I'm sorry to burst your bubble Cowboy, but what you say here is simply not true. It may be true for you and your "version" of what you would personally like Christianity to be, but ultimately you can't make this as a blanket statement, and the reason is extremely simple and straight-forward. I sincerely hope that you can follow this simple reasoning.

First off, what is "Christianity" but the belief in a doctrine. A collection of stories typically referred to as the "Holy Bible".

Therefore, (and this is the crux of the matter Cowboy, so please try to comprehend this), a believe in "Christianity" basically amounts to nothing more than a belief in a particular interpretation of a bunch of convoluted and often conflicting scriptures that clearly no two humans can agree on in detail.

Now, since "Christianity" truly reduces to nothing more than a belief in some particular interpretation of ancient fables, then there can be so such thing as "One True Christianity". On the contrary, anyone's interpretation of these scriptures will suffice as a basis for Christianity.

Now as a self-appointed Paper Pope you're in no position to be arguing with this. If you were going to argue with this you would need to bow down to the Catholic Pope and just accept HIS interpretations solely. However, if you are prepared to accept your role as a protesting Protestant Paper Pope offering up your own interpretations of scripture, then in doing so you have opened the flood gates of individualistic interpretations.

Now, having said all of this, many people do not agree with your Cowboyianity version of Christianity. There are those who do not worship you as "Pope". They take their own interpretations instead.

And here are the FACTS Cowboy:

1. The Old Testament clearly instructs people to kill sinners and heathens and not to suffer a which to live.

2. The New Testament has Jesus claiming that he did not come to destroy the laws but to fulfill them, and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until all have been fulfilled.

Now, I've heard your interpretations of these things. However, that's nothing. Your personal interpretations are utterly meaningless. They are personal to YOU and YOU ALONE. Well, you may find some followers who will agree with some of your interpretations, but the FACT still remains that "Christianity" is really nothing more than a worshiping of ancient scriptures, and everyone who accept those scriptures as the "Word of God" do not agree with your interpretations

It would be totally wrong (and highly arrogant) of you to renounce their interpretations as being some sort of 'absolute proclamation' being made in the name of "Christianity". You simply don't have the clout to do that. You are a self-appointed paper pope, and so is the next guy who may very well disagree with your interpretations altogether.

So for you to even remotely claim to represent "Christianity" or what it stands for is truly a moot act.

At best, all you can truly do is say something like, "Well I think it should stand for this,.... blah, blah, blah,..." Which of course you do, except you don't take the stance that you merely think it should stand for your ideals, but rather you demand that it does stand for your ideals, and you simply reject other interpretations as not being to your liking.

That's really all you're doing. You're just rambling on about what you would like "Christianity" to represent.

I actually tried going down that road myself at one point in my life but soon realized the folly in this. You'd be much further ahead to just abandon these old scriptures and instead choose a spiritual philosophy that simple allows you to view God in whatever way you chose.

Because in the end, that's really all you're really doing anyway, you're just dragging around a 'label' with you in the case of "Christianity". A label that you need to constantly defend and redefine, in terms of what you would like it to be.

If you just move on to something like Eastern Mysticism then you can indeed hold your own views of what God might be like without any need to play "Paper Pope" or demand that a bunch of ancient scriptures can be twisted to your liking.

There can be no such thing as a "True Christianity" because all that Christianity amounts to is personal interpretations of ancient fables.

Catholicism with it's single appointed Pope is the closest thing to "True Christianity". At least in the sense that it only has a single spokesperson. But Catholic Popes have historically condoned the mass murdering of "heathens" in the name of Jesus Christ the almighty, therefore in that sense "Christianity" is guilty as sin! And nothing you can do can ever change that.

BTW, i do take insult to the paper pope comments. If it continues you will be referred to as the paper satan.

========================
First off, what is "Christianity" but the belief in a doctrine. A collection of stories typically referred to as the "Holy Bible".
========================

Yes, they are a collection of documented incidents pertaining to Jesus Christ. Makes it easier to relate having emotion involved rather then just simple rules laid out before you.
---------------------------------------------
========================
I'm sorry to burst your bubble Cowboy, but what you say here is simply not true. It may be true for you and your "version" of what you would personally like Christianity to be, but ultimately you can't make this as a blanket statement, and the reason is extremely simple and straight-forward. I sincerely hope that you can follow this simple reasoning.
=========================

The only ones I see that disagree with what I say are people as you and the others that try to deny the bible. And yes my statement was 100% accurate. People aren't black and white, left or right, up and down. No, there's middle grounds from people's own desires. The bible teaches us specifically not to murder, heck it's one of the 10 commandments. And yes I understand in the old testament we were instructed eye for an eye ect. But that is in the old testament, which has been FULLFILLED by Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------

==========================
Now as a self-appointed Paper Pope you're in no position to be arguing with this. If you were going to argue with this you would need to bow down to the Catholic Pope and just accept HIS interpretations solely. However, if you are prepared to accept your role as a protesting Protestant Paper Pope offering up your own interpretations of scripture, then in doing so you have opened the flood gates of individualistic interpretations.
============================

I'm not a paper pope, nor do I consider myself more intelligent, closer to God, or anything of such. If one feels my interpretation is incorrect that is when we discuss what is incorrect about it. I'm just a man, I do make mistakes misinterpretting things or other. And if I do, again that person and I can talk and see where my mistake is. Life is a growing process. We aren't born with all the knowledge, we learn as we live. That applies to things our father has instructed us to do.
----------------------------------------------------------

==============================
Now, having said all of this, many people do not agree with your Cowboyianity version of Christianity. There are those who do not worship you as "Pope". They take their own interpretations instead.
===============================

Who disagrees with me on my interpretations? If any do, then again that person and I need to talk one on one to find my error. And I do not wish for anyone to worship me, i'm nothing special, nothing greater then anyone else.
--------------------------------------------------------------
================================
Now, I've heard your interpretations of these things. However, that's nothing. Your personal interpretations are utterly meaningless. They are personal to YOU and YOU ALONE. Well, you may find some followers who will agree with some of your interpretations, but the FACT still remains that "Christianity" is really nothing more than a worshiping of ancient scriptures, and everyone who accept those scriptures as the "Word of God" do not agree with your interpretations
===================================
Again, then those that do not agree with it, needs to confront me and discuss.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

===================================
Because in the end, that's really all you're really doing anyway, you're just dragging around a 'label' with you in the case of "Christianity". A label that you need to constantly defend and redefine, in terms of what you would like it to be.
====================================

No, I take no label. I'm not a Christian, i'm someone who tries his best to follow the laws our father and creator has set out before us. And in doing this try to spread the good news the lord has given to us. It's you and others that has given me and people of the same beliefs that title. I'm just a simple redneck trying to make it in this hard world just like everyone else. Again, not a Christian, not anything special. Just a good ole boy listening to our father.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

===================================
Catholicism with it's single appointed Pope is the closest thing to "True Christianity". At least in the sense that it only has a single spokesperson. But Catholic Popes have historically condoned the mass murdering of "heathens" in the name of Jesus Christ the almighty, therefore in that sense "Christianity" is guilty as sin! And nothing you can do can ever change that.
====================================

Again, it was THOSE people's actions and decisions to make such actions. The bible does not teach us to do as such.

You can call me a paper satan till the cows come home. The bottom line there is that it's a meaningless label of your own invention. Satan is YOUR DEMON, not mine. I don't believe your Satan anymore than I believe in your Christ. They are both imaginary make-believe Christian puppets used to beat people over the head with.

The term "Paper Pope" is a legitimate term that refers to anyone (Protestants in particular) who would claim to have a correct interpretation of the Bible, especially if they hold their interpretation over and above the interpretations given by the Catholic Pope.

So you fit the term. It's not meant as a derogatory label, it's simply mean to help to open your eyes to what you are genuinely doing. You are a perfect example of a "paper pope" because you take the paper book (the Bible) and claim to have the only interpretations that should be considered to be "Christian".

The bottom line is that this is indeed what you do. Dislike the title as much as you will, it's still a valid description of your behavior. It's not a term I personally invented, although I wish I could take credit for it.




That's simply not true. You are thinking in a very limited sense to say something like this.

The Christian Monks who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum clearly had a different interpretation of the biblical scriptures than do you.

The Christian Crusaders, also clearly had a different interpretation than do you.

In fact, historically, many Catholic Popes had a different interpretation than do you. They used the bible to justify the mass murder of heathens.

One could argue that Hitler also had a different interpretation of the biblical scriptures than do you, and although that might sound pretty disgusting, the bottom line is that these scriptures can indeed be twisted enough to actually justify killing heathens in the name of God.

I've already point out the fact that the Old Testament not only commands people to kill heathens but demands that it is their duty to look into anyone suspected of being a heathen. In the New Testament Jesus say that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So there you go. The Christian Bible can be interpreted to have Jesus supporting the Old Testament laws.

All you can do at that point is argue interpretations.

But at that point all you've managed to do is prove my point that Christianity can be nothing more than personal interpretations.

That's all it can be. It's a religious system that has no absolutes of its own. What you'd like for Christianity to be has no more merit than what someone else would like it to be.

That's the bottom line.

Your arguments for your interpretations simple aren't impressive.

For example you say:


No, it doesn't say not to murder, it says not to kill. But then on many occasions throughout the biblical fables that follow these stories have God instructing people to stone people to death, to kill heathens, and even to mass murder entire villages including women and children. In fact, in one of the fables it even has God telling his follows to save the young female virgins for themselves.

The point being that clearly there are exceptions to the Ten Commandments all throughout the Biblical Fables. So it's reasonable to conclude that all those exceptions are still valid today. That's a valid interpretation if a person so chooses to believe it is so.




You're "FULFILLED" crap is just that. That's your interpretation! That's an interpretation that doesn't even make any sense at all, IMHO.

In fact, if you were going to claim that the entire Old Testament had somehow been rendered invalid because Jesus supposedly "Fulfilled" its laws, then you'd need to toss our the idea that homosexuality is a sin too because that comes from the Old Testament, and not from Jesus. Although I do believe that Paul dredged that crap up in his writings in the New Testament too.

In fact, there you go right there. Even Paul disagrees with your interpretations because he was constantly dredging up crap from the Old Testament in the name of Jesus.

But that whole notion that Jesus somehow "fulfilled laws" is a bogus notion that doesn't even hold water, IMHO. There would have been no reason for Jesus to lie about coming to destroy the old laws if he had every intention of doing so. Why would Jesus have lied about such an important thing?

That's simply not true. You are thinking in a very limited sense to say something like this.

The Christian Monks who wrote the Malleus Maleficarum clearly had a different interpretation of the biblical scriptures than do you.

The Christian Crusaders, also clearly had a different interpretation than do you.

In fact, historically, many Catholic Popes had a different interpretation than do you. They used the bible to justify the mass murder of heathens.

One could argue that Hitler also had a different interpretation of the biblical scriptures than do you, and although that might sound pretty disgusting, the bottom line is that these scriptures can indeed be twisted enough to actually justify killing heathens in the name of God.

I've already point out the fact that the Old Testament not only commands people to kill heathens but demands that it is their duty to look into anyone suspected of being a heathen. In the New Testament Jesus say that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.

So there you go. The Christian Bible can be interpreted to have Jesus supporting the Old Testament laws.

All you can do at that point is argue interpretations.

But at that point all you've managed to do is prove my point that Christianity can be nothing more than personal interpretations.

That's all it can be. It's a religious system that has no absolutes of its own. What you'd like for Christianity to be has no more merit than what someone else would like it to be.

That's the bottom line.

Your arguments for your interpretations simple aren't impressive.
=========================================

Possibly your interpretations of what they were saying is misinterpreted. What you have said is heresay, you provided no such evidence to substantiate your claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

==========================================
No, it doesn't say not to murder, it says not to kill. But then on many occasions throughout the biblical fables that follow these stories have God instructing people to stone people to death, to kill heathens, and even to mass murder entire villages including women and children. In fact, in one of the fables it even has God telling his follows to save the young female virgins for themselves. whoa

The point being that clearly there are exceptions to the Ten Commandments all throughout the Biblical Fables. So it's reasonable to conclude that all those exceptions are still valid today. That's a valid interpretation if a person so chooses to believe it is so.
=============================================

The references of stoning is from the old testament. Before Jesus Christ walked the earth we were judged by the word. The word was then made flesh "Jesus Christ". We will still be judged by the word, but in a different form. We no longer have to carry out the judgment for the word/judge has become flesh and walked amongst us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===========================================
You're "FULFILLED" crap is just that. That's your interpretation! That's an interpretation that doesn't even make any sense at all, IMHO.

In fact, if you were going to claim that the entire Old Testament had somehow been rendered invalid because Jesus supposedly "Fulfilled" its laws, then you'd need to toss our the idea that homosexuality is a sin too because that comes from the Old Testament, and not from Jesus. Although I do believe that Paul dredged that crap up in his writings in the New Testament too.

In fact, there you go right there. Even Paul disagrees with your interpretations because he was constantly dredging up crap from the Old Testament in the name of Jesus.

But that whole notion that Jesus somehow "fulfilled laws" is a bogus notion that doesn't even hold water, IMHO. There would have been no reason for Jesus to lie about coming to destroy the old laws if he had every intention of doing so. Why would Jesus have lied about such an important thing?
=============================================

No it's not MY interpretation. Jesus specifically said he didn't come to change the law or anything but fulfill it. Some laws such as this might have carried over, but it is included in a new set of laws. It's not "from" the old testament, it's just in both so what?

"BTW, i do take insult to the paper pope comments. If it continues you will be referred to as the paper satan."

Well I'm sure there are other Christians who also embrace these particular interpretations. I imagine these are things that you have been taught as well. But that doesn't make them correct.

You ask, so what?

Well, it doesn't truly matter if he supposedly "Fulfilled" old laws, he would have STILL CHANGED THEM. But he said that he didn't come to change them. So there you GO!

The interpretations and theories you've been taught simply don't hold water. Jesus would have been lying when he said that he didn't come to change the laws if, in fact, that's precisely what he intended to do.

You can't have God going around lying to his creation.

So clearly Christianity is a fraud. If there was any truth to this original mythology it would have been pre-Christian Judaism, but Christians hate that religion.

In fact, if Jesus was indeed the God of the Old Testament, then most Christians hate Jesus the way he was before he had a change of heart.

Most Christians vehemently renounce the teachings and behaviors taught in the Old Testament. They call them "barbaric" and "uncivilized". The accuse some forms of Islam of being horrific simply because those forms of Islam actually adhere to the teachings of the Old Testament.

Christianity is a schizophrenic religion. It's a religion that claims to love the "New Jesus" but claims to hate the "Old Jesus" (the God of the Old Testament).

It's just silly. It's a religion that contradicts its own values.

I'm pretty sure Douglas MacArthur was NOT an atheist, and if you check, you can verify that he wanted to go after the Communists in the Korean War era. Truman had to finally yoke him in for insubordination, or he probably would have made good on his threats. Who knows if that one would have gone nuclear.

Too, many of us grew up hearing about how nuts the Russians were and how THEY were a 'direct threat to our way of life.' Then, just as now, Bible Thumpers like Joe McCarthy were exploiting the 'Red Threat' to obtain power and choke off dissent.

And one still gets an undertow of that slander that Unbelievers are quislings in league with Communists and All Things Foul by some elements of the Christian majority that holds the reins of power in this country. Recently, they even went so far as to try to disqualify atheist candidates, in a more that is a BRAZEN contravention of the Constitution of the United States.

To be sure, the militant Christians don't parade the Cross around the Halls of Governance.

But they sure wrap it in the flag when they want to cut the minority who are Unbelievers from the rest of the herd. Like their court cases, they usually don't last very long on these forums, but those sentiments that the U.S. is a Christian Nation are expressed so often here. And that if atheists don't like it, they can expatriate.

Sounds pretty Un-American to me.




Can I quote you that?





Oh, I don't have to do much digging to come up with that comment from a top general in Iraq saying that 'his God was bigger than Saddam's God'. Nor to find reports where Christian missionaries were given leading roles in rebuilding the country by the Bush Administration in much the same manner that the Carpetbaggers exploited the Antebellum South in the 19th century.


-Kerry O.

Paper Satan, eh? Given his alleged enviroment, wouldn't that be like Frosty the SatanMan? Besides, much as I'd like to (being the first one to mention it in these forums), I can't take credit for it-- it was coined by one Bishop Spong, and Episcopalian if I recall correctly.


-Kerry O. "Rock, Paper, Scissors anyone?"

The Old testament did indeed have some stories of God telling Jews to kill the entire town.But who am I to question the judgment of God?If he gave them life I don't see why it is wrong for him to give them death.

Once again you fail to realize once Jesus died for the sins of ALL people,God did not have to kill anyone anymore for any reason.No matter how evil these people were to God they would no longer die by his hand because their sins were payed for by Jesus and no longer deserved a death sentence.


Christ did come to fulfill the prophecy and Christ did fulfill the prophecy.Those prophecies did not include killing or violence.You will never find any bible verses from Christ telling us to kill for any reason.

I think you could probably further your argument more if you could find anything in the New testament that

1.)Gives a green light to killing anyone for any reason.
2.)Say's murder and killing are justified by Christians.
3.)That Christians should use violence.

Give me some bible verses and then we can talk.

I could care less what one Islamic General in Iraq has to say.What this has to do with anything I have no idea.

Seems your Christian missionaries given leading roles in rebuilding the country is nothing but a lie.I couldn't find any truth to that statement but did find this...

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/15/in_touch/index.html

"Officially, the Bush administration has taken no position on the campaign for converts. But foreign policy experts -- and even some moderate Christian groups -- are already warning that efforts by the conservative Christians to capitalize on the fall of Saddam could inject a decidedly religious tone into Bush's stated plan to democratize Iraq. And unless the administration takes a strong stand against that campaign, some say, the missionaries may provoke a deep, damaging backlash there and throughout the Muslim world.


What former Generals 60 years ago have to do with anything I have no idea.

You still have failed to prove to me and anyone else that any of these Wars past or present had anything to do with Christianity.I would like to hear something like "We went to War because this bible verse says...."Or "If we don't go to War we are disobeying Jesus Christ".Or "We have the right to kill and invade because the Holy bible says it's justified"

You say you shouldn't have to do much digging.So start digging.

True that. Unfortunatly.

True that.
However, I would contend that atheists have a better shot at not being evil. At least less hypocritical.

Of course, I also think basing any decision on some antiquated superstition is an evil act, in and of itself.

Well, I guess it was a good thing for Hitler that the christians didn't feel as the Jews did. Gosh, going by what you're saying, if the christians didn't back Hitler, he wouldn't have been able to rise to power at all.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yeah. 'Cause places like Greenland are such a threat...

And if you're talking about the war in Iraq, quite alot of evidence has come out about how Bush2 believed God, his christian God, told him to invade Iraq.

You're so uninformed, so divorced from reality, I have difficulty taking you seriously. If you are for real, what trauma did you suffer as a child? Were you abused? Did you suffer from a severe brain injury? I'm thinking something really bad must've happened to you to make you this way. Have you ever sought help?

===================================
Well, it doesn't truly matter if he supposedly "Fulfilled" old laws, he would have STILL CHANGED THEM. But he said that he didn't come to change them. So there you GO!
===================================

No, if something is fulfilled it's completed, finished, done with. Then if something is completed, a new set is put in progress. The two sets of laws are two totally different sets of laws having nothing to do with each other. Thus there can not be contradictions, conflicts, or any other. They are two TOTALLY different sets of laws.
-------------------------------------------

====================================
Most Christians vehemently renounce the teachings and behaviors taught in the Old Testament. They call them "barbaric" and "uncivilized". The accuse some forms of Islam of being horrific simply because those forms of Islam actually adhere to the teachings of the Old Testament.
====================================

No, Christianity didn't move on to the new testament because we thought the old laws were babaric, uncivilized or anything. We went to the new testament because again the coming of Jesus FULFILLED the old testament, completed it, finished it. And Jesus gave us the new testament of which we are to abide by.
------------------------------------------

==================================
Christianity is a schizophrenic religion. It's a religion that claims to love the "New Jesus" but claims to hate the "Old Jesus" (the God of the Old Testament).
==================================

Nobody hates anyone. Again, Jesus specifically tells us he was here to complete the old testament and give us a new one. Nothing "Christians" have chosen to do, it is clearly what Jesus claims to have done.

Says the person who already admits that he dislikes Christians and most people because of what a few "good Christians" have done to him...

Wow, was that entire paragraph recited towards a mirror???

Seriously man, seek some counceling.

It wasn't one Islamic General, sheesh! It was an _American_ general appointed by George W. Bush to be deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. And here are some quotes from General Boykin:

""I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"Satan wants to destroy this nation, he wants to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army...They will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus".

"George Bush was not elected by a majority of the voters in the US. He was appointed by God."





I guess you didn't want to research any further than that when you saw what a smoking gun it was?



That much is apparent. Again, this IS, after all, a thread discussing history.




I just report and let the reader decide. You're not the sum total of the readership, Thomas. I don't get paid to do this, but good search engines and a decent memory of historical events make it far from being my vocation. I think people do deserve to hear what the people representing their culture in foreign nations have to say about religion and to let it be known that we American are not all Far Right Fundies.


-Kerry O.