The Black Vault

orangetom1999 wrote:line a....terrifying hell for non adherents in the aferlife.

Wow!!! Anyone knowing any Bible at all knows this applies to adherents as well as non adherents. But many ...even those who claim Belief...get it backwards. For Believers on meat and not milk..know that they deserve hell and damnation as well as anyone..and are not guaranteed that they will go to Salvation. Their Salvation is up to the Lord..not to them.

Interesting to me to see someone of logic and reason get it so wrong when they have obviously read more of the Word than many on these threads and specialize in trying to use/misuse it on others in confusion.

Um, where did I say that adherents would definitely not go to hell?

I didn't, so before you claim an error on my part you should read and think about what I actually wrote

While it is possible that an adherent may go to hell, it is clear that a non-adherent, according to the Bible, stands no chance, so it is a statement that you shall believe or face the consequences - a very good tactic for getting people on board.

orangetom1999 wrote:There is no such instruction to spread "The Word" through force and intimidation. "The Word" is spread through the Holy Spirit putting a good conscience towards God into a individual....to where they search out more of "The Word". Also they are brought before people who can teach them in process of time about " The Word" and how it applies in our daily lives.

I never said there was an instruction to spread the word through force. Do you have reading difficulties?

Force and intimidation has certainly been a part of the history of the major religions of today.

orangetom1999 wrote:line c...teaching/brainwshing your children with the same beliefs

This as compared to planting ones children in front of a television and movie screen many many hours a day ..or video games. A public school education. What religion is this one???The religion of the flesh?? For it is obviously a very devout belief system since it is so prevalent.

Brainwashing is brainwashing, regardless of what we may compare it to - nice try at dodging the issue though. Noted.

humphreys wrote:

greeney2 wrote:What is brainwshing??? If I did that you would be calling me a dumb ass for spelling!

Missing one letter from a word in a typo is not quite the same as your train-wreck posts!

A train wreck post is nothing compared to your train wreck life!

humphreys wrote:

qmark wrote:

humphreys wrote:Everyone knows the keys to a successful religion are:

a) a terrifying hell for non-adherents in the afterlife
b) spreading of "the word" through force and intimidation
c) teaching/brainwshing your children with the same beliefs

Um, I would disagree with B.

You disagree that force and intimidation played a part in Christianity's rise?

I disagree that force is used by Christians. History is filled with examples of people using Christianity for their own sordid reasons, but they're not Christians.

qmark wrote:I disagree that force is used by Christians. History is filled with examples of people using Christianity for their own sordid reasons, but they're not Christians.

Unless you disagree that force and intimidation played a part in Christianity's rise, you're not really disagreeing with the list.

A,B, and C are only your ideas what makes a religion at all.

humphreys wrote:

qmark wrote:I disagree that force is used by Christians. History is filled with examples of people using Christianity for their own sordid reasons, but they're not Christians.

Unless you disagree that force and intimidation played a part in Christianity's rise, you're not really disagreeing with the list.

Yes. Absolutely disagreeing. The first couple hundred years of Christianity, when Christianity grew in leaps and bounds, Christians were killed and persecuted en masse. There was no force or intimidation by Christianity until Constantine hijacked it. That, in my opinion, is when it became something other than true Christianity. A Christian is someone who tries, and does, lead a Christ centered life. Someone who is using force cannot claim that.

humphreys wrote:Why haven't you spoken about them?

If you have what you consider proof of God existing, shouldn't you share it?

I'm smart enough to know that it would not convince any skeptic. I'm branded a liar by many as it is. Like I said, I've shared my experiences privately to people who have asked me to PM them. And in each case I could tell it was not taken as utterly overwhelmingly convincing as it was to experience it. Words don't do it justice.

If you sincerely want to know, I will tell you privately, with the agreement that you will accept it as an honest account. I don't expect you to be converted on the spot, but, you are right... I shouldn't keep it from you.

But remember the pearls to swine comparison Jesus gave. Cynics and most skeptics would take my account as either fanciful, exagarrated, coincidence, or an outright lie. If I announced in publicly, I would be laughed off the website and the account would be torn to shreds and trampled on. I'm not scared of it being debunked because that's impossible. I just know that the events are personal to me and won't sway anyone's opinion.

DIss0n80r wrote:I'll also add, it seems extraordinarily selfish not to share something so powerful that it might potentially change minds. Probably wouldn't, as usual, but it seems like such a cop-out. Especially in the context of an internet forum where people can make vague claims of special knowledge or extraordinary experiences, and can inevitably retreat to that when failing to put forth a compelling case for their position.

It seems suspiciously like a psychological defense mechanism intended to insulate something the claimant considers a mental-emotional linchpin which they fear couldn't withstand objective scrutiny.

Not a good way to inspire confidence in witness credibility, that.

You have a lot to say about something you know nothing about.

humphreys wrote:Brainwashing is brainwashing, regardless of what we may compare it to - nice try at dodging the issue though. Noted.

Orangetom raised a good point though. Kids in their formative years have their pliable brains tugged at from all directions by people who want to sway them to do this or that. Advertisers on TV, parents with all different kinds of agendas, other adults, programmers of television shows, teachers, other kids... and these efforts have a lasting effect.

Parents who constantly feed their children Christ's teachings are merely supplying information into a gap that would otherwise be filled with "other" information. Raising a child as a Christian is healthy in my opinion. Just because people of the World don't agree with Christ's teachings doesn't make His teachings wrong. People of the World think morality is only a matter of consensus majority opinion. If that's true, then what's immoral today is completely acceptable tomorrow. I don't agree with that reasoning. Something doesn't become good just because more than 50% of people say it is.

Most, including you I am quite confident, think that us billions of professed Christians are gullible and easily misguided. If that's true, then it is a human condition, not just a "Christian" one. Therefore, if humanity is generally misguided and gullible, then 51% of society is certainly capable of misjudging moral and immoral behavior.

qmark wrote:

humphreys wrote:

qmark wrote:I disagree that force is used by Christians. History is filled with examples of people using Christianity for their own sordid reasons, but they're not Christians.

Unless you disagree that force and intimidation played a part in Christianity's rise, you're not really disagreeing with the list.

Yes. Absolutely disagreeing. The first couple hundred years of Christianity, when Christianity grew in leaps and bounds, Christians were killed and persecuted en masse. There was no force or intimidation by Christianity until Constantine hijacked it. That, in my opinion, is when it became something other than true Christianity. A Christian is someone who tries, and does, lead a Christ centered life. Someone who is using force cannot claim that.

The people throughout history (mostly deployed by the Catholic Church) who conquered territories and tried to force people to bend a knee to Christ, are conveniently labeled practicing Christians by people who don't know... and don't really want to know... what they are talking about.

Furthermore, the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan is again--conveniently--blended with the New Covenant so that somehow, Christians are aggressive, bloodthirsty warmongers who exert their power over others.

There is a lesson here. To the cynics and skeptics, anyone who even so much as hints at being a Christian and does a bad thing, is used as cannon fodder to represent the whole Christian Church. Not because the people claiming so truly believe that professed "Christian" really is a Christian, but, because they have this inner drive to prove to themselves and their listeners that Christianity is wrong. No different than Obama blaming Mitt Romney for the death of some uninsured lady whose husband lost his job in a Bain Capital bailout, years after Romney left the Bain.