A question about Israel

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:41 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Well at least someone who has experienced, say the holocaust.
Pitiful twaddle.

You're welcome to that opinion and all that goes along with it.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:47 pm

I’d like to have me some Faith:

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:48 pm

Well at least someone who has experienced, say the holocaust. Or take the U.S. holocaust victims, very staunch believers. I see an awful lot of spoiled WASPS questioning the existence of God and it just makes me question their lack of faith. It's really almost as if they're afraid of something.

Tom...you're dealing out judgements like a cheap deck of deuces. You're announcing that we're not worthy of questioning someone's faith, and then you're qualifying people to do it based on terms that you see fit to set arbitrarily.

It's midsummer, but you're skating on some pretty thin ice.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:49 pm

mvscal wrote:All that goes with it. Yes, of course. That would be intelligent, rational thought, an examination of evidence and a healthy portion of contempt for your primitive superstition.

Well that's another thread mvscal. But you're childish attitude towards the discussion are duly noted and have been for quite a while. Makes someone with a "primitive superstition" wonder why a self proclaimed "rational" person such as yourself would continue to engage in these discussions.

I'm feelin' some sort of Saul to Paul conversion coming on for you.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:56 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
Well at least someone who has experienced, say the holocaust. Or take the U.S. holocaust victims, very staunch believers. I see an awful lot of spoiled WASPS questioning the existence of God and it just makes me question their lack of faith. It's really almost as if they're afraid of something.
Tom...you're dealing out judgements like a cheap deck of deuces. You're announcing that we're not worthy of questioning someone's faith, and then you're qualifying people to do it based on terms that you see fit to set arbitrarily.

Nothing arbitrary about it. And as for dealing out judgements .... there's a lot of that going on in this thread and mine aren't any more or less arbitrary than anyone elses.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:59 pm

This thread is like Christmas, New Year's and my birthday all rolled up into one.

Keep knocking each others brains out, while Israel cashes your cheques without a "thank you".

~~~ grabs ice slushy grape-flavoured drink and unfolds lawnchair ~~~

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:59 pm

poptart, so, earthquakes are a curse from God upon non Christian nations?

What's the story then for all the Christians who die in eathquakes in Christian nations? What about monsoons, volcano eruptions...famine...

....AIDS...

...MTV??

Are you seriously going to the Pat Robertson card here and saying that God is intentionally murdering specific groups of people??

You believe that, and still that's the God you choose to worship??

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:01 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Makes someone with a "primitive superstition" wonder why a self proclaimed "rational" person such as yourself would continue to engage in these discussions.
Perhaps it has somthing to do with that the fact that the intellectual primitives who follow these various, baseless superstitions continue to inflict the planet with death and destruction in the name of whichever "god" happens to be fashionable in the local neighborhood.

I'm a firm believer in a separation church and state. I'm kind of like Sistani in that respect.

People fight over resources mvscal. Differing perceptions of a divine entity and differing rituals in how to pay respects to that entity just provide our minds with the rationalizations and justifications necessary to allow us to kill one another. We'd be doing it anyway.

In fact, we were.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:01 pm

Martyred wrote:This thread is like Christmas, New Year's and my birthday all rolled up into one.

Keep knocking each others brains out, while Israel cashes your cheques without a "thank you".

~~~ grabs ice slushy grape-flavoured drink and unfolds lawnchair ~~~

Just as long as your country keeps up their rent payments on time, we won't sweat it.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:08 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:I'm a firm believer in a separation church and state.
The problem is that people who are as credulous and uncritical in their beliefs as you can be lead to believe in pretty much anything.

You haven't done a very good job in swaying my belief in God. So that pretty well refutes your argument. But your mosquito bite like insults and barbs are amusing. Does that fact I don't say ....

"Holy shit, mvscal is right, there cannot be a God", hurt you, intimidate you or ..... just confound you ?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:09 pm

Van wrote:
Just as long as your country keeps up their rent payments on time, we won't sweat it.

My country is run by the same vicious gang of Zionist, corporate thugs that run your country.
Don't ask me to shed a tear for some bit of geography. Fuck Canada too.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:15 pm

Van wrote:poptart, so, earthquakes are a curse from God upon non Christian nations?

Van ...... you don't like my data ... ?

You asked to see some, and now you are trying to twist the point.

This is what I said............

Historically, poverty, curses and mayhem are foundations of countries lacking the Gospel.

There is really no debating this point, Van.

You just don't want to (or can't) see it.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:21 pm

MoreTard, difference is, your country is beholden to our country.

Good thing you have hockey and some bitchin' forests, otherwise all you'd have is Dudley Do Right and Geddy Lee and snivelers like yourself there...

Btw, exactly when are you going to renounce your Canadian citizenship and hop that plane to Damascus? I'm sure they'd love you over there, and you could die happy when that Star Of David festooned tank shell comes ripping through your "civilian" office building...which also happened to be the headquarters for the local Hezbollah reach around panty raid party...

Tourism being what it is over there these days I'm sure William Shatner could hook you up with a smokin' deal on a nice hotel/plan fare deal. Hop right on it, Mr Badass Internet Anarchist...

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:25 pm

mvscal wrote:By all means, wrap yourself up in whichever fairy tale

Kind of like your little cocoon of "Boo Hoo, there would be no war and no strife if only people would listen to me and know, there is no God".

Sure thing buddy. :wink:

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:27 pm

poptart wrote:
Van wrote:poptart, so, earthquakes are a curse from God upon non Christian nations?
Van ...... you don't like my data ... ?

You asked to see some, and now you are trying to twist the point.

This is what I said............

Historically, poverty, curses and mayhem are foundations of countries lacking the Gospel.

There is really no debating this point, Van.

You just don't want to (or can't) see it.

poptart, you're the one who's spinning now.

I asked for examples of "curses" that God bestowed upon non Christian nations and you came back with a list of countries which've suffered through earthquakes, which, last time I checked, are simply garden variety natural disasters that regularly occur in Christian nations as well.

Portugal was even on your list. Portugal is a Christian nation, innit?

Mexico City.... pretty sure they're fairly well Catholic.

Is California bereft of Christians too? I'd just like to know 'cause we sure as hell keep getting hit with God's "curse" too and I wanna know who to blame...

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:33 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:Kind of like your little cocoon of "Boo Hoo, there would be no war and no strife if only people would listen to me and know, there is no God".
Needless to say, I never said any such thing.

Tough to believe a liar.

......baseless superstitions continue to inflict the planet with death and destruction in the name of whichever "god" happens to be fashionable in the local neighborhood......

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:41 pm

Van wrote:
Mexico City.... pretty sure they're fairly well Catholic.

actually, they're fairly well officially atheist... errr- have a firm separation between church & state- since the early part of the 20th century.

not that the church doesn't still hold some influence

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:52 pm

mvscal wrote:
Van wrote:Mexico City.... pretty sure they're fairly well Catholic.
And how could we forget medieval Europe where every day was like a trip to Disneyland where the streets were all paved in gold and filled with shiny, happy who never knew want or illness or strife.

A veritable utopia. Ah...the "good old days".

Yeah, but see, poptart only gave earthquakes as his example of God cursing nations which haven't accepted the Gospel. So, I limited it to earthquakes.

While I am sure most of medieval Europe had accepted the Gospel I'm not sure whether bubonic plague would count with poptart as another of God's curses.

On the one hand, many a Christian nation has suffered through catastrophic earthquakes. So, there goes that theory of poptart's. On the other hand, medieval Europe was mostly Christian and while they did see the majority of their population wiped clean from from the planet via bubonic plague they didn't really suffer much at the hands of earthquakes, which goes to support his "earthquakes = God's curse" contention.

I'm just finding lots of grey areas here, ya' know?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:53 pm

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:
mvscal wrote: Needless to say, I never said any such thing.

Tough to believe a liar.

......baseless superstitions continue to inflict the planet with death and destruction in the name of whichever "god" happens to be fashionable in the local neighborhood......
Oh so now you're trying to "read between the lines" and reach conclusions that are not stated implicitly or explicitly.

So it's OKAY to "inflict the planet with death and destruction", just not in the name of any sort of superstition. Gotcha.

Why are we in Iraq again ?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:54 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Catholic_Church

The Status of the Catholic Church in Mexico (1876-1911)
During the period of 1876 to 1911, relations between the Catholic Church and the Mexican government were stable. The Catholic Church intended on having steady relations since they wanted to increase their political hold in Mexico. Porfirio Diaz was obsessed since he was worried about the American expansionist threat. Porfirio Diaz has been quoted as saying:

“Persecution of the Church, whether or not the clergy enter into the matter, means war, and such a war that the Government only win it only against its own people, through the humiliating, despotic, costly and dangerous support of the United States. Without its religion, Mexico is irretrievably lost.”
Diaz strengthened the Mexican government ties with the Catholic Church with an agreement formulated in 1905. The Church’s influence over Mexico transcended due to the amount of changes that occurred while Diaz was in power. These institutional reforms included: administrative reorganization, improved training of the laity, the expansion of the Catholic press, an expansion of Catholic education, and the growth of Church’s influence in rural areas. The lack of enforcement of anti-clerical laws by Diaz can also be attributed to the profound influence of his wife who was a devout Catholic.

[edit]
The Early Stages of the Mexican Revolution
After Francisco Madero’s victory over Porfirio Diaz, he continued to have close ties with the Catholic Church. However, this changed since Madero was a weak leader. Victoriano Huerta and the Constitutionalists eventually overthrew Madero in 1911.

The Constitutionalists denounced clerical involvement in Mexican governmental affairs. They protested that they were not persecuting the Catholic religion but wanted to reduce the Church’s political influence. The Constitutionalists did not at first take any formal action

[edit]
Constitutionalists take action (1914)
Alvaro Obregon and the Constitutionalists eventually took active measures to reduce the profound influence of the Catholic Church. On May 19, 1914, Obregon forces sentenced Bishop Andres Segura and other clerical officials to jail for eight years because of their participation in a revolt. While Obregon was in control of Mexico City during February 1915, he ordered the Church to pay 500,000 pesos to alleviate the suffering of poor Mexicans.

Venustiano Carranaza assumed the presidency on May 1, 1915. Carranaza and his followers felt that the clergy was turning people against him by spreading propaganda. Soon after Carranaza took total control of Mexico and developed a new Constitution with the intention of diminishing the Church’s political sway and power within Mexico.

[edit]
1917 Mexican Constitution
Anti-clerical elements were included in 1917 Mexican Constitution. Five elements in the Constitution were aimed at reducing the Catholic Church’s influence in Mexican domestic affairs. Article 3 enforced secular education in Mexican schools. Monastic vows and orders were outlawed in Article 5. Article 24 prevented public worship outside the confines of the Church buildings. According to article 27, religious institutions were denied the right to acquire, hold, or administer real property. Furthermore, all real estate held by religious institutions through third parties like hospitals, schools, was declared national property. Finally in article 130, it declared all basic civil responsibilities like voting or commenting on public affairs was taken away from Church officials. The Mexican government was extremely harsh in their attempt to eliminate the Catholic Church’s legal existence in Mexico. The stern premises of the 1917 Constitution attributed to the rise of resentment between the church and state.

[edit]
Aftermath
For eight years after these provisions were instituted there were not rigorously enforced by the Mexican government. This changed in 1926 when Plutarco Elias Calles reinforced laws to decrease clerical power. In June 1926, Calles recognized a decree often referred to as “Calles Law.” Under this provision, Article 130 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution was re-established. Church officials were upset by the suddenness of Calles’ decision. The regulation which annoyed the Catholic Church was Article 19, which decreed the compulsory registration of the clergy, for it allowed the Government to hand over churches.”

The Catholic Church took a stand against the Mexican government. The internal political dissension became a concern for all Mexicans since the regulations imposed by Callas reduced the Catholic Church's influence. The disagreement turned violent. When over five thousand Cristero’s initiated an armed rebellion. The Mexican government and the Catholic Church engaged in bloody battle which lasted for a three-year period.

you aren't ususually full of shit, mvscal, but you have a blind spot when it comes to religion

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 4:59 pm

Cuda wrote:
Van wrote:
Mexico City.... pretty sure they're fairly well Catholic.
actually, they're fairly well officially atheist... errr- have a firm separation between church & state- since the early part of the 20th century.

not that the church doesn't still hold some influence

A separation of church and state in no way obviates the fact of a nation having accepted the Gospel. One's a governmental matter, the other's spiritual.

Mexico is without a doubt a nation whose populace purports to've accepted the Gospel, which, according to poptart's description of "God's Excellent Rules Governing Poverty, Curses & Mayhem & How They Relate To People Who Don't Accept The Gospel", means that Mexico really shouldn't have gotten hit with all those earthquakes sent by God.

I think I'd demand my union dues back if I were a devout Christian just minding my own business one day, sitting there at church, doing the right thing and all, and still God saw fit to send an earthquake my way and crush my sternum with a falling crucifix...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:14 pm

Van, you asked for 'evidence' to support my statment, and I showed you a SMALL tip of a very large iceberg.

What I listed there were not just any earthquakes.
They are the 20 most killer earthquakes in recorded history.
Nearly all of them occurred in nations lacking the gospel.
Actually maybe ALL of them did.
It is what it is.

Your next line of questioning is predictable.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL EARTHQUAKES ARE A CURSE FROM GOD?!?!?!?!

Well, Frankly, .... yes.

Hey, there were no earthquakes in Eden.

Man screwed the pooch.

Read Genesis books 1-3 if you want to know where I'm coming from.

I already know where you are coming from.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:18 pm

And the fact that the majority of people killed in floods lived near rivers is irrefutable proof that there's life on Neptune.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:22 pm

mvscal wrote:
So while the erasure of religion would not result in the end of all war, the pot certainly would not be boiling with as much vigor as it does today.

Sure it wouldn't.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:25 pm

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:26 pm

mvscal wrote:
Just about every current conflict on this earth involves Muslim aggression or responses to Muslim aggression.

So while the erasure of religion would not result in the end of all war, the pot certainly would not be boiling with as much vigor as it does today.

it wouldn't necessarily require wiping out islam- just severely oppressing & suppressing it to the point that islam decided to behave itself.

mexico suppressed the catholic church in the last century to the point that it's power & influence there is much diminshed from what it was- and still isn't what it once was. the same can be done with islam, only it will likely take a lot more bloodshed. better their blood than ours

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:35 pm

The idea that Gospel might save nations from natural disasters...black comedy gold, you know.

Of course, most nations (yes, that means the people that live in them, not the ruling elite) that had gospel couldn't even understand the gospel until it was translated into their native languages...hundreds of years of blindly swallowing gobbledygook fed to them in whatever form the local priests cared to dish it out. Also, when did common folks recognize literacy to be something they were interested in?

Maybe Europe and other areas that "had the gospel" suffered disasters becuase most folks weren't even close to understanding what actually was in the gospel? Sounds like something that persists in much of little America, unfortunately...and here we go with the hurricanes again...

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:39 pm

mexico suppressed the catholic church in the last century to the point that it's power & influence there is much diminshed from what it was

Hooray for them! Their societies were organized, at a fundamental level, to extract the wealth of the new world and funnel it to the coffers of the Vatican - and Lord knows they didn't always spend the money on Bibles for Pedro.

I can't fault the Mexican government for stemming the flow. Too bad they weren't even more successful...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:48 pm

EVERY nation has disasters, PSU.
Everyone knows it.

Countries where the Gospel has not been 'established' have more ........ poverty, curses and mayhem.

That was my statement and my point.

Is it not true ... ?

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:50 pm

Why a lot of folks have a hard time believing in the whole Bible/God thing, IMNSHO:

Typical "religious folks" line of argument:

If a group of folks do as God says and they prosper => it must be BECAUSE they did as ordered

If a group of folks do as God says and they get whacked anyway => then:
- someone in the group must be a slacker and lying about it, or
- they're being "tested," or
- they're being punished for thinking that they can be saved by good acts

If a set of heathens don't do as ordered in the Bible and prosper =>
- don't worry....they'll get theirs in God's own time...
- God is somehow using them for His own purposes, YTBR (yet to be revealed)
- Hey, God's grace is completely unearned, so who are YOU to judge?!?!

If all else fails, take a "prophecy" out of the Old Testament and attempt to somehow bend it to fit the modern circumstance to claim it was foretold. Make sure to do the same to specific events in modern history to "establish credibility." Wave off any arguments accusing you of "pulling a Nostradamus."

Personally, I believe any attempt to read Revelations (for example) as "foretelling" modern stuff is 100% utter and complete bullshit. This means, of course, that I shan't be invited to any more barbecues at Kirk Cameron's house, but I can live with that....

:wink:

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:50 pm

Let's try this first. What are the nations were Gospel is "established"?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:51 pm

poptart wrote:Van, you asked for 'evidence' to support my statment, and I showed you a SMALL tip of a very large iceberg.

But you showed me no evidence. There's no curse evident there.

Instead, you showed me evidence of self serving selective thinking, whereby you apply and discard events to suit your need.

What I listed there were not just any earthquakes.
They are the 20 most killer earthquakes in recorded history.
Nearly all of them occurred in nations lacking the gospel.
Actually maybe ALL of them did.
It is what it is.

When did Portugal reject the Gospel?

When did Mexico City?

"It is what it is". Yes, it's earthquakes, which occur like clockwork all over the globe.

I've lived through a few biggies myself, here in predominantly Christian California.

Your next line of questioning is predictable.

As will be your response...

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL EARTHQUAKES ARE A CURSE FROM GOD?!?!?!?!

Well, Frankly, .... yes.

Then why do Christian nations get hit with them too? Where's there any rhyme or reason to who gets cursed and who's exempt?

Look, eventually you're going to have to go to the "It's God's will and only He knows when and why he applies his curses!" card, so let's just cut to the chase...

In other words, you're making this shit up as you go along, keeping what fits, discarding what doesn't fit. You haven't a clue, nor could you, since all of it is beyond human reckoning.

Hey, there were no earthquakes in Eden.

How do you know? Where's Eden? Who was their seismologist?

See, assuming there ever was an Eden, the guys who wrote the books that described Eden never actually saw the place. They just took it on Faith that it existed at all, and there's no seismology accounts in the bible concerning Eden.

For all you know Eden was destroyed by an earthquake, and the apple Eve ate fell to the ground because of an earthquake.

You're talking children's fables here, dude. Seriously. Do you really want to go to this ridiculous card to support your arguments?

Wait. Of course you do. You have to. You have nothing else.

Man screwed the pooch.

No, he screwed Eve. Somehow though, just from a coupling of Adam and Eve, the world managed to get populated with Eskimos, Namibians, Mexicans, Sri Lankans and Swedes.

Neat trick, that.

Read Genesis books 1-3 if you want to know where I'm coming from.

I already know where you are coming from.

I've read it. I don't buy it. It's a silly series of fables that include a number of physics impossibilities.

"God can change physics as he sees fit!"...

Great. Great argument. There's something solid to take to the mental bank.

Betcha might not've figured out then that God can also compel crazed desert folk to write a bunch of politically motivated fables and then attempt to pass 'em off as being written by God.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:56 pm

poptart wrote:EVERY nation has disasters, PSU.
Everyone knows it.

Countries where the Gospel has not been 'established' have more ........ poverty, curses and mayhem.

That was my statement and my point.

Is it not true ... ?

No, it most certainly isn't true. You couldn't even begin to support such a ludicrous argument since all of latin America and all of colonialized Africa would shoot down any ordering of catastrophes you'd care to create.

As a matter of fact the one region of the world that is MOST accepting of the Gospel, Europe, that's the area that lived through the greatest catastophe in the history of mankind: the Black Plague.

No natural disaster ever wiped out as high of a % of people as the Black Plague did, and those were nearly all Gospel acceptin' people who died.

Patently absurd argument, poptart. Get off it.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:04 pm

Van wrote:
poptart wrote:Van, you asked for 'evidence' to support my statment, and I showed you a SMALL tip of a very large iceberg.
But you showed me no evidence. There's no curse evident there.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:07 pm

20 Poorest Countries in the world

1 East Timor
2 Somalia
3 Sierra Leone
4 Malawi
5 Tanzania
6 Burundi
7 Congo, Republic of the
8 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
9 Comoros
10 Eritrea
11 Ethiopia
12 Afghanistan
13 Niger
14 Yemen
15 Madagascar
16 Guinea-Bissau
17 Zambia
18 Kiribati
19 Nigeria
20 Mali

Got Gospel ... ?

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:10 pm

poptart, total up all those earthquake "curse" victims and they don't even "scratch the tip of the iceberg" compared to the number of devout Christians who died during the Black Plague.

They also don't come close to the number of devout Jews who died during the Holocaust.

Seems like this "curse" you speak of knows no bounds. I guess all mankind is cursed then, including any and all Gospel accepting types...

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:11 pm

poptart wrote:20 Poorest Countries in the world

1 East Timor
2 Somalia
3 Sierra Leone
4 Malawi
5 Tanzania
6 Burundi
7 Congo, Republic of the
8 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
9 Comoros
10 Eritrea
11 Ethiopia
12 Afghanistan
13 Niger
14 Yemen
15 Madagascar
16 Guinea-Bissau
17 Zambia
18 Kiribati
19 Nigeria
20 Mali

Got Gospel ... ?

Got education??

Next, look to the rest of the world. What you'll find is that ANY nation that's predicated on religion will always lag behind in terms of wealth and prosperity.

Even in developed countries your poorest people are usually the most religious ones.

Like I said, the #1 enemy of mankind is organized religion, headed up by the two people whose mere existence has caused mankind more grief than any other enemy of mankind: Mohammed and Jesus H. Christ.

You really want a wealthy, healthy and prosperous nation? Eschew organized religion, entirely. Instead, have your citizenry bury their heads in science books.

Let 'em come to depend on Christ or Muhammed and you're going to get a nation of underachieving, unmotivated sheep.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:13 pm

Van wrote:Seems like this "curse" you speak of knows no bounds. I guess all mankind is cursed then, including any and all Gospel accepting types...

Yes, now we're getting somewhere.

Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:13 pm

The Sack of Constantinople

Crusaders sacking a Christian city...I'm sure the Gospel came in handy there.

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:19 pm

poptart wrote:
Van wrote:Seems like this "curse" you speak of knows no bounds. I guess all mankind is cursed then, including any and all Gospel accepting types...
Yes, now we're getting somewhere.

Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life

No, we're getting nowhere.

Our only chance is in some nebulous afterlife. According to that we're doomed, here on earth.

But of course.