The Energon Pub

There are plentiful christians who quote the old Testament. And nowhere in the christian Bible does it say "Okay, we were kidding about the previous pages. Here comes the real stuff".

If you really sit down and read the Old Testament, it has a lot of very un-Christian-like writings in it...or maybe they are supposed to be Christian. In any case, saying the Bible is a "moral compass" or whatnot is absolute hogwash. Also, I don't know many Christians that follow the code on what foods are acceptable to eat. Pork is forbidden, yet I've seen plenty of it eaten by Christians....pick and choose, huh?

Professor Smooth wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:
The Old Testament isn't every book in the Jewish Bible, plus they have their own view of the afterlife. So they obviously got it from somewhere.

What do the Jews think about an afterlife? If it's so obvious, then why not tell us about it?

The afterlife is described in the Second Book of Macabees, and the Book of Enoch. They also have concept of Heaven and Purgatory (Gan Eden, and Gehinom, respectively). I don't particularly understand my own views on the afterlife, so there's little point asking me to recount anyone else's in detail.

Professor Smooth wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:And, the whole semantics thing gets me. CHRISTians. You know, that Christ guy. The emphasis is supposed to be on him, since, you know, it's his religion. If we were arguing Judaism, you might have a point, but not Christianity.

Christianity is the Old Testament AND the New Testament. It is not just what Jesus (so called Christ) said/did. If you want me to expose the stories of Jesus as untrue, then I'd be happy to. First, you need to take into account that Jesus did not write any of The New Testament. His followers did. These accounts, accounts of the same events, differ greatly from one to the next. Four different accounts of the same event means that at least three need to be false. If at least three are false, well, that puts quite a hole in "The Bible is the word of God" then, doesn't it?

You also need to consider that Jesus was a Jew and, thus, he wanted his teachings followed by Jews. He'd have been pissed if he found out that people outside of God's Chosen People had chosen to follow him.

One, the Bible is not the word of God. Fundamentalists rank below flat-earth theorists on the stupid scale. It's a book written by mortal men, just like any other. And no, Christianity isn't both Testaments. Yes, the Bible includes both, but if we lived by both, demin and modern agriculture would be outlawed by papal decree. Some of the teachings and musings in the Old Testament hold true to this day, and as such, are still relevant to Christianity. But if they were enough, why would God even have sent Jesus in the first place? The very concept of Jesus illustrates that the Old Testament wasn't quite enough - which is why Christianity considers it mostly obsolete.
As for your last point, it's a very poor prophet who would reject converts. Jesus' word was for everyone, and several Gospel passages recant his time spent speaking with Samarians and Romans as equals to the Jews who populate the rest of the Gospels.

Jesus Prime wrote:
One, the Bible is not the word of God. Fundamentalists rank below flat-earth theorists on the stupid scale. It's a book written by mortal men, just like any other. And no, Christianity isn't both Testaments. Yes, the Bible includes both, but if we lived by both, demin and modern agriculture would be outlawed by papal decree. Some of the teachings and musings in the Old Testament hold true to this day, and as such, are still relevant to Christianity. But if they were enough, why would God even have sent Jesus in the first place? The very concept of Jesus illustrates that the Old Testament wasn't quite enough - which is why Christianity considers it mostly obsolete.

Why would God have sent Jesus? Because it's poorly written fiction and was written that way? When you use "Why would God..." you open up a whole new can of worms. The other children in my Sunday School classes had a field day with this kind of stuff. "If God is all powerful and wanted to redeem the sins of mankind, why didn't he just do it? Why did he go to the trouble of creating, torturing, and murdering an offspring?" That was one of my favorites.

It's interesting that certain pieces of the old testament are kept and some are seen as rediculous. "Don't plant two kind of crops in one field? How rediculous! Ha ha!" while some are "still relevent," "Homosexuals are evil! There's an invisible man in the sky! If you don't do what the contradictory books of The Bible say, you'll burn forever and ever in Hell."

And don't even get me started on "It's the word of God, but it was spoken to men who are not perfect." I do a fair bit of mailing. I ship toys, games, and documents all over the world. Some of this stuff is very important. It has to get to another person is the same condition it leaves me. As such, I will box it up, take it to a local post office, and buy insurance and tracking for good measure. I will not wrap the item in a paper bag, hand it to an illiterate homeless guy and say "Hey, this needs to get to Bill in Mexico, can you take care of that for me?" GOD, seems to have done just that. HIS message for humanity was, we're to believe, given to unreliable people and disseminated in such a way as to make the original message all-but unintelligible.

Loki120 wrote:

Moonbase2 wrote:Bill Clinton's scandal is nothing like the endless list of goofs this administration has made. Adultery doesn't compare to the war and the blunder that is, the Hurricane Katrina debacle, and so on and so on. But the problem with a gay senator is that he is actively working against equality for gay people, all the while being gay himself.

And please, let's get a president in office that is a great orator. PLEASE! Remember FDR? The guy knew how to make a speech, as did Ronald Reagan. We need a great speaker. I'm not going to just make fun of Bush here, but we all know the guy can't talk worth a DAMN.

Clinton bombed people to get people to look the other direction from his scandel, at least Bush had good intentions going into Iraq, which in turn became a big blunder. There's a difference. (Please spare me the Bush lied, people died tag line...it's tired, and quite frankly if you honestly believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you).

Great public speaking doesn't make you a good leader (not arguing for Bush being a great leader either), case in point...Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Back to the topic at hand, it's not as if though the Dems hadn't had their share if scandels either. After the aformentioned Clinton 8 years of lunacy and treating his interns like a brothel (At least JFK had enough class to do it with Marilyn Monroe), there's the honerable Ted Kennedy and his "incident" involving Mary Jo Kopechne, Barney Frank Dem Representative from Massachusetts who admitted to paying a male prosistute, Sandy "Hamburglar" who "accidentaly" mistook his underwear for a file cabnet, James McGreevey, New Jersey Governor, who admitted to having a gay affair, Jesse Jackson who fathered an illegitimate child,
Gary Condit lied to police about his affair after she went missing and later turned up dead, John Murtha considered a bribe from undercover federal investigators (to his credit, he didn't take it, but he did give the impression that he would consider it at a later date)...

The list goes on...

Let us not forget that poor families are finding ways, currently, to give the Hillary campaign $200,000. But lets overlook that because some family values republican was to afaraid to come out of the closet. *rolls eyes*

Creature SH wrote:There are plentiful christians who quote the old Testament. And nowhere in the christian Bible does it say "Okay, we were kidding about the previous pages. Here comes the real stuff".

Not in so many words but yes, it does.

Moonbase2 wrote:If you really sit down and read the Old Testament, it has a lot of very un-Christian-like writings in it...or maybe they are supposed to be Christian. In any case, saying the Bible is a "moral compass" or whatnot is absolute hogwash. Also, I don't know many Christians that follow the code on what foods are acceptable to eat. Pork is forbidden, yet I've seen plenty of it eaten by Christians....pick and choose, huh?

I don't understand why people attack the Bible on "hear say". People hear what others (who usually don't believe in God) and go by what they say as if it's actual accountrs in the Bible. Here is where you are incorrect, Christians can and do eat Pork. The old testement is what Gods rules were before Christ. Christians find the old testement important because it is the roots of the religion. When Christ came many things changed. Before Christ men who sinned were doomed to hell. Because of Christ men who sinned have someone who died and paid the price so that they can get forgiveness through him. Now if a man sins he can change his ways or correct it by asking for fogiveness. And for the food comment, the old testement had rules on what is clean food and forbidden food. That changed in the new testement when the people asked Jesus what they are allowed to eat and he told them they no longer have forbidden foods because "what goes into the mouth is not important, what is important is what comes out of the mouth". Basically spreading the word of God with your mouth is what matters, not what you eat. Far from pick and choose.

How do you explain Hell not being mentioned UNTIL the new testament? If everyone went there after they died, then why did God not see fit to tell anyone about it? More to the point, why did God condemn (what Christians believe was) 4,000 people to hell?

It seems a little suspicious, don't you think?

Jesus Prime wrote:I blame Columbine for the Columbine incident. Might sound harsh, but they poked one seriously disturbed pair of sleeping bears.

Bzzzzzt!!!!

Professor Smooth wrote:As for the Columbine incident, I blame the kids who, instead of just leaving the creepy little buggers alone, decided to pick on them.

Bzzzzzt!!!!

Ironhidensh wrote:I just blame the creepy little buggers who were too pussy to ever stand up for themselves with out guns to back them up.

The only ones who will ever be responsible for Columbine, are the evil creatures who did it. Yes. I deny them thier humanity.

Ding ding ding!!!!

Thank you.

Blaming Columbine on typical douche bag high school kids who can be found in every town is like blaming a rape victim for it because she was wearing a short skirt as she walked past a dark alley.

It's like blaming Abu Graib on Bush instead of blaming the redneck hick assholes who hated anyone who wasn't American.

The buck always stops with the person who did the crime.

You can't blame Pope Gregory on the massive slaughter of both Jews and Muslims during the first crusade. You blame the hate-filled maniacs with swords.


Now does that mean it's not entirely their fault? No. You walk around at night in a miniskirt that's thinner than your belt, you risk getting assualted. You send a bunch of rightfully pissed hicks into the desert they'll take it out on whoever they can. You send armies on an armed religious pilgrimage when the entire continent is in a famine and everyone is pissed, you're gonna get near genocide. Probably could have avoided all the trouble if you just stayed at home watching Family Guy.

But then again, you don't have to overreact to everything and go crazy either. It's the fault of the criminal. They did it. No-one else.


Jehoshua of Nazareth was a great man. Bit of a hippy too I think, which is the real funny part. And Rome handed him over to a bunch of angry rabbis. 2000 years later we still love the guy. A little too much, it seems. What people did in His name had nothing at all to do with His actions.


Smooth, you need to take a deep breath. You seem to have an overly angry view about religion. Christianity is just as good as any other philosophy that dictates kindness, self restraint, and virtue. Its only flaw is humans.

Jesus Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean he wasn't a great leader. Yeah, the man was a monster, but he took a nation which has been stripped down to nothing by the aftermath of WW1 and gave the entire rest of the world a fight they're not going to forget any time soon. Properly directed, Hitler's leadership could have worked miracles, but he chose to use it for evil instead.

The man had impeccable timing and had a knack for scapegoating. Did you know that the only reason he became the leader of the Nazis (they weren't called that then) was because he was in the right place at the right time? But he was a horrible strategist, otherwise he would never have gone into the USSR during the winter, and he would have resupplied his front lines (which he didn't). His ambition outstripped his means, and his power was built upon the backs of others, which he rode on a wave of charisma, popularity, and soon fear. In any other place, at any other time, he would have remained a miserable house-painter and failed artist.

By my definition, those aren't the marks of a great leader.

Loki120 wrote:

Jesus Prime wrote:

Loki120 wrote:Hitler was a great public speaker, didn't necessarily make him a great leader.

Being a terrible person doesn't mean he wasn't a great leader. Yeah, the man was a monster, but he took a nation which has been stripped down to nothing by the aftermath of WW1 and gave the entire rest of the world a fight they're not going to forget any time soon. Properly directed, Hitler's leadership could have worked miracles, but he chose to use it for evil instead.

The man had impeccable timing and had a knack for scapegoating. Did you know that the only reason he became the leader of the Nazis (they weren't called that then) was because he was in the right place at the right time? But he was a horrible strategist, otherwise he would never have gone into the USSR during the winter, and he would have resupplied his front lines (which he didn't). His ambition outstripped his means, and his power was built upon the backs of others, which he rode on a wave of charisma, popularity, and soon fear. In any other place, at any other time, he would have remained a miserable house-painter and failed artist.

By my definition, those aren't the marks of a great leader.

By the time he sent the troops into the USSR during the winter, he had advanced Parkinson's and was on hardcore drugs. He was desperate and in extremely poor health, and nobody could talk any sense into him. Unfortunately, it was his soldiers that paid for that. But NOBODY can't say he wasn't charasmatic or a great speaker. That is how he rallied the country behind him. Now had they not been in the grips of a severe depression, it would've been different. It was just perfect for Hitler to come in when he did. It is an absolute shame that the country was nearly destroyed after the war.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Moonbase2 wrote:If you really sit down and read the Old Testament, it has a lot of very un-Christian-like writings in it...or maybe they are supposed to be Christian. In any case, saying the Bible is a "moral compass" or whatnot is absolute hogwash. Also, I don't know many Christians that follow the code on what foods are acceptable to eat. Pork is forbidden, yet I've seen plenty of it eaten by Christians....pick and choose, huh?

I don't understand why people attack the Bible on "hear say". People hear what others (who usually don't believe in God) and go by what they say as if it's actual accountrs in the Bible. Here is where you are incorrect, Christians can and do eat Pork. The old testement is what Gods rules were before Christ. Christians find the old testement important because it is the roots of the religion. When Christ came many things changed. Before Christ men who sinned were doomed to hell. Because of Christ men who sinned have someone who died and paid the price so that they can get forgiveness through him. Now if a man sins he can change his ways or correct it by asking for fogiveness. And for the food comment, the old testement had rules on what is clean food and forbidden food. That changed in the new testement when the people asked Jesus what they are allowed to eat and he told them they no longer have forbidden foods because "what goes into the mouth is not important, what is important is what comes out of the mouth". Basically spreading the word of God with your mouth is what matters, not what you eat. Far from pick and choose.

We attack it because we don't understand how one half of the Bible can suddenly become obsolete, yet you still use some aspects of it in your teachings, like the story of Genesis, how homosexuality is evil, the flood, etc. I know, because I have a scientific outlook on the world, that this planet is billions, not thousands, of years old, that there was no Noah and the animals in the ark, and that the world wasn't created in seven days and that women aren't made from man's ribs. I mean, it sounds like fairy tales. And I won't be telling my children that evolution is a crock, either, because it's NOT. If I do that, I should tell them the world is flat, or that the sun revolves around us. Or that if they are bad, the boogieman will get them.

Professor Smooth wrote:Why would God have sent Jesus? Because it's poorly written fiction and was written that way? When you use "Why would God..." you open up a whole new can of worms. The other children in my Sunday School classes had a field day with this kind of stuff. "If God is all powerful and wanted to redeem the sins of mankind, why didn't he just do it? Why did he go to the trouble of creating, torturing, and murdering an offspring?" That was one of my favorites.

It's interesting that certain pieces of the old testament are kept and some are seen as rediculous. "Don't plant two kind of crops in one field? How rediculous! Ha ha!" while some are "still relevent," "Homosexuals are evil! There's an invisible man in the sky! If you don't do what the contradictory books of The Bible say, you'll burn forever and ever in Hell."

And don't even get me started on "It's the word of God, but it was spoken to men who are not perfect." I do a fair bit of mailing. I ship toys, games, and documents all over the world. Some of this stuff is very important. It has to get to another person is the same condition it leaves me. As such, I will box it up, take it to a local post office, and buy insurance and tracking for good measure. I will not wrap the item in a paper bag, hand it to an illiterate homeless guy and say "Hey, this needs to get to Bill in Mexico, can you take care of that for me?" GOD, seems to have done just that. HIS message for humanity was, we're to believe, given to unreliable people and disseminated in such a way as to make the original message all-but unintelligible.

Okay, now you're accusing me of beliefs I don't hold. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, or even close. But I see the words Jesus or may or may not have actually said as a damn fine way to live your life. I believe the big guy's out there somewhere, and I believe that someone, somewhere, some time ago, may have been Jesus. Maybe he didn't exist, or maybe he did. But I'd like to think he did.
And as for holding some of the Old Testament true and not the rest - the rambling nonsense in book like Levitacus, Deuteronomy or Bel and the Dragon, that's what you want to ignore. But some of the teachings in Psalms or Job can be helpful. Not in a 'live your life' by them way, though. Not remotely. The things in the Bible you live your life by are the bits that actually make sense. Let him without sin cast the first stone. He who wishes to be first must put himself last. Because, well, taken at face value, Jesus was a commie hippy waster - but a commie hippy waster with a heart of gold.

And Dark Zarak, if a man gets bitten after playing with a pitbull, I blame them both. If someone gets shot for tormenting two troubled souls who had publicly listed their aims and their arsenal of weapons, I blame them all. Environments shape people, and so everyone contributing to that environment is responsible to some degree. No, you can't blame Bush singlehandedly for Abu Graib, but without Bush, there'd likely not be an Abu Graib scandal. And you can't just blame the victims of Columbine, but without the bullies, there'd be no shooting.

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Creature SH wrote:There are plentiful christians who quote the old Testament. And nowhere in the christian Bible does it say "Okay, we were kidding about the previous pages. Here comes the real stuff".

Not in so many words but yes, it does.

So show me the fewer words.

Creature SH wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Creature SH wrote:There are plentiful christians who quote the old Testament. And nowhere in the christian Bible does it say "Okay, we were kidding about the previous pages. Here comes the real stuff".

Not in so many words but yes, it does.

So show me the fewer words.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”--Matt. 5:17-19.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Hats to Dark Zarak, you hit the nail on the head.


Now for my feelings on the political (NOT exclusively Republican, by any means) scandals, I still believe that Senator Craig was a victim of entrapment from an overeager or perhaps prejudiced cop. That's point one. After listening to the audio tape of his questioning following arrest, there's no doubt in my mind that the cop invented something. Now, as far as his pleading guilty, I completely understand why he'd do so, even if he was innocent: he wanted to avoid as much humiliation and media persecution as possible (sadly, didn't work), but who the hell would want to put their family through the pain and ordeal of a public trial?

As for point two, why these scandals aren't solely Republican, chalk it up to media bias. NBC, CNN, CBS, et al. all have one thing in common: alarmingly apparent liberal bias. They pounce on any possible story about a Republican (especially a vocal one), but brush by anything involving a Democrat. Does the name Governor Jim McGreevy ring a bell? Here's the review: he openly confessed to doing exactly what sen. Craig allegedly did, except McGreevy did it NUMEROUS times in NUMEROUS different restrooms. The media barely touched that (although, to be fair, it was touched, just not much). Did McGreevy get persecuted the way Mark Foley or Larry Craig were skewered? No way! In fact, McGreevy is now an ETHICS professor at some unfortunate University. If the media were actually balanced, mabye we'd see that just as many (if not more) Dems screw up as do Republicans.

Did McGreevy champion AGAINST gay rights?

Sure, there is the possiblity that Craig wasn't really soliciting sex or trying to get it. But it wasn't the first time he had been accused of being gay. Honestly, though, cops really need something better to do than patrol airport bathrooms. REALLY!

Well, it's an airport, so they've gotta check everything, but anywhere else would be a waste of time.

Why isn't anyone touching on the current democrat scandal? Somehow this poor family gives Hillary $200,000 in campain funds? Now they can't find this guy? Nobody is going after him either. He just disappeared. But nobody seems to care. But that is so much better then a man too afraid to come out of the closet, right? And that's only IF Craig as actually guilty. Why have the liberals in the media suddenly become homophobs? Couldn't be to draw attention away from a REAL scandal could it? Somewhat similar to why Bill Clinton started his own little war ironically, during a scandal. Hmmm.

DesalationReborn wrote:

Creature SH wrote:

HoosierDaddy wrote:

Creature SH wrote:There are plentiful christians who quote the old Testament. And nowhere in the christian Bible does it say "Okay, we were kidding about the previous pages. Here comes the real stuff".

Not in so many words but yes, it does.

So show me the fewer words.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”--Matt. 5:17-19.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Yup, what he said.

BTW, Christians haven't made the old testement obsolete. Where do these accusations come from? There are many things in the old tesement we live by. The only things that did change are the things that Christ came to change. The ten comandments still hold true as do many of the old testement teachings.

HoosierDaddy wrote:Couldn't be to draw attention away from a REAL scandal could it? Somewhat similar to why Bill Clinton started his own little war ironically, during a scandal. Hmmm.

For the same reason that it "Our responsiblity as a world power" which was perfectly acceptable for Clinton, was somewhere chucked out the window when the dems couldn't get into power a third time in a row...nor four years later, fot that matter.

We need to hear more democratic scandals. It might finally put an end to the two party system that has been a large part of the ruination of the United States.

Clinton...man, that guy was taken to task for all the wrong reasons. Blowjob in the office? Big deal. Started his own little war to cover it up? Meh.

Clinton made some incredible blunders during his time and nobody seemed to care about any of them that didn't involve the man's pants around his ankles.

The 2 party system has got to go. Funny thing is, we aren't a 2 party system. It's just the Amrican public needs to educate themselves and vote in someone else. Problem is, the American public seems to think it's too much work to educate themselves about politics and thus we get to continue getting screwed by two parties who have completely sold out to special interest groups. So down the tube goes what was once a mighty empire.

Pretty much, yeah.

HoosierDaddy wrote:The 2 party system has got to go. Funny thing is, we aren't a 2 party system. It's just the Amrican public needs to educate themselves and vote in someone else. Problem is, the American public seems to think it's too much work to educate themselves about politics and thus we get to continue getting screwed by two parties who have completely sold out to special interest groups. So down the tube goes what was once a mighty empire.

have you read 1984? putting aside that orwell was a grumpy bastard like me, it really does expand upon the advantageuos for a ruling elite over a non too bright populous.

or i could be being cynical and it's all a coinicidence.