It has been proven throughout history that in order to gain converts, an up-and-coming religion would use the local religion. The newbies would usurp the stories and myths of the would-be converts to gain trust and acceptance.

Case in point - both Christmas and Easter are almost exact duplicates of the Pagan holidays of Yule and Ostara. Ever wonder what eggs and bunnies have to do with Easter? Look at the Spring Equinox of Ostara. Same hing goes for the Christmas tree (aka Yule tree). Ever wonder why holly is a part of Christmas? Because it was part of Yule long before Christianity came around.

The story of St. Patrick driving the snakes from Ireland??? It was actually St. Patrick driving the Pagans from Ireland.

People just need to open their eyes and see that questions and reason are good things.

BTW, Mithras is almost identical to the myth of Christ. And just so you know, Christ is a title, not a name. He should be referred to as Yeshua, the Christ. And every civilizations explanation of how things happen or why things are the way they are is called mythology. Thus, the Bible is nothing but Christian mythology.

The Mithras/Christ hypotheses never really existed and biased on a comment by Justin Martyr in the 2nd century that Ernest Renan built upon. Most classical historical scholars and world religions academics reject it.

Mithras is born from a rock, a fully developed human being and didn't have a virgin birth.
Since Mithras was a warrior cult it had no public face (unlike other Roman Cults) so any celebration of the Gods birth was kept among its members so its impossible really to say if the 25 December was used, the only evidence comes from a 4th century illuminated manuscript. At no point in the Mithras religion was an iconography of death on a cross or re-birth (Mithras was the slaying of a bull) used.

As to Yulu, each culture in the northern hemisphere has some celebration around the solstice and Christmas has little connection to Yulu (a Norse celebration) and lot to Sol Invictus. Holly was letter added not by Early Christians but by post-Rome celebrators in North West Europe and spread from there.

Ostara has no real connection to the timing of Easter. While it is true in Anglo-German speaking countries name the feast on different variations of Ēostre,in other countries, it is Passover (Spain,France,etc) and this tells us why it is celebrated at that time. The Gospels state that Jesus was in Jerusalem for Passover and died the day after Passover (now Good Friday). The celebration of Passover is based on the Jewish lunar caldera (marking the point when the Angel of Death passed over the Hebrews in Egypt) which is still used by the churches to pinpoint the date each year. Only in leap years will Passover and Easter beat different times of the year (and that is not every leap year, only happened 4 times before).

As to St Pat, comes from the end of Crom Cruach worship in Ireland
around the same time of Patrick’s ministry. Crom Cruach was one of the few
Irish Gods that demanded human sacrifices (forget what you think you’ve learned from the Wicker Man, few Western Celtic Gods demanded human sacrifices beyond battles, that was propaganda by the Romans). Because of Crom Cruach description as a crooked and twisted, the icon of snake was commonly connected to It. Hence the later story of St Patrick driving the snakes from Ireland, driving Crom Cruach worship out of Ireland.

So you conveniently ignore the overwhelming similarities to focus on irrelevant differences. Honestly -- it's like saying a paper isn't plagiarized because 10% is original material. Mithras was at least an independently verified historical figure - documented by eye witnesses... Unlike Christ

Let's see here.....

1. Christ's birth, death and resurrection were all documented by eyewitness observers- You ever read the first four books of the New Testament?

2. I think it's the atheists and evolutionists that are overlooking facts to make up their own stories.

A- How did the 'Big Bang' happen when matter can't be created or destroyed?

B-The seawater that supposedly contains all of the stuff needed to create 'simple' life also contains enough salt to kill that life in less than a millionth of a second. This means, in simpler language, that there would have to be at least two of these 'simple lifeforms' developed at exactly the same time in close proximity to each other, and they would have to be able to reproduce almost instantly before dieing. Another thing to add to this is that the chance of even one of these 'life forms' being created is extremely small. I don't know the exact number, but it's somewhere in the area of 10^140000 (a really tiny number). and if you think that these 'simple organisms' developed on land, well, go ahead and dream. There is nowhere near the amount of nutrients in the right concentrations to birth life. It's been tried in controlled labs and all they got was one kind of amino acid that lasted for less than a quarter second. And that's just one of the 20-some that you need to have life.

C-These supposedly 'simple' organisms that are found in lower strata levels are actually really complicated. Amoebas have 200 times the DNA you do! So you think you evolved from them? With that knowledge, it would be easier to explain that we evolved from them. but wait, we're in higher strata than them, so we are supposedly 'more complicated organisms'.

D-Why do these strata even show up? If the earth is made from a chunk of 'stuff' flung out from a nearby star, with 'millions of years' of space dust constantly being lain down, why are there layers? Wouldn't the original chunk from the star have been mostly the same kind of materials? And if not, it wouldn't have been all neatly set up in layers like it is now. And the space dust? If it has been constantly lain down since Earth was supposedly flung out from a star, why are there even distinct layers? Wouldn't it all kinda gradually shade from one color/material to another? With evolution there shouldn't even be strata!

E-Oh, and we're supposedly descendants from monkeys, or starfish, or whatever the current theory is now. I know for sure that I'm not! How in the world did everything evolve from amoebas or whatever was supposedly the first organism on Earth anyway? Don't say natural selection or survival of the fittest unless you've actually seen an amoeba grow legs or wings or teeth just so that it can survive. These things that supposedly grew up out of seawater would've had it made! No predators, no dangers- why would they have had to adapt to their environment to survive?

Look, if you still believe in the theory that says 'In the beginning, there was nothing and that nothing turned into everything', well, I think we should build a mental hospital just for you. There's enough evidence here to drown in, but you don't accept it.

Preface:

As Kurt Godel proved, naive logic is axiomatic. This means logic alone is insufficient in deriving the truth. Therefore, any argument for (or against) a belief must be supported by empirical evidence.

Before I go any further, I will not tolerate any of this Post Modern "truth is subjective" crap. That is a conflation. Reality can be imagined to operate on three (3) levels. The first level is fundamental reality, which exists independently of an observer. No, modern quantum physicists does not postulate that consciousness is intrinsic to reality. It only appeared to be so to early physicists because conscious observation decomposes a single configuration state into several configuration states. But conscious observation was discovered to be only one of many means of decomposition, proving that interpretation false. However, mystics and gurus still cling to this fallacy out of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. The second level is "subjective" reality, which emerges from the domain of fundamental reality. Subjective reality is self-explanatory. The third level is "objective" reality. It constitutes what our subjective experiences seemingly have in common, since fundamental reality follows patterns. Objective reality emerges from the domain of subjective reality. The third and second levels exist because our brains attempt to model fundamental reality based on evidence of patterns, since accurate models of reality confer survival value. "Truth" is simply a measure of how accurately these models describe fundamental reality. Truth is not subjective; it is our beliefs about the truth which are subjective. This idea is embodied in the phrase "The map is not the territory."

Rebuttal:

1. The 4 Gospels were determined by most historians to not have likely been written by eye witnesses. It is more likely they were written generations after Jesus's death. I'm pretty sure Luke explicitly states in a preface that it's not first hand account. As for the other 3 Gospels, no one to my knowledge can say either way definitively, however. The history is actually pretty murky. Yes, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls. We also have "Yeshu Ha Notzri" from the Torah. On top of that, there's the 17 non-canonical "Gnostic" Gospels, e.g. the Gospel of Thomas. It confuses things even more. So for now, the topic is moot (which means "open to interpretation", not "irrelevant").

2. Most (if not all) of your arguments are Straw Man Fallacies. This means you share your misguided understanding of your opponent's argument and say "Doesn't that sound ridiculous?" And then proceed to knock it down as easily as a straw man. Allow me to clarify...

A - As Neil deGrasse Tyson has remarked, God is always invoked beyond the realm of current knowledge. For example, Isaac Newton said he didn't know what made the planets move, so it must be the work of God. But later, Johannes Kepler derived (from Newton's same laws of gravity) mathematical equations which described the planets' motions, and did so without invoking any deities. I.e. Occam's Razor rendered God irrelevant. This story is pretty common throughout history. For now, the Big Bang represents the current cusp of knowledge. We don't know what caused this event, nor what existed before it. We don't know if matter really was created from scratch. All we know is that the galaxies we see are currently moving farther apart. We know this because Edwin Hubble observed a red-shift in the spectra of galaxies. From this, we extrapolate backwards through time to postulate that the galaxies must have originated from the same point in space (a singularity) and started floating away really fast. It's like noticing a flock of migrating geese, and guessing which direction of the sky they came from. There used to be a competing theory called the Steady State theory. It predicted an absence of microwave background radiation. The Big Bang theory, on the other hand, predicted the presence of microwave background radiation. Later, astronomers confirmed this background radiation to exist, and at a level perfectly in agreement with the "rapid inflation" version of the Big Bang theory. This is why the Big Bang theory enjoys so much credibility. Currently, we don't know exactly what caused the Big Bang. However, I expect that quantum physics will soon shed light on this topic (without invoking religious deities) through various experiments such as those at the LHC.

B - I believe it's reasonable to assume that early life could have adjusted to salt water conditions. Google "osmosis" and "tonicity". It's also possible that early life existed without cell membranes. I.e, simply as strands of RNA. Such organisms would not be affected by salt water. The point is, there exist other possibilities we may not have even imagined. Also, early life was certainly able to reproduce asexually (specifically: budding; cloning; or fission), like modern yeast do. In fact, asexual reproduction predates sexual reproduction by at least 1.3 billion years. We know this because of the fossil record. I think the first to sexually reproduce were sponges. But I'm not really sure how the mode of reproduction is relevant anyways. Your argument sounds like a Red Herring Fallacy, but I'm not certain. Also, I am familiar with the experiment you are describing. Its purpose was not to prove whether or not it was "possible" for amino acids to develop, but to understand "how" amino acids developed. Again, just because Humanity isn't imaginative enough to cook amino acids from scratch doesn't mean Mother Nature isn't imaginative enough either. Mother Nature has also had the advantage of time. She's had approximately 4 billion years to figure things out. Homo Sapiens have had only 2.5 million years. It simply represents another cusp which science will likely transcend and add to our history.

C - DNA quantity is not a reliable measure of complexity. The correlation is weak. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Also, Humanity did not "evolve" from Amoebas. That is a lazy way of describing evolution. Humans are lazy, including scientists. The more correct way to describe it is to say that Humans and Amoebas descended from a temporally distant Common Ancestor. However, biologists are educated enough to know not to take the "lazy" description literally.

D - It is true Earth was made of star material. The reason layers exist is because earth was so hot while the solar system was forming, the Earth was completely liquid. This allowed the most dense elements to sink to the core (iron, gold, lead, uranium, etc.) and least dense elements to rise to the surface (nitrogen, silicon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc.). The reason we sometimes find deposits of heavy elements on the surface is due to convection bubbles of gas carrying these elements towards the top. The reason the composition of the sun is not equivalent to the composition of the earth is because elements were distributed unevenly in solar system's accretion disc since centrifugal force organizes matter according to density. We know this from astrophysicists studying infant solar systems in outer space. Distinct layers in the Crust still exist because of tectonic plate theory, which exists because some parts of the Earth are still liquid. Tectonic plates cause volcanoes to form and occasionally erupt, which deposit new layers of magma on top of the earth's surface. The bottom (oldest) layer is recycled into the liquid Mantle. The Crust is solid because it's next to outer space, which is colder. And cosmic rays don't deposit sediment on a magnitude large enough to counteract this. Nor do solar winds. They are negligible as far as tectonic plate theory is concerned. We know all this because of Alfred Wegener's research on geology. "With evolution there shouldn't even be strata!" Evolution is primarily a biological term. It has nothing to do with strata, which is a geological term.

E - First, see "Explanation C" about common ancestors. Next, natural selection does not mean that individual amoebas sprout wings and fly. That's like saying NBA players are tall because they instantly evolve long legs in order to make money in basket ball and survive. That's silly. Natural selection means that small variations from parent to child exist because mistakes in genetic code sometimes occur. Everyone makes mistakes, even Mother Nature. Furthermore, the ones with detrimental genetic variations tend to die and don't make babies. The ones with beneficial variations have more babies and propagate. This is like saying NBA players are tall because people who happen to be short never (or rarely) make the cut. The people who do make the cut get rich and make tall babies. It's a process of elimination, not a teleological function. Predators are not the only survival pressures. Maintaining homeostasis is one alternative survival pressure. For example, animals which live in the tropics tend to have larger ears than those that live in the arctic in order to dissipate heat. Another pressure which exists is scarcity of resources. For example, camels in the desert recycle their urine in order to conserve water. However, the very first organisms probably did "have it made" in respect to scarcity for some duration and multiplied freely across the earth. But they must have adapted eventually because of competition for scarce resources among themselves once they become population dense in a given local area. Metaphorically speaking, it's not a matter of out running the bear, but out running your friends. And yes, biologists - have - observed evolution first hand. They tend to do it with fruit flies, since they can observe several generations of natural selection in a single month. Thanks for pointing us in the right direction, Galapagos. Additionally, a recent study suggests that natural selection may possibly occur in an environment devoid of competition due to the simple virtue of variation. http://www.sciencedaily.com...

"'In the beginning, there was nothing and that nothing turned into everything." You are referring to Creatio Ex Nihilo, which is included in every religion and mythology in the world, including Christianity. It means "creation from nothing". Saying this transmutation might have occurred with a deity is no more (or less) believable than saying this transmutation might have occurred without a deity. Favoring one over the other is really just splitting hairs.

Conclusion:

Your sea of evidence which I happen to be "drowning under" is really just a manifestation of incomplete understanding. There's a great volume of scientific literature in libraries which can help fill in the information gaps, but I think it will take more than that to enlighten you due to Humanity's aversion to cognitive dissonance. And besides, it takes a lot of effort. Instead, I suggest you read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. One of the insights it offers is that religious myths (including Christianity's) are meant to be taken metaphorically rather than literally. For example, Genesis is really just an allegory for the advent of human rationality (e.g. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents morality; Humanity lives in Paradise because ignorance is bliss). Proving the historical accuracy of the Bible is analogous to proving the historical accuracy of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". What really matters is how we apply its life lessons, and that we do so in an appropriate context.

My name is Mike, and I practice 'Mikism'... a system comprised of my own beliefs. I will NEVER allow someone to supplant my beliefs with their own. Those that allow others to dictate a system of beliefs to them are ignorant, weak or lazy.

The Ten "Commandments" of 'Mikism'...

1) - I will NEVER accept a popular or convenient belief... simply because it is popular or convenient.

2) - I will carefully weigh the validity of every supposition, fact, or explanation presented to me.

3) - I will ALWAYS recognize and respect the VAST chasm between theory and proof.

4) - All of human history teaches us that 'unknown' does NOT mean 'unknowable'.

5) - If not for those who questioned the status quo, mankind would still be huddled in caves worshiping rocks, trees and weather.

6) - The fact that I, as a thinking being, can cause or alter events... is NOT proof that all events are therefore caused by thinking beings.

7) - Attribution of the unknown to deities or supernatural events... is the definition of laziness.

8) - I will always seek logical and provable answers to life's questions.

9) - I fully accept that many of my questions will not be answered in my lifetime.

10) - I shall die knowing that my time and intellect were not wasted on the primitive worship of natural phenomena.

_____________________________________

As mentioned in my '6th commandment', religion is based largely on a logical fallacy. Humans made great leaps forward when they developed 'self-awareness' along with the ability to pose hypothetical questions and logically deduce answers. However, logic is a funny thing and many still do not use it properly.

Early man, when given the realization that he could change the physical world around him (and that others could do the same), made the (false) leap of logic that ALL changes in the world were therefore intentional acts of someone or something (usually invisible someones). This is like the classic example of illogical syllogisms, "All thumbs are fingers, therefore all fingers must be thumbs".

When questioned on obviously false leaps of logic, the religious tend to support their views with all manner of false logical leaps. Perhaps the most common is "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" (argument from ignorance). This refers to the assumption of fact because it has not been (or cannot be) proven false.

They likewise use "Argumentum ad hominem" (argument against the person) - A common fallacy in which someone argues against a position or claim by assailing the proponent of it.

Argumentum ad baculinum (Baculum is Latin for "stick") - Fallacy that occurs when threat of force is made, either implicitly or explicitly. Example: Using threats of "hell" or "wrath of god" against anyone questioning religion.

Argumentum ad captandum -- Any specious or unsound argument coming from popular acceptance rather than fact. (literally, "for catching the common herd"). Also one of the most popular means of arguing the validity of a religion by citing the number of those who follow it. Similarly, they use Argumentum ad Populum - A fallacy pandering to popular passion or sentiment that argues an opponent "is out of step" with the beliefs of the audience.

Why Is the Human Species Prone to Religious Beliefs?

The human brain is instinctively driven to question the world around us. We are indeed 'hard-wired' to seek answers, and we derive pleasure from solving problems and answering questions. In reality, our brain's pleasure center (the hypothalamus) 'rewards' us with brief shots of dopamine when we derive what we perceive to be 'correct' answers. We are all therefore 'dope addicts' seeking our next 'hit'.

Ever notice that religiously 'devout' people seem to wander around in a bliss-like state that is shockingly similar to that of some drug addicts? Nearly everything they see, everything they do, and every question that pops up, is quickly answered by their brain with the "correct" answer of "god" or "miracle"... and of course, the corresponding 'hit' of dopamine that ensues.

I too am a follower of mikism, only i call it Dawnism.
I agree with everything you said.
Where do we set up the church??

Set up church any place you like because your vision is yours alone, which is the whole point.

"Where do we set up the church??" It has already been set up. It is the Church of Reason and Logic and we're all there now.

Yes but we need to start a membership drive. there are not enough of us.

Being a Pastafarian we should collect spaghetti.

I fully intend to be touched by His noodly appendage and His meaty balls this evening. RAmen!

mhmmmmmm oh great pasta in the sky hallowed be your meatballs may you bless this day with lots of spaghetti sauce and maybe some italian sausage cause you know some people like that better then meatballs ok ok got off topic long may your strands of spaghetti waver in the sky showering us with your sweet sweet tomato droppings.

Is this part of a porn novel?

I`m half Italian, i never turn down spaghetti.
Bring it on .

Patience. It's growing

It just dawned on my that I need to change religion.

i dunno the pope is actually kinda respectable for once

Sorry Mike, i did not mean to scare you.

I am a follower of Billism...as in The Almighty Dollar Bill.

Amazing discussion...as Mike stated I to tried rationalize that "I" could be my own religion, but found I couldn't, I failed, I wasn't all I cracked up to be...if a lit match doesnt a shadow of the flame does it mean its not there...no the flame still burns...If i dont see God is He still there? God/Jesus doesn't solve all my problems...but He shows me, He demonstrates it daily in life, today, yesrterday, tomarow. With Him, faith,hope and love have a chance. Science, biology, history changes all the timetime even some of the "facts" we have today change. His love for me is,was and always will be here for you and me. I can't make you believe just as well as I can make a horse drink water. I can show you what my spiritual walk with Jesus has done for me and what I have lost/gained for it. Many people have given Jesus a try.. not liking the inner self they seen when looking inward. What I do find funny is the insatiable taste to "prove" others wrong. I can't judge your life...even if ya want me to..not my job...that's between you and God.

The idea of Jesus and his love for humanity is awesome! It's just the other ideas that, e.g., if I don't follow the Bible and its rules to the T, then I'm not really a "Christian". if I don't condemn homosexuality and gays, then I'm not really a "Christian". If I don't wage war on other belief systems and show the unbelievers the "Way and The Truth" then I'm not really a Christian. Do you get where I'm going with this? If only people followed Jesus' message and NOT the Bible, then it would be great! But you can't separate the 2, so there you go!

Jesus didn't ask you to wage war on anyone nor condemn anyone.

That's interesting, because in Matthew 10:34-35, it says, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;"

What Jesus was saying here was that by following him families would be divided. And that prophecy has certainly come true.

He did not in any way encourage or promote violence against anybody but he did warn people to be ready to be rejected - even by their own family members - if they chose to follow him.

That is correct but you need to understand what Jesus was saying.

Jesus was making the point that by choosing to follow him, it would cause division amongst people and even families - for some would follow him and some would reject him.

He was giving this warning and preparing people for what was to happen and it most certainly happens.

He never once told anyone to take up a physical sword and use it - in fact, he preached the opposite.

Exactly, yet modern Christians do, don't. they? Christians condemn internally while maintaining the outward appearance of acceptance.

Wrong, completely. His teaching condemn, not his followers, no outward appearance of acceptance, kindness yes. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

Modern Christians, like historical Christians, promote the word of the Jesus. That's it.

If standing up for the word he spoke sounds like "waging war" then so be it. You are either with Jesus or against him.

What condemnation / outward appearance of acceptance are you talking about?

Where do you find the part about waging war on other beliefs, I can't find that part. Following Gods laws, yes.
For believers, its ike this, if we were created, then it only makes sense that we follow the creators rules, whether you understand them or not, disagree or not. We are not arrogant enough to presume we know better than the one who created us. I think of it like this, if I choose to eat contaminated food, I get sick, maybe die. Not because of following a rule to a T, but natural consequence. Good luck and good life to you Sir, and may GOD bless you.

Check Mark's words.

That's how they play both sides of the same coin, see how they use love as a smokescreen to camourflage their evil and hatred, incests, lust and sex. Check what the Bible copied from Hinduism like Many and 3 sons, Brahma and Saraswati, Atman and Jeeva. Names sound familiar ?

If you can't see Santa Claus does that mean he's not there?

If I can't in any other way prove he is there then it simply means he does not physically exist.

That is bad logic.

You not finding evidence for Santa does not mean he doesn't exist, it means you didn't find evidence for Santa. Him existing and you proving it are two different things. The most you could say is that you have looked far a wide and have not found evidence for him. Anything beyond that you move from evidential to opinion.

I don't need to find evidence that Santa does not exist just as I don't need to find evidence that God does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. If one believes in Santa or God it is incumbent on him to produce believable evidence for his claims. That being said, there is evidence that neither exists. It's found in in the laws of physics. Sleighs and Reindeer can't fly and Elisha's iron ax can't float.

Ignore Albert. He is an idiot who loves to do nothing but argue for no reason other than arguing. He is not worth your time.

A theorem is something that is proven. Perhaps, you meant theory.

You are most correct sir... I've edited my 3rd commandment, and my kudos to you for the heads up!

Dear Mike:
Such a wayward and despairing soul you are! And shame on you for leading folks to Hell, damnation and destruction. You are delusional and confused.

Let me introduce you to the one and only true God, it grows in my garden without cease and even makes it through the winter with ease with a bit of mulch!

It is the Turnip God, now this God is for folks past the age of 50 as it helps you to grow hair. Yes if you water this turnip and talk to it and worship this turnip each time you get within 10 feet of this Turnip God, it helps you grow and replace hair. Lol!

You really should worship the Turnip God, so as when you are sent to Hell and damnation all that hair will protect you from fire and brimstone.

Hail the God of the Turnip, long live the King!!

Well gee, ya know I simply cannot see how any intelligent person in our modern world can believe in Gods. If there was a God it would be quite obvious I would think, and all God that do not exist have one primary rule. The rule is that these Gods never speak to any human or living thing, it is a rule of non existence as non existing Gods cannot speak. So men design themselves a God of fantasy and put into this fantasy the evil of selling peace from one hand and putting a sword of vengeance in the other hand.

I shall give Mikeism a consideration, but this may start a religious war as Turnip may become jealous. Yea I know it is hard to actually take religion serious. Chuckle!

Cheers!!

Be careful o' ye of little faith, for my magical invisible deity is more omnipotent than your magical invisible deity.

Your deity deals with non-believers by means of fire and brimstone, but mine subjects infidels to an eternity of cancelled sitcoms. The laugh tracks alone will drive you stark raving mad within hours. Some deities reward followers with hordes of inexperienced girls, but mine heaps silicone laden porn stars upon the faithful.

Let us both prostrate ourselves and pray to our respective deities to smite the other. Like any deity, I'm sure they shall both "answer" with events that resemble pure chance... but we know better. They shall both be hiding behind the scenes, smiting away with abandon. We can waste untold years reviewing the "evidence" of their handiwork in every event that transpires!

Lol! Well you see religion is worth at least a bit of fun.

Cheers!

Kit

You are a blasphemer of the lowest, degenerate order. Take the lords image as a turnip is deplorable. The Lord moves in mysterious ways, and those ways are of a Beetroot. The blood of the lord runs through the blessed Beetroot. Blessed be the Beetroot of god. I have a jihad against ALL who do not believe in the holiness of Beetroot.

Please accept my humble apology to the great BeetRoot. I have accepted conversion to the King of vegetable Gods.

Cheers!
Kit

Your repentance is sufficient. All is forgiven. Now, just send money.......

Kit Carson I can't believe you so easily abandoned the Eternal Turnip! You are guilty of apostasy and can never be forgiven! Turnip is the one and only true God, There is no King of vegetable gods and anyone with half a brain knows that!

Morgana, maybe you should carefully read your Bible. You say to forget the OT part about fearing God, but according to the NT "all scripture is profitable for instruction..." The writer of Ecclesiastes concludes his book with: "The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments because this applies to every person." Even Jesus said: "“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!" (Luke 12:5)
The Bible teaches that God is the same "yesterday, today, and forever." You cannot pretend that the OT isn't an intricate part and foundation of Christianity and the OT "God" wasn't a likable god. Richard Dawkins accurately describes him: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Read your Bible with the same openness you recommend unbelievers to do.

Gosh! You have quite the case of delusion based upon human philosophy. Perhaps you need to take a pill! Lol!

No intelligent person who actually seeks answers, proof, and uses common sense believes anything based simply upon faith. To believe anything only on faith is the acceptance of gullibility.

It is actually amazing how religion can and does control the human mind, and in many cases it always comes around to violence, hate, oppression and delusion in that which cannot be proven and believe only by faith.

Do you believe in God?
Yes, that is Great!
Do you believe in my God?
No! Well then off with your head!

Perhaps the only solution for those with such a case of delusion is for the deluded to actually go get a Bible or Koran and read the entire book.

If you do this the only intelligent conclusion is that man designed his Gods and promotes them for his own power and control over others.

As for myself I need no imaginary deity to love me. I have a family, a dog and some chickens.

Not sure about those chickens though as they seem to love me only if I have food. Chuckle!

Religion is always and education in the ways of the human mind.

Cheers!

By your comments, I can assume you do not believe in an afterlife?