That many christians in history hate and persecuted the jews isnt a assumption is a fact.
That most christians dont understand why the jews dont accept Jesus as the messiah isnt assumption is a fact.
Jesus isnt the Messiah
- Thread starter B_tallbig
- Start date
That most christians dont understand why the jews dont accept Jesus as the messiah isnt assumption is a fact.
B_ExtremelyHateable
Experimental Member
WoA- It's best to stay away from religious dicussion. Especially if you try to state things as fact and not as IMO. What if I said, the larger the penis the more dumbass the person? That would be IMO not cold hard fact.
I would say that claiming that Jesus is the messiah is assumption too , not a fact. Certainly isnt a fact according to Jews.
where, when did the Jews become solely 100% right on everything?? all religion is based on a few beliefs that can't be proven. Jews feel guilty because they killed Christ. The Christians feel guilty because they allowed the Jews to do it. Btw, I was rasied Catholic( the 2nd most guilty religion except for the Jews) but strayed away in my teens. I believe in God. I just don't believe in organized religions and their absolutes. The religious fanatics are why the world is in a fucking mess. The fanatics believe their way is THE way, and fuck everybody else. There is no leeway, no give and take. And what are their beliefs based on??? actual facts??? No, just their viewpoint. I could go on and write pages, but I got other things to do. God only helps those that help themselves. Praying is a good thing, but getting up off your ass and doing something is where it's at. Also, have respect for other people's beliefs. RESPECT.....that is a word to base a religion on. who knows whose right, whose wrong??? me??? you??? enough
I dont think that any religion is 100% right but you have to check the reasons of why the jews dont believe in Jesus, they are valid. In most Judaism sites explain why they dont accept Jesus.
Actually most jews dont feel guilty about Jesus death , it was the christians that blame them of that . Isnt the jews fault that jesus got crucified ( only the jews that have to do with Jesus death 2000 years ago)
Not really. This won't change any religious minds, of course, but prayer hasn't been found to hold any water, much less walk on water.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 31, 2006
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
Because it is the most scientifically rigorous investigation of whether prayer can heal illness, the study, begun almost a decade ago and involving more than 1,800 patients, has for years been the subject of speculation.
The question has been a contentious one among researchers. Proponents have argued that prayer is perhaps the most deeply human response to disease, and that it may relieve suffering by some mechanism that is not yet understood. Skeptics have contended that studying prayer is a waste of money and that it presupposes supernatural intervention, putting it by definition beyond the reach of science.
At least 10 studies of the effects of prayer have been carried out in the last six years, with mixed results. The new study was intended to overcome flaws in the earlier investigations. The report was scheduled to appear in The American Heart Journal next week, but the journal's publisher released it online yesterday.
In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer. But the results, they said, raised questions about how and whether patients should be told that prayers were being offered for them.
"One conclusion from this is that the role of awareness of prayer should be studied further," said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist at Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City and a co-author of the study.
Other experts said the study underscored the question of whether prayer was an appropriate subject for scientific study.
"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."
The study cost $2.4 million, and most of the money came from the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research into spirituality. The government has spent more than $2.3 million on prayer research since 2000.
Dean Marek, a chaplain at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and a co-author of the report, said the study said nothing about the power of personal prayer or about prayers for family members and friends.
Working in a large medical center like Mayo, Mr. Marek said, "You hear tons of stories about the power of prayer, and I don't doubt them."
In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.
The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.
The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.
The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."
Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.
In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.
"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.
The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers. In their report, the researchers suggested that this finding might also be a result of chance.
One reason the study was so widely anticipated was that it was led by Dr. Benson, who in his work has emphasized the soothing power of personal prayer and meditation.
At least one earlier study found lower complication rates in patients who received intercessory prayers; others found no difference. A 1997 study at the University of New Mexico, involving 40 alcoholics in rehabilitation, found that the men and women who knew they were being prayed for actually fared worse.
The new study was rigorously designed to avoid problems like the ones that came up in the earlier studies. But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying.
Bob Barth, the spiritual director of Silent Unity, the Missouri prayer ministry, said the findings would not affect the ministry's mission.
"A person of faith would say that this study is interesting," Mr. Barth said, "but we've been praying a long time and we've seen prayer work, we know it works, and the research on prayer and spirituality is just getting started."
biguy2738
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Posts
- 2,310
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 22
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
tallbig, you are in for a mouthful so if I were you, I'd make sure that I had a drink with me, buddy. :wink:
First off, in all honesty, though you may think that your threads pertaining to Christianity is interesting - it's not, it's downright offensive...not because of the topic of debate, but because of the way that you present it. You have spoken about the importance of facts, yet you yourself have not stuck to what you have said. (I am saying this with kindness, but it's necessary for you to be corrected before you continue to ruffle feathers). I chose not to respond to your first thread though a lot of it is also based on assumption and a non-critical approach to trying to find the truth, so it wasn't worth a response...but it's continuing and the offense continues to grow.
Now the philosophical approach to explaining a 'fact' would be: A fact is only a fact when it is relevent to other facts. You my friend have taken your truth claims and presented them to be facts. One of the other posters was correct in saying that there is a big difference in saying "it IS" and "IMHO". In order to establish what is fact, one needs to EXAMINE and STUDY both sides of the coin.
So let's go to some of your truth claims and look at a couple of FACTS:
FACT: What religion did Jesus ascribe to? Judaism. What religion did his followers ascribe to before their encounter of him? They were also Jews. So it's safe to conclude that the initial Christian church consisted of Jews and eventually proselyte Gentiles as well. Now who can prove which claim is correct? Jews who do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah? Or Jews (the early church) who accept that he is? Neither party can prove which side is correct or not...which is where FAITH comes to play.
Another point to consider is that the Jews at the time of Jesus there was the expectation that the Messiah would emerge as a "Zealot" who would liberate his people from Roman rule...Jesus emerged as a different kind of leader; one preaching about peace instead of waging war...however, his crucifiction was about politics and not religion (I'll explain...)
No tallbig, that is an incorrect assumption.
FACT: In the Bible the Gospels referred to Jesus' murderers as "The Jews", however, who were Jesus' followers? Predominantly Jewish people. The Gospel of John is a good example of the use phrase. Unfortunately many Christians weren't educated about the Bible properly (I'm referring to the Catholic church during the Pre-Vatican II era) There was the assumption that Jewish people were responsible for the murder of Jesus...which where the hatred came from, NOT because they do not believe that he is the Messiah.
What John and other writers referred to was the Jewish Religious Authorities. It ties in with my previous reference to his murder being a political stunt, so I'll explain it further when I get to that point.
There are other assumptions/teachings that are incorrect...it's often said that the Christian approach to Sundays is the equivalent to the Jewish Sabbath. It is not. The Shabbat is a day of remembering the creation, of turning everything over to God, in short it is a day of appreciation. Christians remember the Crucifiction and how we believe we have been redeemed by it, in other words, it is a day of remembrance.
Things have dramatically changed since (speaking about Christians hating Jews):
MORE FACTS:
As a Catholic, I can only draw from and use examples from my denomination, however I use it to speak on behalf of all Christians.
On 28 April 1999, in Rome, Pope John Paul II issued the following declaration:
In dialogue with other religions, the Church gives pride of place to the Jewish people, our elder brothers and sisters. This was made clear by the Second Vatican Council, and it becomes clearer as we approach the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 with it's call to reconciliation. Certainly, there is much that Jews and Christians share together, and it is vital now that Christians should learn more of that common heritage. In the biblical sources shared with our Jewish brothers and sisters, we find indispensable elements for living and deepening our own faith."
And it certainly isn't only talk... There's a Scripture Scholar by the name of Everett Fox who has worked extensively with Rabbis and Jewish scholars in translating the original Hebrew biblical texts into English ie to have an English version of the Hebrew Bible ie the text is in English dress but with a Hebraic voice. The Pentateuch has been Published and is sold as "The Five Books of Moses". He also worked with a Rabbi and together they were the religious advisers in the making of the movie, "The Prince of Egypt".
There is a place in Jerusalem (founded in Canada in 1983) where Jewish Scholars and Christians work together in educating people how to study the Torah and Jewish traditions. It is called the Bat Kol institute.
The big issue for me and I think that it's the reason why you have encountered criticism, is because you presented your own claim as fact. You didn't say: I had a look at the Orthodox Jewish website (link) and I tend to agree with them. This is why I think that they MAY be right... You showed much disrespect in your post. It would be like me going and saying "I had a look at an Aids website and they say that bi's (I'm using my orientation for the sake of making this example because I cannot be accused of prejudice) spread Aids. Bi are the cause of the Aids epidemic. Who the hell would I be to make such claim? I am not a doctor and I certainly wouldn't have the necessary skills in order to make thorough research in order to present it as fact.
If you want to talk about religion and makes posts where your opinions are presented as fact, I would need to see your credentials. For a start, the Bible does not have a text book approach, so you would need interpreting skills to perform thorough exegesis in order to present accurate findings. (And yes, you are talking to a Scripture Scholar...and No, I am not a brainwashed Catholic Scholar either as most of studies were done at a Secular University and I have also studied through the Bat Kol Institute).
Secondly, one needs to be CRITICAL when doing one's research. I want to see the person's credentials - how extensive their studies and experience lies... What are they saying in relation to common presentations ie If someone says something contrary to thousands of other scholars, then I need to question what that individual is saying...how credible is he/she?
I have not attempted to defend your claim about Jesus not being the Messiah because as I've mentioned, no one is capable of providing concrete evidence and thus each person is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. I DO have an issue when someone presents their opinions as fact...and I have a bigger issue when those claims can cause a breakdown in relationship between two religions that are attempting to work together.
After this loooong response, I wish my Jewish brothers and sisters, Shabbat Shalom.
First off, in all honesty, though you may think that your threads pertaining to Christianity is interesting - it's not, it's downright offensive...not because of the topic of debate, but because of the way that you present it. You have spoken about the importance of facts, yet you yourself have not stuck to what you have said. (I am saying this with kindness, but it's necessary for you to be corrected before you continue to ruffle feathers). I chose not to respond to your first thread though a lot of it is also based on assumption and a non-critical approach to trying to find the truth, so it wasn't worth a response...but it's continuing and the offense continues to grow.
Now the philosophical approach to explaining a 'fact' would be: A fact is only a fact when it is relevent to other facts. You my friend have taken your truth claims and presented them to be facts. One of the other posters was correct in saying that there is a big difference in saying "it IS" and "IMHO". In order to establish what is fact, one needs to EXAMINE and STUDY both sides of the coin.
So let's go to some of your truth claims and look at a couple of FACTS:
FACT: What religion did Jesus ascribe to? Judaism. What religion did his followers ascribe to before their encounter of him? They were also Jews. So it's safe to conclude that the initial Christian church consisted of Jews and eventually proselyte Gentiles as well. Now who can prove which claim is correct? Jews who do not accept that Jesus is the Messiah? Or Jews (the early church) who accept that he is? Neither party can prove which side is correct or not...which is where FAITH comes to play.
Another point to consider is that the Jews at the time of Jesus there was the expectation that the Messiah would emerge as a "Zealot" who would liberate his people from Roman rule...Jesus emerged as a different kind of leader; one preaching about peace instead of waging war...however, his crucifiction was about politics and not religion (I'll explain...)
No tallbig, that is an incorrect assumption.
FACT: In the Bible the Gospels referred to Jesus' murderers as "The Jews", however, who were Jesus' followers? Predominantly Jewish people. The Gospel of John is a good example of the use phrase. Unfortunately many Christians weren't educated about the Bible properly (I'm referring to the Catholic church during the Pre-Vatican II era) There was the assumption that Jewish people were responsible for the murder of Jesus...which where the hatred came from, NOT because they do not believe that he is the Messiah.
What John and other writers referred to was the Jewish Religious Authorities. It ties in with my previous reference to his murder being a political stunt, so I'll explain it further when I get to that point.
There are other assumptions/teachings that are incorrect...it's often said that the Christian approach to Sundays is the equivalent to the Jewish Sabbath. It is not. The Shabbat is a day of remembering the creation, of turning everything over to God, in short it is a day of appreciation. Christians remember the Crucifiction and how we believe we have been redeemed by it, in other words, it is a day of remembrance.
Things have dramatically changed since (speaking about Christians hating Jews):
MORE FACTS:
As a Catholic, I can only draw from and use examples from my denomination, however I use it to speak on behalf of all Christians.
On 28 April 1999, in Rome, Pope John Paul II issued the following declaration:
In dialogue with other religions, the Church gives pride of place to the Jewish people, our elder brothers and sisters. This was made clear by the Second Vatican Council, and it becomes clearer as we approach the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 with it's call to reconciliation. Certainly, there is much that Jews and Christians share together, and it is vital now that Christians should learn more of that common heritage. In the biblical sources shared with our Jewish brothers and sisters, we find indispensable elements for living and deepening our own faith."
And it certainly isn't only talk... There's a Scripture Scholar by the name of Everett Fox who has worked extensively with Rabbis and Jewish scholars in translating the original Hebrew biblical texts into English ie to have an English version of the Hebrew Bible ie the text is in English dress but with a Hebraic voice. The Pentateuch has been Published and is sold as "The Five Books of Moses". He also worked with a Rabbi and together they were the religious advisers in the making of the movie, "The Prince of Egypt".
There is a place in Jerusalem (founded in Canada in 1983) where Jewish Scholars and Christians work together in educating people how to study the Torah and Jewish traditions. It is called the Bat Kol institute.
The big issue for me and I think that it's the reason why you have encountered criticism, is because you presented your own claim as fact. You didn't say: I had a look at the Orthodox Jewish website (link) and I tend to agree with them. This is why I think that they MAY be right... You showed much disrespect in your post. It would be like me going and saying "I had a look at an Aids website and they say that bi's (I'm using my orientation for the sake of making this example because I cannot be accused of prejudice) spread Aids. Bi are the cause of the Aids epidemic. Who the hell would I be to make such claim? I am not a doctor and I certainly wouldn't have the necessary skills in order to make thorough research in order to present it as fact.
If you want to talk about religion and makes posts where your opinions are presented as fact, I would need to see your credentials. For a start, the Bible does not have a text book approach, so you would need interpreting skills to perform thorough exegesis in order to present accurate findings. (And yes, you are talking to a Scripture Scholar...and No, I am not a brainwashed Catholic Scholar either as most of studies were done at a Secular University and I have also studied through the Bat Kol Institute).
Secondly, one needs to be CRITICAL when doing one's research. I want to see the person's credentials - how extensive their studies and experience lies... What are they saying in relation to common presentations ie If someone says something contrary to thousands of other scholars, then I need to question what that individual is saying...how credible is he/she?
I have not attempted to defend your claim about Jesus not being the Messiah because as I've mentioned, no one is capable of providing concrete evidence and thus each person is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. I DO have an issue when someone presents their opinions as fact...and I have a bigger issue when those claims can cause a breakdown in relationship between two religions that are attempting to work together.
After this loooong response, I wish my Jewish brothers and sisters, Shabbat Shalom.
Tallbig, Have you ever read Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell? You seem to have a thirst for knowledge (some may think you are just trying to be inflammatory), you would likely enjoy that book.
biguy2738
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Posts
- 2,310
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 22
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I almost forgot...I promised to speak about how Jesus' death was about politics and not religion. In fact, most of the Gospel writings really are about politics and not religion...politics within Judaism at the time as well as within the country.
The gospels present us with a situation where the Jewish religious authorities we abusing their people two examples are: the account of Jesus cleansing the Temple (Lk 19: 45-47) and the Widow's offering (Lk 21: 1-4) With the cleansing of the Temple, one needs to look at the text in context of the cultural situation at that time. People needed to have clean birds, sheep etc in order to sacrifice them. The religious authorities sold these "clean" offerings to their people, however they were being ripped off terribly. This is what drove Jesus into a rage. In the second account, many Christians have had this story rammed down their throats with an approach of, "Look, Jesus praised the widow for giving the last of her money to the church, he expects us to do the same..." NOT!!!! Jesus' approach was more one of, "Look at this. This woman is expected to give the last bit of her livelihood away! This is so wrong! Her offering is far greater than the vast amounts that the rich are giving."
I've used this as a backdrop in order to explain how it was a political move. The Jewish religious authorities realised that if Jesus kept showing up their underhandedness, most especially since about 5% of the people bore 95% of the wealth. They needed to get him out of the way...quickly. The Romans knew that if the Jews continued to be disgruntled, the Zealots would wage a war against them...so they needed to quieten down the Jews quickly. So it was a case of: If Jesus is offed, then the religious authorities can try to ease the tension between the Jews and us. In other words, it was a win win situation that had more to do with a
socio-economic political environment than religion which ultimately led to his crucifiction.
The gospels present us with a situation where the Jewish religious authorities we abusing their people two examples are: the account of Jesus cleansing the Temple (Lk 19: 45-47) and the Widow's offering (Lk 21: 1-4) With the cleansing of the Temple, one needs to look at the text in context of the cultural situation at that time. People needed to have clean birds, sheep etc in order to sacrifice them. The religious authorities sold these "clean" offerings to their people, however they were being ripped off terribly. This is what drove Jesus into a rage. In the second account, many Christians have had this story rammed down their throats with an approach of, "Look, Jesus praised the widow for giving the last of her money to the church, he expects us to do the same..." NOT!!!! Jesus' approach was more one of, "Look at this. This woman is expected to give the last bit of her livelihood away! This is so wrong! Her offering is far greater than the vast amounts that the rich are giving."
I've used this as a backdrop in order to explain how it was a political move. The Jewish religious authorities realised that if Jesus kept showing up their underhandedness, most especially since about 5% of the people bore 95% of the wealth. They needed to get him out of the way...quickly. The Romans knew that if the Jews continued to be disgruntled, the Zealots would wage a war against them...so they needed to quieten down the Jews quickly. So it was a case of: If Jesus is offed, then the religious authorities can try to ease the tension between the Jews and us. In other words, it was a win win situation that had more to do with a
socio-economic political environment than religion which ultimately led to his crucifiction.
biguy2738
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Posts
- 2,310
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 22
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Act2...I know that it looks that way...on my side, I don't mind what tallbig brings to the debate table, but he needs to do it in a respectful and non offensive manner...and to make it clear that he is basing it on his own opinion. He most certainly is entitled to it and I don't have a problem with it...it's just his approach that grinds me. :wink:
Please know that I wasn't calling anyone out, truth be known I didn't even read the thread. I just responded to one of his thread's yesterday about Christ's death and saw this one. Thought he could be searching.
Principessa
Expert Member
I'm with biguy2738. Your posts are often written in an inflammatory fashion designed to elicit heated responses. 
You need to stop that. There are many people here with far greater knowledge in this area than you could ever hope to have. I advise you not to bait them or piss them off.
Tallbig, I can appreciate your curiosity and apparent crisis of faith; but this is not the place to state thes concerns and fallacys. I suggest you sign up at Beliefnet offers features on religion, spirituality, faith, health, prayer, the Bible, holistic lifestyle, and more it's free and they have excellent resources available on all religions, eastern and western in origin.
TallBig, I think you need to heed Hickboy's warning in a previous thread.
You need to stop that. There are many people here with far greater knowledge in this area than you could ever hope to have. I advise you not to bait them or piss them off.WRONG! Years ago many ignorant christians called Jews, Jesus killers hence the dislike. I think that's phenomenally stupid, but it is the truth.I have read the reasons of why the jews dont believe that Jesus is the messiah and are valid. He dont fullfield the messianic traits at all. Really?
Tallbig, I can appreciate your curiosity and apparent crisis of faith; but this is not the place to state thes concerns and fallacys. I suggest you sign up at Beliefnet offers features on religion, spirituality, faith, health, prayer, the Bible, holistic lifestyle, and more it's free and they have excellent resources available on all religions, eastern and western in origin.
He obviously lied, typical man . . . :tongue: j/k Thank God all men aren't like him.
LMAO, some people are experts at shoving 10 pounds of stupid into a 5 pound box. :biggrin1:
TallBig, I think you need to heed Hickboy's warning in a previous thread.
I only make 2 threads about christianity : Jesus really die on the cross? and this one . The first thread i dont see anything offensive . I dont claim anything just exposed different posibilities and ask the readers for a opinion. In this thread I say that the Jews dont accept Jesus as the messiah and that is the truth. The first followers of Jesus were Jews but the mainsteam Judaism ( The great mayority of jews) at the time reject Jesus as the Messiah and still reject him to this day. Most christians wonder many times why the jews dont accept Jesus as the Messiah . I have read the reasons and are valid. My point creating this thread is that i understand the jews about the subject . I dont claim that what i said is a fact. What you said a that is my problem ( You my friend have taking your truth claims and present them as facts ) is what all religions do with their doctrines . They claim a lot of things and present them as facts and the believers have to accept this by faith. Also is wrong to say that if someone say a different thing than most scholars think, that means that this person is wrong . The truth isnt something that is decided by consensus . The truth is independent of what persons think .
I only want to explore several possiblities , see different point of views of different religions and nonreligious persons too. I dont trust in traditions . After all Jesus dont trust in traditions either her rebel against traditions or the stablish order. Iam not comparing me with Jesus just saying.
I'm with biguy2738. Your posts are often written in an inflammatory fashion designed to elicit heated responses.
WRONG! Years ago many ignorant christians called Jews, Jesus killers hence the dislike. I think that's phenomenally stupid, but it is the truth.
Tallbig, I can appreciate your curiosity and apparent crisis of faith; but this is not the place to state thes concerns and fallacys. I suggest you sign up at Beliefnet offers features on religion, spirituality, faith, health, prayer, the Bible, holistic lifestyle, and more it's free and they have excellent resources available on all religions, eastern and western in origin.
He obviously lied, typical man . . . :tongue: j/k Thank God all men aren't like him.
LMAO, some people are experts at shoving 10 pounds of stupid into a 5 pound box. :biggrin1:
TallBig, I think you need to heed Hickboy's warning in a previous thread.
How do you know that many people here have far much knowledge than i have? Indeed some people will have more knowledge than me because i dont know everything , infact iam searching for answers.
If you assume that iam a idiot or something because my spelling ,English isnt my first language . You dont know me to make conclusions of my level of ignorance. I accept that iam a ignorant person . We all are . Nobody have all the answers.
biguy2738
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Posts
- 2,310
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 22
- Points
- 183
- Location
- Johannesburg, South Africa
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
tallbig...
I apologise. I really am sorry for jumping on you like that. I had no idea that English wasn't your first language. As I tried to explain, one of my biggest issues was the way that you had presented your post. It was the way that you expressed yourself that caused the offense and not the topic. With English not being your first language, it would be understandable why your posts are coming across to be inflammatory - it's not because you are out to offend us, but because it's difficult to express yourself in the way that you'd like.
Talk about assumtions...three guesses who has egg on their face? :redface:
Once again, I apologise.
Is cool . I dont get offended by that . Most people ( iam not reffering to you ) dont know that english isnt my first language and think that iam a idiot because i make spelling mistakes often.
B_ScaredLittleBoy
Experimental Member
Tallbig:
Don't worry. Some people get upset when their 'faith' is challenged. I also understand English isn't your mother tongue (or finger?) so maybe the grammatical and spelling errors make it seem like you're being inflammatory when you aren't.
Good for you though tallbig for actually questioning and not taking what you read in a book as fact. Unlike the masses.
If you are steadfast in your belief (in God) why are some of you getting upset about this thread anyway?
Don't worry. Some people get upset when their 'faith' is challenged. I also understand English isn't your mother tongue (or finger?) so maybe the grammatical and spelling errors make it seem like you're being inflammatory when you aren't.
Good for you though tallbig for actually questioning and not taking what you read in a book as fact. Unlike the masses.
If you are steadfast in your belief (in God) why are some of you getting upset about this thread anyway?
