But what about the messages of the gospels that are conveniently considered heretical because they challenge some of the Bible's dogma?

Its just too hard to trust something that has been compiled, edited, and censored by men. Its pretty much impossible to call it God's word.

Wow, how many circles are we going in here? Seriously, nobody is going to convert anyone here to either Christianity or Atheism. The same arguements are being repeated over and over.

Sorry, there were way too many long posts for me to read 10 pages of them.

1. I'm not an atheist or a Christian.
2. I'm not trying to convert anyone. This is a discussion so I was just pointing out that your statement wasn't true. The bible could have had a very different message if the members of the Ecumenial councils and other councils had decided to include other scriptures in the bible or to not include some of the ones that are in there now.

If you don't want to have a logical discussion about religion you don't have to read this thread. I'm not criticizing Christianity, I'm just bringing up some of its history.

Oh, I wasnt directing it towards you, I hadnt even noticed you posted. I was talking about the other two(three? hell I dunoo). Nothing wrong with what you said dude.

oh yeah I just noticed you posted almost right after me.

sorry about that.

Oh no, it's cool, I'm sorry, after I first noticed it I should have edited it to exclude you. You have done no wrong sir!

There was nothing circular about my arguments. If you don't have any good reply to them, than say so.
Don't just say they were circular, which the obviously aren't.

here are some quotes from our recent discussion from the 'argue champion of the forums'


here is his latest contribution

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

While that was a very funny bit of cutting and pasting your egging him on. He has confessed to being a staunch liberal which in my recent experience means it's not good enough for him to just have his own opinions but to make sure everyone else agrees with him too. If you do not agree, (s)he will announc victory is his\hers. Here is a post from another forum a think most of us will enjoy.

You see the Domesticated Far Left Liberal (Liberalis Maximus Domestichatis) has undergone some serious changes since George W. Bush got into the office. What used to be a docile and peaceful creature has become a rage filled Volcano of narrow minded ideology and hypocrisy.

Here are some ways to identify Liberalis Maximus Domestichatis and avoid it.

Common Characteristics:
The Lib will tell you things like, I just want everyone to be equal and then support affirmative action allowing minority candidates with lesser qualifications to jump ahead of their Anglo counterparts. They will say things like they want what's best for everyone and then support life-crippling institutions like Welfare, Unemployment and non-medical disability. They talk about loving their country out of one side of their mouth and call the president a retard and and anyone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot out of the other.

Dietary Habits:
They are mostly herbivores but their are still some carnivores walking amongst them. They also eat the souls of children also I think. They love to pay $4 or $5 for a cup of coffee they could easily get for a buck at a gas station, but that's beneath them. Their is also a vegan phylum amongst the order which loves animals, but only the cute ones. It's okay to use pesticides and insecticides to kill millions of organisms per square foot to grow vegetables and Tofu but not to humanly kill one cow for 800-1,000 delicious pounds of meat.

Camouflage\Attire
Back in my day it was easy to spot "LMD" the tattered rag clothes and tie dyed attire were a dead give away. If not the look the distinctive smell of Patchouli oil and Bong water would be another certain tell. But after the species nearly became extinct due to public back lash after Vietnam it adapted and now blends in amongst us. Often times they dress just like you and me and most frighteningly just like it's close cousin the Grounded Sane Liberal or "Barackis Obamis" as it is known in the scientific community. The quickest way to decipher one from the other is to express the possibility of a republican being a decent human being. If it reacts honestly and accepts public opinion and consensus it's safe continue your conversation. If it inundates you with rhetoric and opinions run like hell.

In closing there is no need for this current nuisance just as there was no need for the "Republicana Blowhardis Superious" or the condescending know-it-all Republican which overwhelmed us in the late 80's and early nineties until the GOP took back to House in '94. The first step was made in '06 when we gave their party control of the house and senate, it's now a matter of patience. Like the Tyrannosaurus Rex and movement, it can't see you if you don't talk politics in it's presence or respond to it. It feeds of your frustration as it circularly ignores your logic and regurgitates it talking points. Many good people have died trying to talk sense into one of this things, don't be the next.

Paid for by Citizens to unite the Country by the disillusionment of radical retards.

you make some good points. i have always considered myself a moderate/apathetic that hung a little left. recently i did some research and questioned my own beliefs and what i have come up with is libertarian. in no way do i want to say 'i am a libertarian' but simply put, it probably best describes my views. i am all about being responsible for yourself, and not inflicting yourself on others. like you said when you are either super left or super right, you become VERY close minded and fail to LISTEN to what people have to say.