in the real world.


OH's response: The Christians attacked a CULTURE not a nation. They also attacked a very financially profitable culture. I don't agree with the current Muslim jhed and I don't agree with the Christian one then or now.

IB quoting OH: I said I'm not Christian and explained why and some of Christianity's history to the uninformed.

IB's response to OH in above quote:Not arguing with about whether or why you are or are not a Christian, but you insist on measuring Christian transgressions without a proper yard stick.

I think that I am arguing with the real, base reason yard stick. We will differ here I can see. But I believe in getting to the bottom of it. I don't think that you can legitimately war with a culture particulary if you profit from that culture loosing without blame.

The same holds true when you consider Christian transgressions. If you stack one transgression on top of another and measure them with your 'altruistic' yard stick, it's easy to find fault. If, however, you measure Christian transgressions against those of real world contemporaries, you'll find that while they're still not perfect, they're far less odious within the context of real world events and circumstances.

I would could not disagree more vehemently. In my opinion, Christianity and Islam are singularly the worst things to happen to the Earth and is defiantly the worst influence in the last 2,000 years. I view them as political movements against the Roman Empire, but that is a whole different subject.

IB quoting OH: I'm not down with the other Desert God Allah either. I don't recall endorsing Him at all. What does the plague have to do with Christian history and brutality?

IB's response: Context! An Islamic army used the plague as a weapon against Christians, it's contextually relevant. When you argue without context you are like, for extant historical comparison purpose only, Iran's "Screaming Mary" who berated the American hostages for the U.S.' dropping the A-Bomb on the Japanese during WWII. "Screaming Mary" had never heard of Nanking, Unit 731, Pearl Harbor or Bataan. She made judgments that didn't have context or perspective!

No offense, but I disagree. And I don't have a problem with dropping nukes on Japan.

Man's relation to his God is thru compassion; the only basis for morality. Through compassion for suffering of others, man acquires wisdom and through the perfection of wisdom finds salvation..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

One, a relationship with a person's God is through faith not compassion. And this is just religious dogma.

OH responding: How is this aggressive Einstein.
Well, let's see how it might be aggressive. Sarcastically referring to someone as Einstein? Check.
I am just pushing back. Christianity is hyper-aggressive and I for one am sick of having your values legislated to me. They're not my values.
Seriously, explain how it's aggressive then I'll think of you as something other than a belligerent and over-reaching sound-bite idiot.
Referring to someone that implied you were aggressive as "a belligerent and over-reaching sound-bite idiot"? Check.

Read what I wrote not what you wanted me to write. We're not overly impressed with your knowledge of what makes you a cultural Jew.
Is that the royal "we"?

Because why? It's easier to live by?
No, because the New Testament version of God sounds a whole lot better than the Old Testament version of God - all that smiting and smoting and pestilence and curses. I like Lewis Blacks standup routine about the books. I think the dietary restrictions in Judaism (kosher), Islam (halal) and Catholicism (no meat on Fridays during Lent) are superstitious nonsense. So, as someone who is an agnostic or even a borderline atheist, it strikes me as odd that someone who WAS an atheist would embrace all the rules and requirements of Judaism - unless of course you are one of the Reform types that eats bacon and shrimp. And some branches of the more orthodox Jewish sects are even more backward with respect to women than Islam. If you are going to blame Christianity (all of it) for the most extreme Christian denominations, shouldn't you be doing the same for Judaism?

You can be a Hitler and on your death bed you can take Jesus as your Savior and BOOM! All your sins are forgive and you get to go to Christian heaven with all the good guys? Sounds like grown-up Santa Clause to me.
That is the Cliff Notes version of what SOME Christian sects are supposed to believe. I would say the real beliefs of the mainline Christian churches regarding true repentence is more nuanced.

Besides, what do you REALLY know about the religious texts and do you do the difference between the Law and dogma? I'll bet you don't.
That would make two of us.
Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

So what kind of Zionist are you?

Technically, EXNYer, you're full of shit.

You CAN be a Jew by choice, even if your mother isn't.

Obviously you never read the story of Ruth.

And again, I reject the notion that Judaism equates to Zionism. Sorry, bub. You're dead wrong again.

Technically, EXNYer, you're full of shit.

You CAN be a Jew by choice, even if your mother isn't.
Damn. All those Jews I grew up with lied to me.

Obviously you never read the story of Ruth.

And again, I reject the notion that Judaism equates to Zionism. Sorry, bub. You're dead wrong again. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I didn't say it equated to Zionism.

OH said she was a Zionist in an earlier post. I want to know what she means by that.

you can always convert....

I didn't say it equated to Zionism.

OH said she was a Zionist in an earlier post. I want to know what she means by that. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I believe isreal has the right to st exhist as a State as it is now including Jerusalem to the ecclusion of others if others cannot live within the laws of the State. I also believe Iseralies have the right to protect their sovereignity by all means necessary.

And that the Jewish people have a right to exhist unmolested.whereever they are in the world.

I believe isreal has the right to st exhist as a State as it is now including Jerusalem to the ecclusion of others if others cannot live within the laws of the State. I also believe Iseralies have the right to protect their sovereignity by all means necessary.

And that the Jewish people have a right to exhist unmolested.whereever they are in the world. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And if the Arab/Muslim population in Israel grows larger than the Jewish population and votes to be annexed by an Arab neighbor?

And if the Arab/Muslim population in Israel grows larger than the Jewish population and votes to be annexed by an Arab neighbor? Originally Posted by ExNYer

Tough shit.

Tough shit. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

For who? The Jews in Israel? Or the Muslims?

What are you saying, exactly?

You're tilting at windmills EXNYer. do you actually think that's a possibility?

Maybe y'all need to set up a date or something ...

You're tilting at windmills EXNYer. do you actually think that's a possibility? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying the Arabs in Israel cannot out breed the Jews?

Israel is constantly walling off parts of the West Bank and trying to drive Palestinians out. But if they can't come up with a two-state solution, those Palestinians will eventually have to be regarded as part of Israel and they will have to be give the vote, the same as Arabs living in Israel proper. The Jews in israel are expected to 3.5 million in 50 years, but there are ALREADY 3.5M Palestinians in WB. And the WB Palestinians are breeding like rabbits. So what happens in 30 or so years?

About the only saving grace for Israel may be the breeding rate of the Haredim - expected to grow by nearly 600% in the next 40 or so years.

At that point, however, secular Israelis may prefer Hamas and the Palestinians to the Haredim.

Israel has some deep demographic problems in front of it.

http://amirmizroch.com/2011/12/11/of...ael-wont-work/

@ IB,

OH's Response: They were Christians in that they were followers of Christs' teachings, but they did not hold Jesus out as a God of any kind. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

The Orthodox and the Catholic disagreed over the Filioque and fought battles to gain political and commercial dominance. The Catholics and the Protestants disagreed and fought wars over “faith” versus “works”, transubstantiation and predestination. And everyone ganged up against the Anabaptist who practised adult baptism, but like the Arians, they were/are all Christians.

OH's Response: Some historians say that, and some say that it was a purely politically motivated. The victors wrote the history so perhaps the history is lost. Don't know. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It remains, during the last decade of his life, Constantine was a Christian, and he ruled as sole emperor over a unified Roman Empire.

OH's Response: Like I said, it was the beginning of the end of the unified Roman Empire. Constantine moved one of the capitols; he had a co-Emperor; he fought civil wars, he only had a unified empire for the last ten years, according to you I didn't look it up, yet he lived to be an old man. I believe we are in agreement. He ruled over the beginning of the end. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Yes, the Empire was destined to be overrun by the Germans. But as late as 555 AD, more than two hundred years after Constantine, Justinian ruled over a (re)united Roman Empire.

IB quoting OH: That's one way of looking at it. Another is that Christians were doing as Saul and the Church demanded - Spreading the word and converting souls. OH's Response: Well that and the Orient had some mighty fine treasure and some choice real estate. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

And, pray tell, what coercive state power did Christian missionaries have, during Christianity’s incipient centuries, to extort this “fine treasure” or to expropriate the “choice real estate”?

France, England, Spain and Portugal had holdings in the Middle East? I was not aware of that. It was my impression that the Middle East was controlled by Christian rulers not necessary Western European nations. The Christians were defending the faith and culture not holdings of legally controlled lands. If the people of the Middle East want to be Muslims then it's their fucking business not Richard the Lionhearted and a few popes business. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Before the rise of Mohammed, most of those lands belonged to the Romans by right of conquest. Byzantium called on Western Europe to aid them in dispossessing of the Islamic intruders.

Follow the money. It was a response to Muslims conquoring the lands formerally held by independent nations that were Christian and thereby cutting off the money and the power the money bought. There were no nations named Christian in the Middle East just nations with Christian people paying tives to the Church. I'm not saying the Muslims didn't attack anyone, I'm saying they attacked independent nations and the ONLY dog in the fight the West had was the money flowing back to Rome. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

“Tithing” predates Christianity. The Greeks tithed to their gods, and pre-Christian Romans tithed to their gods.

OH's response: ere were 65 million people killed in WWII. Christianity and it's constant wars with Muslims and it's own people has decimated the villages, towns, cities, nations and cultures. It's not the benevolent love fest the it's followers seem to think and want it to be. This thread is evidence of that. Why do Christians feel the need to continually try to prove not just that non-believers are wrong, but that we should believe as Christians do. Personally I don't, and I never will. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Where do you place Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, who killed hundreds of millions of innocents? What of the tens of thousands captured and executed by the Aztecs?

OH's response: The Christians attacked a CULTURE not a nation. They also attacked a very financially profitable culture. I don't agree with the current Muslim jhed and I don't agree with the Christian one then or now. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Historical, Islamic states: the Umayyad, the Almoravid, the Abbasid, the Mamluk, the Seljuq empire and the Ottomans. The Crusades were launched against the Turks.

OH's response: I think that I am arguing with the real, base reason yard stick. We will differ here I can see. But I believe in getting to the bottom of it. I don't think that you can legitimately war with a culture particulary if you profit from that culture loosing without blame. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Historical, Islamic states: the Umayyad, the Almoravid, the Abbasid, the Mamluk, the Seljuq empire and the Ottomans. The Crusades were launched against the Turks.

I would could not disagree more vehemently. In my opinion, Christianity and Islam are singularly the worst things to happen to the Earth and is defiantly the worst influence in the last 2,000 years. I view them as political movements against the Roman Empire, but that is a whole different subject. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Where do you place Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, who killed hundreds of millions of innocents? What of the tens of thousands captured and executed by the Aztecs?

No offense, but I disagree. And I don't have a problem with dropping nukes on Japan. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

How do Japan’s attacks against the Allies in December 1941 differ significantly from the Seljuq Turk attacks against Byzantium, and its allies, in the 11th century?

WE GET IT IBS! You hate anything that's not christian and will produce example after example of Medieval atrocities to justify those committed in the name of the cross, which is irrelevant to the topic.

But again, I fail to see the point of these endless meta-discussions. This discussion has been more of a pissing match over religious history instead of spiritual/religious relationships between man and God, and the role of sin therein. If O says night, you'd ask her why it's so different than day. and so on. Typical personal gangbang.

At least you haven't talked about O's lady parts! She should be thankful for that.

In other forums this thread would have been closed for hijacking.

WE GET IT IBS! You hate anything that's not christian and will produce example after example of Medieval atrocities to justify those committed in the name of the cross, which is irrelevant to the topic.

But again, I fail to see the point of these endless meta-discussions. This discussion has been more of a pissing match over religious history instead of spiritual/religious relationships between man and God, and the role of sin therein. If O says night, you'd ask her why it's so different than day. and so on. Typical personal gangbang.

At least you haven't talked about O's lady parts! She should be thankful for that.

In other forums this thread would have been closed for hijacking. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Oh, but you are one ignorant fuck, you turd-tongued golem. Since when are Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Imperial Japan relegated to Medieval history, jackass? BTW, this is not "another forum", and consider your posts rate as the most non-constructive in this thread, you animated piece of shit.