They have eyes but are blinded, ears but are deafened, minds but self-deceived

0

When was the last time you heard or read, a self-professed Christian begrudging the poor a welfare check?

When was the last time you saw any church, giving the poor a handout that did not have an investment attached to it? Would you sell your soul for a can of chicken noodle, green beans and a loaf of bread?

When was the last time you witnessed "goodly Christians" on the way to their favorite football game, but they looked away in disgust without an ounce of charity in their heart when seeing a dirty, hungry homeless man or family, women and children living on a street corner, or perhaps in their car... and not a kind charitable hand extended to them? They have money for their football tickets, but not enough to purchase a loaf of bread and peanut butter for the less fortunate, the same children of God.

These persons are self-centered, puffed up (see the Days of Unleavened Bread), vain, wicked, idle professors of faith. Christianity has sunken so deep in its idolatry of money and self-serving greed that it now preaches a gospel of wealth, Jesus wants you to be rich! says one televangelist. What false prophet is this, who uses the name of God for his vain glory and pleasure. For it is they who profit the Lord nothing. Why should the Lord, Jesus Christ, do away with the Old Testament scriptures when he himself quoted them to the religious hypocrites of his day? The same evil wicked religionists who murdered him in cold blood for the crime of speaking the truth... the truth of God's word. Those murderers of Jesus, are alive and well, the same religionists who put more credence in their false teachings, than to have faith and reverence in God.

Zechariah 7

1 In the fourth year of King Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev.
2 Now the town of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regemmelech and their men to seek the favor of the LORD,
3 speaking to the priests who belong to the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, “Shall I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many years?”
4 Then the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying,
5 “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted?
6 ‘When you eat and drink, do you not eat for yourselves and do you not drink for yourselves?
7 ‘Are not these the words which the LORD proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous along with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?’”

8 Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying,
9 “Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother;
10 and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’
11 “But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing.
12 “They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.
13“And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen,” says the LORD of hosts;
14“but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known. Thus the land is desolated behind them so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate.”

Is it sin to oppress the widow and fatherless? Why indeed it was and still is! according to the prophets. The rich and powerful, setting themselves over such and exploiting the meek and defenseless for their own gain, all for an ill gotten profit. Those wretched conservatives, professing their christianity out of one side of their mouths but from the other side, would soon have child-protection laws stripped away and free to operate 20 hour a day, 7 day a week sweat shops exploiting defenseless women and children, for profit. These greed-worshipping capitalists, call themselves "Christian" but are the enemies of God.

Judaism 101: Yom Kippur
http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday4.htm‎
The name "Yom Kippur" means "Day of Atonement," and that pretty much explains what the holiday is. It is a day set aside to "afflict the soul," to atone for the sins ...

How many of those persons boasting themselves to be saved and "Christian" or "Jew" even understand the true meaning... the deep, spiritual relevance behind the Old Laws, the Old Holy Days such as the Day of Atonement?

I know, because I myself have experienced hunger and wished that one soul might have sympathy. In truth, few cared. It seemed many "Christians" were happy for my suffering and were too "goodly and saintly, holier than thou" to give bread to some person of my lowly estate. I should suffer! I should perish, as God should not dwell in one as unworthy as I! I cannot help but to feel sympathy for the homeless and the poor, the fatherless. The Lord has WRITTEN HIS LAWS IN MY HEART AND MY SOUL through harsh worldly experience. Typically, my suffering sprange from mistreatment at the hands of one who professed a godliness, beyond reproach but in secret were a sniveling hypocrite, devising evil schemes and malice against those who were vulnerable. Through empathy, as I have suffered immensely, so I feel deeply for the suffering of others. The Lord has taught me the meaning of Suffering, not for his pleasure, but for the sake of sorrow... OTHERS' sorrow through my own. I have learned EMPATHY.

In youth, raised under the harsh Jewish laws, I observed keepers of the Day of Atonement. For about 2 decades of my youth, that is 20 years... that is enough time to know, and I saw their annual ungodly ritual, firsthand. What I concluded by observation (what they do) vs. what is written (what they say Atonement is about) is that the ""Holy" Day of Atonement was a day you were made to starve, get sick, suffer in vain, because God must "enjoy" making you suffer. Their god is a sadist, without love. It seems that misery and curses are the only thing that can make their evil god of wrath, "happy". God hates you, right? So he commands you to go without food for one day in the year, from sunset to sunset. For his sadistic kicks, not to bring you into remembrance of the sufferings of others, his children.

They lie. It is they who enjoy crushing the meek under their heel. Their sadism, their narcissistic egocentrism, that it is about themself and their pleasure without a second thought of another human being.
I heard the adults in the congregation speak of their special diets before the fast, their altered lifestyles, devising ways to "beat the suffering" rather than embracing it... to "feel the pain" that might be caused by this tiny, little Day of Atonement. Tis only a day!! Little to nothing of the observance had anything to do with "drawing closer to God" by examining one's empathy with their fellow man. It was ritualistic. Shallow. Completely lacking in spiritual depth. Meaningless. Nothing to do with God, or atoning for one's sins. It had everything to do with their self-serving pursuits of creature comforts. They went hungry and thirsty for 24 hours. It was all in vain because these blinded hypocrites learned nothing and sunset came and went and they happily feasted on their wealth of groceries. They were no wiser to the prayers offered up by the homeless souls ten miles away, on a street corner, perhaps freezing without the benefit of a blanket or a bite to eat. Souls which God does hear... but that same God, does not look favorably on those believers who blindly fasted for 24 hours... as it was not for God, but a vain act, a ritual which they do not understand.

The Day of Atonement, one day of 365, they were suppose to be made to feel the pangs of hunger and thirst, of sorrow that children of God are suffering for days, weeks, months as they sit homeless at the side of the road. The poor souls who are without food to eat. The poorest of the poor. It happens all the time. Turning away. Good sister Sarah cannot trouble herself with giving bread to the homeless, for she must pay for her luxury BMW and would not be caught dead, at the "lower class" side of town working in a homeless shelter. Shunned, as "sub-human" by "good christians". How many Christians would extend a helping hand to ex-cons on parole, to give them employment and forgiveness, the second chance that so many want for themselves? They know nothing of God. These workers of evil, do oppress the widow, do indeed exploit the fatherless and to enter their churches, their religious dogma, would lead others into dismal ignorance and spiritual blindness to be enmity between one's own self and God.

I had an Agnostic recently remark, that he found his own country revolting, as though there is a sickness in their minds... people who will spend so much money on football tickets, but if they see a mother and children on the street corner on their way... they would indeed keep driving, without second thought, and attend to their own pleasure over another person's suffering.

I know the Bible. And such wisdom was not uttered from the "holy lips" of a Christian, but from the lips of an Agnostic, whose heart was in the right place with God's commands. I know where many so-called Christians stand with God, and it is not where they foolishly believe they do.

I know not their gods, nor will I worship them.

Read More »

Hell Does Exist

0

Tonight I am enjoying "The Ten Commandments" with Charleton Heston for probably the 1000th time. I cannot prevent a tear forming in my eye, every time the Red Sea is opened. Or when God speaks to Moses. Even the most ardent non-believer has to be moved, at least somewhat, by the cinematic effects and cheesy drama.

I have been considering this week, a matter of really no concern to me. The question of "Hell" and if it exists. Why, I have every reason to believe (aside of scriptures) to think, we are in the midst of judgment, here and now. This world is filled with many hells, and hell takes many forms.

Few, it seems understand very much at all about their Holy Bible because they do not bother reading it. Just ask them! They defend the Bible as the word of God, yet, have never actually read it. And much less, having faith for the Holy Spirit to reveal the deeper meaning if they did so. They simply regurgitate the creeds and doctrines they were taught since childhood and comfortable in their patent "truth(TM)". They parrot rituals and dogma, without question. They prefer to set under the shadow of the pulpit, a man, instead of the great gift through Jesus Christ, and that supposedly being, God himself teaching them.

A frightening prospect indeed. To face God as your only "teacher" for one may be forced to see themself as they truly are.. their weakness, their faults, their failures, their fallability before the Lord. To have their eyes opened and TRUTH revealed to their mind.

To use one's own brain, to think and question those lies taught to them since childhood may lead to division. Better to be in mother's good graces to continue on in this or that ritual, or be in father's favor by continuing to follow his false religious teachings with those idolatrous relics. Better to follow man's idolatries than follow God! Following Jesus' teachings, to stand alone when all are naysayers to the truth, may put one in a very difficult place. Even the great priesthood accused Jesus to be a consort of Beelzebub, the equivalent of a servent of Satan,

Matthew 10:34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:35 “For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;
Matthew 10:36 and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.
Matthew 10:37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
Matthew 10:38 “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
Matthew 10:39 “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Believers tend to prefer their the pretended mediators between themselves and God. It is comfortable, living under a shroud of lies, deceiving and being deceived. Apparently, Jesus died in vain.

And, I do know many non-believers who by their good deeds, would make by far, finer Christians than those that claim to be one. All they lack, as the ideal example of Christian virtue would be if they had faith in God, that is, aside of all their good works. There are many who will say "But Lord, we prophesied in your name." Yet told, "Depart, I know you not, worker of iniquity."

I have thought and thought this week, while watching "The Tudors" with Jonathan Rhys Meyers... all the heretics, apostates, the wretched persecutions, torture and burnings in the name of God, the bloodshed, the cruel inhumanity dealt by the so-called "faithful" upon their fellow "faithful". Men, seeking to establish himself to bear dominion over other men, in God's name. Isn't that amazing, since afterall, I presumed, it was to be "Man, a free soul under God, and ruled by God alone." Yet, the burning and torture continued unabated for centuries. The so-called Church which Jesus built, continued to splinter into different belief systems, in a great part due to corruption and false teachings, and today, ten thousands of sects and denominations... all the body of Christ? Or rather, could it be "the great falling away" from the original, simple truth, hinted at in the Bible?

The scriptures say, "God shall teach them". Yet, why doesn't God teach them? Why every Sunday do we still turn on televisions and see preachers? Does the scripture not say that knowledge of the Gospel would reach the ends of the Earth, and one would not run neighbor to neighbor to teach them, because they would already know God. Sinners like me who attend no church, and trust in God with faith to reveal through his spirit of truth, to our hearts and minds, his laws, his will, his answered prayers. Those goodly sheep say, those of us who refuse to be lead to slaughter by their shepherds, can not know God. I ask, what power died and made them God, to know the hearts and minds of others... or the authority to judge. Does not the scripture say, "Judge not lest ye be judged?""
Even sometimes, I have seen the power of God working answered prayers through non-believers which I've made acquaintance with. It is my belief, God is omnipotent, and omniscient and dwells in the heart and mind of all mankind, and he knows all of them.. and can move them, even the most ardent Atheist. Where is the faith of the religionists that in spite of the sacrifice Jesus made, they still seek guidance of a man instead of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and the one on one audience with the Father in Heaven, the Almighty God, the King of the Universe? All of organized religion still insist that a man and only men shall teach them! The few women who teach, are more in the minority and seldom taken seriously by mainstream religionists. And that mankind remains so contrary to God's commands, comes as no surprise since the Bible itself is a collection of many wretched false priests and their false teachings that sprang up from idolatry, evolved and "made holy" by new false priests of the new order of Christendom. In many ways those old idolatries and superstition still do have their stranglehold over the hearts, minds and souls of modern day christian religionists. It is the wayward way of man.

I thought to myself. Hell.... it does take many forms. The modern day Christian fundamentalist browbeats those who do not accept their personal creeds and doctrines, their denomination. Those who will not follow them are "in danger of eternal damnation" or "in a dangerous place with God." (Funny how God is an all loving God - only love -, until these certain people want to use fear to emotionally cripple and spiritually blackmail prospective converts to do their bidding, entering into spiritual bondage with their religion) When seeking converts, God may become a mean, vindictive, nasty god which torments non-believers eternally. Their gods change on a dime... needless to say, these gods created in their own image.

See how they hate those who do not blindly follow them into their church come Sunday morn. Why, what can those who are not setting in the little Sunday School room inside the little church on 3rd and Main, possibly know about God?? Afterall, they hold the monopoly on the one true truth. They are helping Sister Sarah see the light.
However, if a non-believer of their denomination is assertive that, "I do not believe in your religion," it is the greatest personal offense and blaspheme to that religionist and their gods.

Hell exists. Just ask Mr. Religionist, if he will go sit in mass with Mr. Catholic. Ask Mr. Catholic, to sit through just one sabbath service with Mrs. Messianic Jew. Ask Mr. Jew to sit through services with Mrs. Lutheran, or Mr. Lutheran to sit through a sermon at Mr. Baptist's church.
As they shift and squirm from the preaching of falsehoods, untruths, strange ancient, idolatrous rituals and false teachings of false religion that are uttered from the pulpit in the name of God, then they realize, they are in the pit of Hell.

And yet, they ask non-believers to join them this Sunday. "We would love to have you." I'm sure you would, but no thank you.

---

Much has been said by Christians how Jesus did away with the Old Testament. How little they do understand about their Bible which they refuse to read, yet have the audacity to hold to the face of non-believers to judge and condemn them.
It is clearly written in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to revoke The Written Law or The Prophets; I am not come to revoke but to fulfill."

The preachers have failed to explain to their devoted sheep, Jesus knew the difference between the law of Moses which consisted of over 600 laws vs. the simplicity of God's own 10 commandments, upon which all the mosaic law hinged. Jesus did no such thing to "do away with the commandments of God".

However, Moses was one of the first to do so. His priests pressured the prophets and men who lead the people of Israel... it was they who "did away with the law," not Jesus. Jesus came teaching the commandments of God. It was not his fault the mosaic law had been so corrupted by despotic religionists, that it no longer reflected the commandments of God. Here is how they, priests, preachers, the all-wise learned teachers, "did away with the law,"

Matthew 19:3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”
Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
Matthew 19:5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?
Matthew 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Matthew 19:7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
Matthew 19:9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Did Jesus "do away with the law and Old Testament?" Indeed no! The hard-hearted followers of Moses, and idolatrous off-shoots of christianity, are they who are solely responsible for "doing away with the laws of God and teachings of Jesus Christ."

As for me, I will not be joining anyone in church this Sunday (which is not, nor ever was the true sabbath but merely a day for idol worshippers to worship the Sun, "the day of the Sun,") to fill my ears with the glorifications of Satan's dominion, and how he rules this world with great power... why, with Satan running to and fro, the almighty God has been reduced to an absentee father, non-existent, unobtainable... a dogma which is much beloved by idolators, who worship that wretched Babylonian myth of Tiamat the Dragon who made war in heaven with Marduk. Inscribed in babylonian monuments, long before the mythology manifest itself in the book of Revelation.

I shall not be in your church, or any other! But the Christian cites his scriptures which were written by mere men, fallable humans, "How shall they learn except a preacher and the assembling of yourselves together?" Do the scriptures not say "They shall be taught by God"? They shall be taught by God! and they shall know the Lord. Did Jesus not warn of the false teachers, whom lead each other like blind men, where they both fall in a ditch? This is why, I will not be in your church on Sunday morning, and probably not Saturday either, for the Kingdom of God is within me. Not in your buildings. Not in your rituals. Not in your uniforms and sacred relics.

As it is written likewise in the Revelation, The remnant who seek God, will honor and keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus Christ. Does your church do that, really?? Keeping the commandments. You will say yes, but I ask you this, "Does your denomination remember the Saturday sabbath, to keep it holy?" Likely, no. Therefore, please keep your little pamphlets. I have a copy of the Bible. I can read it just fine for myself. Jesus is my intermediator. What need have I of your false religion to bring me down deep into hell with you that I should disobey the teachings of Jesus and the commandments of God?

Read More »

Dear Atheists, Creationists and other Truth-Haters

0

Dear Atheists, Creationists and other truth-haters,

I am pleased to share with you an "Earth Star".

Earthstars... fruiting fungi...

Earthstars, ( Basidiomycetes )

To the truth-hating, god-hating atheist, though you may not like it, not all "fruit" is produced by photosynthetic modern day "plants". Sorry, science doesn't change just because you want it to fit your atheist religion, unless there's a really good sound reason and fungi are not classified among the kingdom Plantae at all anymore. You should know this.

To you creationists, I'm so sorry that your excuse to hate Charles Darwin with such venom has went the way of the dinosaurs, but, on second thought, Darwin was right. Genesis and Science don't contradict. Your silly interpretation for creationism is a blatant contradiction, but the facts yielded from geological history and Genesis are not a problem to reconcile. Only your theories of Genesis are a problem! There were fungi, large as trees in early geological history and there still are fungi... namely "FRUITING FUNGI," which do not need photosynthesis to thrive. Therefore, there were and still are, the possibility of a primitive world filled with herbal-life, in the total lack of sunlight... long enough to fill in that gap of 2 billion years, Darwin couldn't explain. Your preachers misinformed you. Sorreeeee. I dare say, your preachers LIED TO YOU because they do not have an inkling of a clue about what science teaches.

Oh well, its not like Jesus failed to warn his listeners about false prophets.

Read More »

I Am... A Heretic

0

Read the title. Twice if you have to.

God called himself "I am," when speaking to Moses.

I Am was a Heretic. His spirit, the holy spirit, was present in the words of Jesus.

And the hypocrites, those "fine upstanding priesthood" who murdered Jesus, called Jesus a heretic. They called God, the holy spirit, a heretic.

I've wondered about it often. After 10,000 experiences with so-called christians, how revoltingly arrogant of them, "well if you don't attend my church, you can not have the spirit of God."

They will verbally abuse people they want to force into their congregation, "You don't have the spirit of God," and scoff if the matter arises of sharing a personal spiritual experience. Well, you dont attend their church so, you cannot possibly have God's spirit.

By what authority do they speak?

Oh, I get it. Pastor Bob's on yonder hill on the corner of 3rd and Main... and of course Jesus said, that many false teachers were running rogue. Who am I to believe, Jesus, or some false teacher?

Oh my. That offended.

My brain is doing cartwheels in the cognitive dissonance regions. Afterall, it is the Atheists who outright deny the existence of the holy spirit. Christians are so quick to condemn them to hell of course. Never once do they consider just how often they are guilty of the "unpardonable sin" of denying Jesus, denying the holy spirit at work in the lives of others who do not attend their church, do not subscribe to their particular creed or denomination.

Those christians! How they do exceedingly speak of a "personal relationship with Jesus". But as soon as a non-subscriber to their church dare speaketh of a personal revelation, a personal experience, a personal experience with the power of God, that relationship... well, they are quick to deny its even possible that such a relationship could exist, especially if it contradicts their personal religious notions of what that "relationship is suppose to be like," it is the christian who is the hottest persecutor, in denial by far worse than any atheist or agnostic ever aimed to be!

Perhaps, Christians do not know God.

When I have spoke of visions and premonitions, christians deny it. With pruned lips, "Why would God speak to you?" Ahhh, such hatred. Not because God hates me, but because they are so indoctrinated by their false religion. And why wouldn't God speak to me? I trust in God, not in fallible man, afterall.

Perhaps, they are the people who Jesus spoke of when he said many will appear before him in that great day and will say "But Lord, we prophecied in your name!" yet they are told, "Depart, I know you not."

Atheists do have one good aspect to consider which even the Almighty God surely can appreciate. At least atheists and agnostics do not worship silly false gods like that ridiculous dragon-snake nonsense called satan which was nurtured by the false priests back in ancient israel from nothing more than Babylonian mythology... as the people of Israel did exactly as God spoke to Moses they would! The false priests went "a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land" and created 'satan' as the new god of the land. Christians are truly idolators... pure polytheists with the worship of snakes and dragons, just as the ancient Egyptians. Making gods out of the animals they fear.

I have seen many miracles. Many answered prayers. I attribute it to the fact, God knows my heart is in the right place, just as some atheists and agnostics have their heart in the right place. God has shown me mercy. Despite many wicked christians who know nothing further than to narrow-mindedly judge and condemn others... and know not Jesus or the teachings he brought to people, such as "Judge not lest ye be judged," and to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.

P.S., I don't attend any church. There's no need to. Jesus is the only intermediator between myself and the Holy Father on high. I can open my bible, pray, and the Holy Spirit.. God's spirit of Truth, is imparted to me, to know the truth... whether its what I want to believe, or not. God will teach them! (John 6:45) I don't need anyone's preacher to "teach" me. How shall they learn without a preacher? Perhaps that's the very reason Jesus lived, walked and taught, and was slaughtered like a lamb by the evil preachers and priests of organized religion. What is so difficult about keeping the commandments, and loving God, as well as showing love toward your neighbor? A child can grasp the substance of Jesus' teaching, while the "wise, learned televangelists" glaze right over it, and lead the sheep astray into the wilderness. They will be taught by God! (John 6:45) not a man.

Jim Jones was a man... and one must ask, what became of his foolowers?

God bless!

Read More »

Thought for the Day

0

I got something photographed today which I felt to be interesting. It was posted by a church or religious organization on the billboard. Interesting as it may be, oddly seems to be a more secularized message.

None of the normal patent(TM) evangelical "absolute truth" undertones.

"There are no absolute answers to life - just Revelations."
"A path without obstacles probably leads nowhere."
I agree on both accounts.

My Agnostic Friend: The first billboard implies that revelation does not contain absolute answers.

Personal truths, perhaps, which are not patent absolute truths.

ehow.com › Mental Health
The Psychology of Personal Revelations. Throughout her life, an individual has the potential to have one or more life-changing events

.../personal-revelation-the-teachings-and-examples-of-t...
Personal revelation is the way we know for ourselves the most important truths of our existence.

My Agnostic Friend: Very moderate of them to admit that.

My other Agnostic friend says I'm not a Christian. I say I am. He said I'm agnostic. =) I don't think so.

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:01 am
Contents :
All agnostics seem extraordinarily mellowed out. =)

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:02 am
Contents :
Don't have to be all uptight and always think we're right about everything.

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:09 am
Contents :
Lol... But thing is, agnostics often are..

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:10 am
Contents :
Because we can see things from all different angles. Not just one angle that backs up our life and other beliefs......

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 12:19 am
Contents :
Ok... So does that make me agnostic?? Cos i was a real true ATHEIST for abt five seconds when i realized the bible was a book of myths invented by men..
And where do belief in god come from? Bible. So, god is a myth. I was in it... Atheist mind, y know? But thought, 'nah... Somethings out there. Not sure what... But something.' and that was 1990s and seen n tried every belief... And never found any 'absolute truth'. Agnostics are my favorite people... just are... I dont ask why.

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 12:22 am
Contents :
Well, sounds like U are, but think about it too much. I think most of us know we'll not get the answers, so why bother discussing it or argueing it with other people. Not worth the waste of my time, and most likely not going to change their minds anyway.....

---

From: My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:26 am
U have to believe all that bs bible **** to be a christian. The teachings and morals are the same things that have been handed down through all religions and many cultures. To believe them alone does not make U christian....

From : Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:34 am
Contents :
I think it does. :) ... A wannabe christian. I TRY to b nice and patient and then something happens and i mess up and say things i regret later.... But u've gracefully forgiven me. Christians are seldom forgiving 7x70... As jesus instructed to be. Noooo, many set around gossipping and slandering the innocent. Theyre not christian... U say they are... They say they are, but jesus says 'u will know my people by their fruits'... And i say, those people are christian, in name only.

From : My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:37 am
Contents :
Well look at my fruit; does that make me christian? If there is a heaven will I not get in because I don't accept christianity?

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:45 am
Contents :
Revelation states there is a resurrection of the dead, and all 'judged according to their works'. Note: it doesnt say 'according to one's creed'. Theists do that. A wise God would not and yes, i think any loving, righteous god would see u have love in your heart and the right priorities... Whilst some evangelists and priests are molesting kids. JESUS SAYS 'many will say Lord, we prophsied in ur name,' and told, 'Depart, i know u not.'

From: My Other Agnostic Friend
Date : 07/15/2012 01:47 am
Contents :
Well the vast majority (pretty much all) say I wouldn't get into heaven. Further proof that Ur not christian. :-p

From: Me
Date : 07/15/2012 01:53 am
Contents :
I am a christian and if many other 'christians' had their way, theyd reinstate the inquisition n theyd burn me at the stake for heresy and you n my buddy for apostasy. Jesus was also falsely accused, beaten and crucified by the same bunch of religious cronies... So ur in good company. The pious, self-righteous religious leaders murdered jesus, not the 'sinners' and simpletons of his day.

---

"Revelation states there is a resurrection of the dead, and all 'judged according to their works'. Note: it doesnt say 'according to one's creed'."

My Agnostic Friend: Exactly.

In fact, according to biblical scholars the book of Revelation appears to have been composed by a Judaizing Christian who agreed more with Matthew and his idea of the sheep and goats being judged by their "works," than with Paul's view that "faith" is what "saves." In fact, biblical scholar Elaine Pagels suggest that the author of Revelation was trying to correct the erroneous view as he saw it in churches of the Pauline idea that "faith" is what "saves."

Below are summations of Elaine Pagels's new book, Revelation:

Pagels emphasizes that the Book of Revelation was written at a particular time and place: a small island off the coast of Turkey, probably around 90 C.E. after the Romans had burned down the Great Temple and left Jerusalem in ruins. “We begin to understand what he wrote,” she says, “only when we see that his book is wartime literature.” In other words, much of the fiery destruction portrayed early in John’s narrative is not so much prophetic as historical, a florid depiction of the incomprehensible horrors that had left Jews stunned, scattered and frightened. In the wake of Rome’s brutal repression and the flourishing of its empire, John wrote cryptic “anti-Roman propaganda that drew its imagery from Israel’s prophetic traditions.” His “Revelation,” then, was a way of acknowledging recent defeats while knitting them neatly into a narrative of future victory.

More provocatively, Pagels claims that John “sees himself as a Jew who acknowledges Jesus as Israel’s messiah — not someone who has converted to a new ‘religion.’?” That distinction is significant, because it allows her to argue that while John was portraying Rome as the beast, he was also warning Jewish followers of Jesus against associating with gentile followers of Jesus inspired by “that maverick called Paul of Tarsus [who] came out of nowhere and began to preach a ‘gospel’ quite different.” In this interpretation, the Book of Revelation was part of an early power struggle among Jesus’s believers, an internecine conflict defined by stark terms of good and evil, faithfulness and apostasy, salvation and damnation. . . .

In the chapters that follow, Pagels goes on to demonstrate how — and how thoroughly — John lost the battle of interpretation over the story he left behind. As his “Revelation” became the culmination of Christian eschatology, his Jewish allusions were appropriated by a new sect that colonized the Hebrew Bible as the “Old” Testament, subordinated Israeli prophets to Christian bishops, and recast Jews as unbelievers set for hell.

Or this review. . .

We may imagine John, Pagels suggests, as an old Jew who had lived through the Jewish war with Rome, during which Jerusalem was decimated and the Temple destroyed in the year 70. He may have seen the thousands of Jews killed and thousands of others carried to Rome as slaves. Bitter about the dominating imperial power, he may have wandered through Syria and Asia Minor, along the way meeting other followers of the crucified prophet Jesus, other “cells” of worshipers of the Jewish Messiah who was killed and mysteriously raised from the dead.

But when he gets to western Asia Minor, he comes across many gentile Christians, quite possibly in churches founded by the now dead Apostle Paul. Unlike John, they seem to be relatively well off. They usually get along fine with their non-Christian neighbors. They may be prospering from the Pax Romana, the “peace” sustained by Roman domination. They are marrying and having children, running their small businesses, ignoring the statues, temples and worship of other gods that surround them.

For John, this Christian toleration of Rome and its idols is offensive. This is not a benign governmental power. It is the Whore of Babylon, arrogantly destroying the earth. John writes (in this theory) to warn the churches, and he relates his vision to provoke alarm at the Evil Empire. That vision predicts the destruction of Rome by angelic armies, followed by the salvation of faithful disciples of the bloody, horned warrior-lamb Jesus. Those who resist will, in the end, be rewarded.

Or this one. . .

What’s more original to Pagels’s book is the view that Revelation is essentially an anti-Christian polemic. That is, it was written by an expatriate follower of Jesus who wanted the movement to remain within an entirely Jewish context, as opposed to the “Christianity” just then being invented by St. Paul, who welcomed uncircumcised and trayf-eating [forbidden-food-eating] Gentiles into the sect. At a time when no one quite called himself “Christian,” in the modern sense, John is prophesying what would happen if people did. That’s the forward-looking worry in the book. “In retrospect, we can see that John stood on the cusp of an enormous change—one that eventually would transform the entire movement from a Jewish messianic sect into ‘Christianity,’ a new religion flooded with Gentiles,” Pagels writes. “But since this had not yet happened—not, at least, among the groups John addressed in Asia Minor—he took his stand as a Jewish prophet charged to keep God’s people holy, unpolluted by Roman culture. So, John says, Jesus twice warns his followers in Asia Minor to beware of ‘blasphemers’ among them, ‘who say they are Jews, and are not.’ They are, he says, a ‘synagogue of Satan.’ ” Balaam and Jezebel, named as satanic prophets in Revelation, are, in this view, caricatures of “Pauline” Christians, who blithely violated Jewish food and sexual laws while still claiming to be followers of the good rabbi Yeshua. Jezebel, in particular—the name that John assigns her is that of an infamous Canaanite queen, but she’s seen preaching in the nearby town of Thyatira—suggests the women evangelists who were central to Paul’s version of the movement and anathema to a pious Jew like John. She is the original shiksa goddess. (“When John accuses ‘Balaam’ and ‘Jezebel’ of inducing people to ‘eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication,’ he might have in mind anything from tolerating people who engage in incest to Jews who become sexually involved with Gentiles or, worse, who marry them,” Pagels notes.) The scarlet whores and mad beasts in Revelation are the Gentile followers of Paul—and so, in a neat irony, the spiritual ancestors of today’s Protestant evangelicals.

Pagels shows persuasively that the Jew/non-Jew argument over the future of the Jesus movement, the real subject of Revelation, was much fiercer than later Christianity wanted to admit. The first-century Jesus movement was torn apart between Paul’s mission to the Gentiles—who were allowed to follow Jesus without being circumcised or eating kosher—and the more strictly Jewish movement tended by Jesus’ brothers in Jerusalem. The Jesus family was still free to run a storefront synagogue in Jerusalem devoted to his cult, and still saw the Jesus or “Yeshua” movement within the structure of dissenting Judaisms, all of which suggests the real tone of the movement in those first-century years—something like the gingerly, ambiguous, now-he-is, now-he-isn’t messianic claims of the Lubavitchers’ Menachem Schneerson movement, in Brooklyn. “On one side are movement officials who say the promotion of Judaism throughout the world is the heart of continuing Schneerson’s work,” the Washington Post reported several years ago. “On the other are the messianists, whose passion is preparing the world for the coming of Schneerson himself. They are two distinct missions from within one movement—each in the name of the same man.” Apparently, when you have made up your mind to believe that your rabbi is God, neither death nor disappearance will discourage you. His presence is proof; his non-presence is proof; and non-presence can be conjured into presence by wishing it to be so. (“At recent Sabbath services, an older woman along the front row of the women’s section smiled and pointed to the chair. ‘He is Moshiach,’ she said, using the Hebrew word for messiah. ‘We can’t see him with our eyes, but that doesn’t mean he’s not here. He is.”) The two approaches—the Pauline, which says he’s already here in our visions; the “Johannine,” which says he’ll come back if we stay true to our practice—seem to be the pillars of any messianic movement.

Thanks for that extensive input. But I believe works and faith are equally important.

Through Faith in Jesus, one gains access to God's Holy Spirit. Certainly, God was never lost, and even the unbeliever is known to God, and perhaps the unbeliever finds personal revelation to lead them to faith. Through the Holy Spirit, a person's life becomes transformed, and you will know the people of God, by their works. Does God work through Agnostics? Why not? If God busies himself with counting the hairs on a man's head, or feeding ravens, why not use an Agnostic to his greater purpose?

That's as simple and as complicated as I can put it.

The spirit of God can transform (a.k.a., "Save") a man or woman who is, in spiritual terms, condemned.

Likewise, there are many who call themselves Christian, but do not bear the fruits of the spirit, and Jesus said of HIS PEOPLE, "You will know them by their fruits," (or by the same token, their "works"),

James 2:18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
Good works are good fruit, like grapes and figs, pleasing to God and profitable to men.
By the fruits of their persons, their words and actions, and the course of their conversation. If you would know whether they be right or not, observe how they live; their works will testify for them or against them.
http://biblebrowser.com/matthew/7-16.htm

But of those others in the end they will come and say, "But Lord!" and they will be told "Depart, I know you not."

---

Two thoughts.

#1 When Abraham spoke to God and asked, if ten righteous were found in Sodom would God spare the people therein... God says he will spare the city if ten righteous souls are found. Then Abraham questions, if five righteous were found in Sodom? God says if five righteous are found, he will spare the city. Then Abraham tests the Lord's heart and mind, and yes, if one righteous were found in Sodom, again, God would spare the city.

One must ask themself according to that account, if God searches the heart and mind and judges, long before the time of Christianity, also, needless to add, long before even the time of the law of Moses. Then it must not be according to one's creed, but by works, by the goodness of the soul, even in the heart and mind of an Agnostic that God judges.

#2 I attended a funeral of a man, who was by all accounts, by many in the community deemed "condemned" "unchristian" a "sinner," "unsaved". Yet, the preacher was in a position that he had to find something good to say at the funeral for sake of the family. He reminded the people that this man's life, even now, deceased, that all his works were not yet fulfilled. The influence, the effect his life had had upon others was yet to be known. Therefore, not to judge. In summary, only God could make that final judgment. That all would be taken into account.

...and the book of Revelation speaks of such a final judgment.

> > > God was never lost, and even the unbeliever is known to God, and perhaps the unbeliever finds personal revelation to lead them to faith...... a person's life becomes transformed... AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE OVERNIGHT... A DAY TO GOD IS LIKE 1000 YEARS.... why not use an Agnostic to his greater purpose?

The Bible also says, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

So who can say who will be kept out of paradise? The day of the great and final judgment has yet to come, yet, God is judging even now, one's whole life taken into account from God's perspective, a life in its full context; their life's works and every idle thought. Jesus merely taught how to live life well. :) Jesus taught a religion of LOVE. No human alive, has the wisdom to make such an insightful judgment on any other person, to know what their life will become, their life in its entire context, to truly know the heart and mind of any other soul. Every human soul is a Work in Progress and Under Construction. God alone has that wisdom.
So I agree with Jesus, that many "Christians" will come and say, "Lord we prophesied in your name," and told "Depart, I know you not." While many unbelievers who lived a life of good fruit, that is, good works, will inherit paradise, because God was always with them, though they never knew it.

My Agnostic Friend: The parable of the wheat and the tares says it's best to let them grow side by side otherwise you are likely to pull up some wheat with the tares, which means when they are young plants they look very similar. You can't tell what will be for anyone. Though some religious folks like to think they already know.

According to mainstream Christianity,

Is The Holy Bible Easy To Understand?
myth-one.com/chapter_18.htm
Jesus spoke in parables so that He would not be understood. In addition, there are several verses which indicate that the scriptures are "sealed." ...

So from where does your spiritual understanding of Jesus' parable come from??

Read More »

Snakes Do Eat Dirt.. common sense

0

Atheism is not a religion for people who have common sense and I suppose this serves as my #3,522nd reason never to believe in Atheism.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions
infidels.org/library/modern/jim.../bible-contradictions.html
Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt. GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and ...

Snakes "DO NOT," says the atheist adamantly testifying to this indisputable scientific "fact". Snakes DO NOT and I REPEAT, DO NOT eat dirt, because the Bible says Snakes do.

However, let's just keep an open mind how about it and skip over to people who regularly handle snakes and see how they handle the matter.

Is it ok for snakes to swallow dirt?

I just fed my baby snake a frozen pinky that I unthawed by placing in warm water. The problem is that when i dropped the pinky it landed in the dirt some of the dirt got on it and the snake swallowed it. Is this ok?


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Snakes in the wild will swallow whatever happens to get on their food. Lacking any way of cleaning the food before consumption, it is common for them to swallow things such as dirt, flakes of tree bark, pieces of grass and/or dried leaves etc. Some things can be harmful and even fatal for the snake like sand for instance. Sand is rough and somewhat "edgy", meaning it can damage the digestive tract of the snake resulting in internal bleeding and infection. Larger objects that can't be digested can become lodged and block the intestinal tract resulting in infection and certain death of the snake. A little dirt should be no problem for them as long as there was no introduction of any chemicals used in gardening or fertilizer products. Hope this helps.
Yahooooooo answers

Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 00:36:02 -0400
You are missing what I wrote, probably didn't even read it. Many animals eat some dirt, you and I do too, while others live their whole lives covered in nothing but dirt, along with their food. Snakes ingest less dirt than some other types of animals. They are also sticking their tongues into the air to smell what's around them. The point is that the bible was composed by people based on made-up tales, anthropomorphisms, lack of knowledge of the natural world, lack of knowledge of evolution, and what knowledge they did have of the natural world, human biology, and the cosmos was most often based on superficial appearances.

* tsk tsk *
It is you sir who missed the whole entire point.

THE ATHEIST SAYS, "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt."

But Snakes DO eat dirt.



Snakes do eat dirt. It's quite a normal affair in fact. And yes, there are some people who eat dirt.

And if Atheists are wrong on such a simple point, one can safely assume they're wrong on a great many more things!!!

And one further question...

Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth without even realizing it?
Cognitive Dissonance?
You say that the account in Genesis is "Babylonian Mythology," until it no longer reflects Babylonian Mythology. So which is it?

Wouldn't the Ancients such as the Babylonians had have enough knowledge to have known snakes eat mice, other snakes, insects, birds and practically anything they can unlock their jaws and wrap around?

The Babylonians and Egyptians, who *worshipped* snakes (ah, the very men you accuse of being the true authors of Genesis) knew the diets of such creatures quite well, did they not? Why would learned Babylonian scribes omit the diet of serpents, which they were well-acquainted with?

Pets in Ancient Rome
Collegium_VitaQuotidiana/pets.php
The Romans did indeed keep all sorts of animals as pets, and many of them would be ... Cats were really only kept extensively in Egypt and lands influenced by ... There is also a tale about a woman who raised snakes; she was often seen ...

POLL: Reptile Questions (Snakes and Lizards)?
Yahoo! Answers
answers.yahoo.com › Home › All Categories › Pets › Reptiles
3 answers - Apr 9
It depends what you mean by "pet", there is evidence that the egyptians had kept snakes. I would think it was mostly a religious thing for them.

Angel of God and the Mystery of Iniquity
ebooks/theangelofgod.htm
Serpent worship was a major factor in the apostasy of Nimrod, and the Serpent a “chief” god of the Babylonian Mystery. Harmless snakes were kept as pets and ...

King Tut (@KingTutTweets) on Twittertwitter.com/KingTutTweets
In Ancient Egypt we kept snakes as pets in the home to eat rodents. On the internet they eat your tweets. tweetaconda.com #tweetaconda 11:52 AM Mar 13th via ...

Animals of the Mythologies S-Z
magicrealms/animalssz.html
Pet snakes were kept in Greece, Rome and Crete as guardians and as ...

Let's start with a verse in Isaiah that you pointed out to me years ago:
Isaiah 65:25
NET © A wolf and a lamb will graze together; a lion, like an ox, will eat straw,
and a snake’s food will be dirt. * They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain,” says the Lord.
Or
NIV © The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Oh, that "failed prophecy" in Isaiah about snakes??

Take a look at how the word "dust" is used in the Bible:

Deuteronomy 32:24 They shall be wasted with hunger, and devoured with burning heat and bitter destruction. I will send the teeth of animals on them, With the poison of crawling things of the dust. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)

You are still avoiding the question. You claim Babylonians and Egyptian mythology authored the Bible. Right?? Well then, since scribes and learned men who themselves worshiped and handled snakes, and knew well of snake diets wrote the books of the Bible you claim, why would they claim snakes "eat dirt," when they knew better? Do you still claim Babylonian and Egyptians authored Genesis?

Here's another verse, if the idol was reduced to "dust", why burn "dust"?

2 Chronicles 15:16 Also Maacah, the mother of Asa the king, he removed from being queen, because she had made an abominable image for an Asherah; and Asa cut down her image, and made dust of it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron. (WEB JPS ASV)

More uses of this Hebrew word "dust" :

Sounds as though "dust" is not always, fine grains of sand, or clay, or small particles, but can include large chunks, and "creeping things of dirt".

Matthew 21:44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but on whoever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust."

Bits and pieces...and chunks of flesh = Hebrew for "dust".

Luke 20:18 Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but it will crush whomever it falls on to dust." (WEB ASV BBE NAS)
1 Corinthians 15:47 The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. (WEB DBY RSV NIV)
1 Corinthians 15:48 As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. (WEB DBY RSV)
Hebrews 9:13 For if the blood of goats and oxen, and the dust from the burning of a young cow, being put on the unclean, make the flesh clean: (BBE)
Exodus 8:17 They did so; and Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and struck the dust of the earth, and there were lice on man, and on animal; all the dust of the earth became lice throughout all the land of Egypt. (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV NIV)
Exodus 9:8 And the Lord said to Moses and to Aaron, Take in your hand a little dust from the fire and let Moses send it in a shower up to heaven before the eyes of Pharaoh. (BBE)
Numbers 19:10 And he who takes up the dust of the burned cow is to have his clothing washed with water and be unclean till evening: this is to be a law for ever, for the children of Israel as well as for the man from another country who is living among them. (BBE)
Numbers 19:17 And for the unclean, they are to take the dust of the burning of the sin-offering, and put flowing water on it in a vessel: (BBE)
Numbers 23:10 Who can count the dust of Jacob, or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous! Let my last end be like his!" (WEB KJV JPS ASV BBE DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV

And if you refer to the "discrepancy" of a "failed prophecy",

Isaiah implies the snake will remain unchanged, and continue to go on its belly and eat dust... catching its prey in the dust. I'm sorry the Hebrews didn't provide PERFECT ENGLISH GRAMMAR in their ancient Hebrew scrolls, but then again, few of the ancient cultures took modern English under consideration.

"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

Which also doesn't imply they had legs 10,000 years ago and were cursed then to become legless. Such an example; you are already standing on your feet and I command you, "On your feet you shall go, and wander through the city, barefoot, and develop sores on your feet and find no relief! You shall find no place to sit and rest your weary legs, and you shall fry yourself in the noon time sun!"

Implying the act of perpetually, eternally, condemned to wander... though it were already on its belly and we know this from the fossil record. So Isaiah merely confirmed the curse would remain as it were.

----

Addendum: "Dust" can contain whole bone material, creeping things like lice, all of which are "dust". Not exclusively grains of sand or particles of clay. (To the Atheist which I've conversed with on this topic): You should know better, afterall, haven't you read the Bible numerous times and taken time to study the subtle Hebrew and Greek word meanings?

"Dust" of a Sacrifice:

GEMARA: R. Mari bar Abbahu in the name of R. Itz'hak said: The bones, still retaining marrow, of consecrated sacrifices, if left over as remainder, defile the hands touching them. Why so? Because they are a basis to a prohibited article (i.e., the marrow which was left over and should be burned).

An objection was raised: (We have learned:) The bones left over from consecrated sacrifices are not subject to being burned, excepting only the bones of the paschal offering; (because they must not be broken but left in their original condition and) it might happen that some of the flesh should cling to them. Now, let us see what kind of bones are meant! Shall we assume such as have not retained the marrow? Who would hold that such should be burned? Hence such as still retain the marrow must be meant. In that event, if the bones are considered a basis to a prohibited article, i.e., they serve the marrow as receptacles, why should they not be burnt?

Said R. Na'hman bar Itz'hak: "Bones which had been found broken and the marrow extracted are referred to; thus the bones of other sacrifices, which may be broken, may have been broken and the marrow extracted from them before they had had an opportunity of becoming a remainder of a sacrifice; hence they need not be burnt. The bones of a paschal offering, however, which must remain whole, could have been broken and had the marrow extracted from them only after becoming a remainder, and for that reason they must be burnt."

R. Jehudah said in the name of Rabh: "All sinews are considered of flesh except the sinews of the neck (i.e., if one ate only the nerves of the flesh of the paschal offering, it is the same as if he had eaten the flesh itself)."

An objection was made based upon our Mishna, which teaches "that bones, nerves, and other remaining parts must be burned on the 16th." Now, let us see what sinews are referred to? If the sinews of the body in general are meant, why not eat them; and if it is claimed that they were left over, why mention them separately-are they not the same as the other remaining parts? Therefore we must say, that the sinews of the neck are meant. If that be the case and, according to Rabh, they are not considered as flesh, why should they be burned? Said R. Hisda: "By the sinews which must be burned, is meant the sinew of the thigh (which is not eaten), and, according to R. Jehudah's opinion that only the sinew of one of the thighs is prohibited to be eaten, the sinew of the other is a legal remainder and should be burned." R. Ashi said: "The Boraitha means to state, that not the sinew proper, but only the fat thereof on account of which the sinew is burned with it, is referred to, as we have learned in another Boraitha, that the fat of the sinew of the thigh may be eaten but it is not customary to do so (as will be explained in Tract Cholin)," and Rabhina said: "The sinew which must be burned is the one on the outside, which, while it is permitted to eat it, is not generally eaten by Israelites (as will also be explained in Tract Cholin)."
Jewish Virtual Library, on Sacrifices.

---

I never said that snakes ingested no dirt or dust at all,

The Atheist at infidels.org said it.

yes, it is.

>my point is that it's no "curse."

It's pretty cursed. And like the guy said in Yahoo answers, if something gets down in the snake's belly that's sharp, like sand, it can injure the snake, and other debris -- it can kill the snake.

---

How can you call any animal cursed? The sense in which the Bible does

I didn't call it cursed. The Hebrews did, perhaps you'd like to look up "Cursed" in the Concordance to know for sure what the original Hebrew language implied when the equivalent for "Cursed" was used by their writers.
But I do know my neighbors don't like snakes and sure do aim to chop off their head, and don't want snakes in their yards. In fact, the city ordinance is to keep the lawns mowed, unless snakes start moving in and create a threat.

so is only justified based on what HUMANS hate. It's a fable. An anthropomorphic and appearance-based fable.

And it *appears* to be a cursed animal. Most of my neighbors would be cursing and swearing if a snake showed up, thus, cursed.

And that is your opinion, remember?
Was it the opinion of the Atheist at infidels.org that "Snakes DO NOT eat dirt," too?
Well, his opinion is wrong.

So much for his religion of Atheism and all its "Absolute Truths"®™

Reptilian and even amphibian species are known to have lost their legs (the former species becoming "snakes") long before the first humans

The fossil record shows they lost their legs, may have regrew them and lost them again!!! But, so what?

evolved, that was long before anything resembling an Adam or an Eve ever ate any forbidden fruit and "disobeyed God."

AND THEN THERE WAS THIS PHENOMENA THAT OCCURRED.. something about a Hox gene shifting forward, so scientists know snakes will never grow their front limbs again and ultimately that means snakes will never walk again.

---

lol, thanks for pointing that out.

say you're cursed to sometimes choke on sand if your prey's body is covered in it. The text says the serpent was cursed to go on it's belly.

It says,
"On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life."

And you're right!!!

There's the curse. If its getting sand and other sharp particles in its belly, it can kill the snake. I hadn't really put it together meself. You're a God-send sometimes, even though you're an Atheist.

Read More »

George Bernard Shaw on Eugenics

0

Q: Was Charles Darwin an Atheist?
A: Who knows?

Q: Was Charles Darwin a Communist?
A: Not at all.

Q: Was Charles Darwin blamed for what Atheists did with his theory?
A: Yes.

Q: Do Atheists make any attempts to correct their (*)crimes against humanity and rectify the harm they have done to Darwin's theory?
A: No.
   (*) See video at Documentary, Blood History of Communism where Darwin is given 100% of the blame by Muslims for the death tolls under Communism. Whilst the atrocties and death tolls are accurate, the blame on Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is not. ATHEISM is totally to blame, but Charles Darwin is not.

Q: What religious group has done more than any other to harm Darwin's theory of Natural Selection?
A: Atheists.

Whilst "Extinction," may have been on the docket of Darwin's Theory, "Extermination" was not.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
― George Bernard Shaw



According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw, George Bernard Shaw is uttering these words:

In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

This sentiment is followed up at http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Bernard_Shaw

with,

One of Shaw's long-term obsessions was mass murder by means of poison gas. In a 1910 lecture before the Eugenics Education Society, he said:

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living... A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."

That's more than enough "Evidence" to provide the #2,748th reason I refuse to be an atheist.

Atheists make NO effort to correct their flawed versions of history.

Atheists try to swing it in the "Hitler was a Christian" direction.
Atheists try to pawn their genocide off on Christians and Jews as the fault for it.
Given half an opportunity, Atheists will go right back to their original killing plans in the Communist Manifesto.

Atheists weren't disappointed with Hitler's mass-murder, they were only disappointed he exterminated the wrong group of people.. should've been based on class warfare.

Atheists are not sorry.
Atheists KNOW history. Atheists remember history, and make no apologies for it.

Remember history, lest it repeat itself... my posterior, Jim Jones!!!



"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was infiltrate the church."

But Jim Jones was no "Man of God".
Jim Jones was an Atheist.
Jim Jones was a Communist.
To be a card-carrying member of the Communist Party, you must first be... an Atheisst!!

And Atheists will continue on adamantly denying the lies, the fraud, the vile hatred, the perversions, the deceit, the human massacre, the. . . Atheism . . . of communist cult leader, Jim Jones.

Atheists deny truth. Atheists deny what they see with their own eyes and hear with their own ears. Atheists bury their head in the sand. Atheists can do mental cartwheels and loops to justify why Atheism is a good religion. But Atheism is Bad, Bad Religion.

Jim Jones own words:

"I decided, how can I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church. So I consciously made a decision to look into that pro— that prospect. Particularly was it inspired upon me — (struggles for words) I say infil— infiltrate the church. It really was brought to my attention by a very kindly (Pause) and I pause, because of again feeling that it can reflect on others — a man who had a great deal of conscience that seemed to be compatible to my views, who was a church administrator of a denomination, and he, he encouraged me to think about being a pastor. And so I did. (Laughs) Very quickly did. I’d had my religious heritage in Pentecostalism — deep-rooted emotions in the Christian tradition (Pause) and a deep love which I share to this day for the practical teachings of Jesus Christ. It had always been a sort of dual concept: a doubter, and yet a believer. Certainly I had great questions about anthropomorphic beings and a loving order to the universe, but Jesus Christ, to use a kid’s phrase, greatly turned me on. And I tried very hard through my years in the church — whatever uh, someone else might look upon my role uh, however they would look upon it, they could see a great deal of sensitivity to the Christian teachings. Not only my brand of Marxism, but in Pentecostal tradition, I saw that when the early believers came together, they sold their possessions and had all things common. So I tried very hard to live up to that concept throughout my years. (Pause)

The early years, I’d approached Christendom from a communalist standpoint, with only intermittent mention of my um, Marxist views. However, in later years, there wasn’t a person that attended any of my meetings that did not hear me say, at some time, that I was a communist, (Pause) and that is what is very strange, that all these years, I have survived without being exposed."
Jonestown - sdsu.ed taped transcripts of Jim Jones

Atheists will continue to deny, and say Jim Jones was a Christian vs. what he really was, a con artist and an ATHEIST pretending to be a pastor, and even more diabolical, his deliberate effort to defraud and swindle the masses. That serves as the #2,749th reason it would be a cold day in hell before I'd convert to Atheism.

Read More »