16 May '06 12:06>
Originally posted by lucifershammerBerk.
Probably because most Christians today have more important things in life to worry about than apocryphal Gospels.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Probably because most Christians today have more important things in life to worry about than apocryphal Gospels.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhile I agree that denominations and schisms within the body of Christ represents a harsh indictment upon the members, the same do not necessarily negate the message of the Bible.
I find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Thats what my forebears used.
or Thats what my pastor says.
or Thats what sounds right to me.
Rather than say:
These have been shown to ...[text shortened]... nder the same roof. Even within denominations there are often partial splits or disagreements.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you say about most Christians is probably true - they probably believe what they believe because it was what they were taught. But then the same can be said about most things. Why, for instance, do you believe that stars are suns like our very own Sun but thousands or millions of light-years away? Have you ever been to a star? Seen it up close in a telescope? Ever studied astrophysics?
I find it far more likely that many of them are simply not aware of thier existance and where they are they are seriously misinformed as to their origins. However choice of books always comes down to something like:
Thats what my forebears used.
or Thats what my pastor says.
or Thats what sounds right to me.
Rather than say:
These have been shown to ...[text shortened]... nder the same roof. Even within denominations there are often partial splits or disagreements.
Originally posted by no1marauderBTW, both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it cle ...[text shortened]... read off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, you did call him the "king of personal attacks".
[b]BTW, both of you managed to take the thread off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.
Your insights are darn near intuitive. Prior to this post of yours, I had posted thrice. The first two were in response to the subject matter of the thread, i.e., Jack Chick. The third was in response to TH's post, wh ...[text shortened]... g howardgee agree with your sentiment is a sure sign that better self-reflection is required.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerShhh: he'll hear us "attacking" him and cite us for being off-topic, to boot. You know how much he loves to stay on topic. I'm surprised he hasn't started talking about Jack Chick's tracts on pedophile priests and the whore of Babylon that is the RCC.
Now, now - no1 is a republican (small 'r'😉.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYep. I don't know what I'll do the next time he decides to steal that matchbox in which all my knowledge is apparently stored.
Shhh: he'll hear us "attacking" him and cite us for being off-topic, to boot. You [b]know how much he loves to stay on topic. I'm surprised he has started talking about Jack Chick's tracts on pedophile priests and the whore of Babylon that is the RCC.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerLearn to read. 1) I didn't say "all your knowledge"; I referred to specific areas that you are sadly ignorant in; 2) Since I said your knowledge in those areas wouldn't fit on a matchbox, it would be an inappropriate storage area for such a small quantity.
Yep. I don't know what I'll do the next time he decides to steal that matchbox in which all my knowledge is apparently stored.
Originally posted by no1marauderROTFLMAO!!!
More stupidity from two simple minded, dogmatic parrots. I haven't called either of you servants of mythical creatures or other non-existent things. Neither of you are "reasonable"; you both are insufferable, intolerant fools. LH is more laughable because he tries to pretend to have some knowledge of history, law and philosophy when his posts make it cle ...[text shortened]... read off-topic with personal attacks while hypocritically criticizing others for doing so.