From darker ages into today,
You bring the suffering and pain.
You call it your “eternal love”
The holy one, from skies above
But under robes your hands in blood,
And you will gladly kill for god.
You try to bring the death and sorrow
Into the lives of those who live tomorrow.
What do you intend to annihilate ?
The Love ? Intelligence? And hate?
You take one’s pride and give them shame!
That’s how you spread the holy name.
How many witches have you burned ?
And how much heaven’s credit have you earned?
How many wars were fought for god?
How many more until you stop?!
The times have changed and we are here
We are growing strong and change draws near.
You are a plague upon this world
And we are force that will break your hold.
Author notes
Written June 7th, 2005
What did you think
Comments
-
The Christian, Jewish, and Muslim deity: all one in the same. You're fighting each other over the same deity.
Makes me glad I'm neither a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim. Makes me glad that who I am, what I believe will not create chaos as all three of those religions do on a daily basis.
Religion itself does not create hate, those who represent it in a poor manner does. This piece is in a poor manner, all it does is create hatred for one religion over another (and in this case: one that worships the same deity) and doesn't solve any problems.
As a piece: it could be cleaned up in rhyme and structure, I would suggest syllable count if not already used - if already used, a cleanup of it.
-Nam -
Whoa! You have some nice debates going on in here...perhaps you should all get together in a chat room and discuss it.
Anyway,
This indeed is a controversial poem for those who find themselves in any real religion. Whether it's Buddhism,or Christianity, or Judism, its all still a god we are talking about. So I have to ask. Were you only speaking of the Christian god or all gods. -
To add to what Poison had said about the concept of God and Satan. One must understand that this duality occurs when religion proclaims a god to be good, loving, just, etc. Then all other properties must be attributed to something else, therefore a concept of Satan becomes necessary. This wasn’t the case with earth based religions worshiping nature, that is neither good nor bad.
But since many religions including christianity had proclaimed one god to posses all good qualities the need for an evil twin arose. But that in a sense makes the concept of god self contradictory. If there was nothing before god, then he/it must have made everything including the Satan who is complete apposite of god, but by definition of being good, loving, just etc he/it could not have created all the properties it lacked.
Vashen -
Forgive me if I sounded abrupt or rude or even just un-cordial. I had just been interrupted by my mother for the fifth time asking me if I knew where a pair of scissors were.
(It occurred to me as I read your reply that perhaps "Cheers" was too flippant a concluder)
I'm a bit confused: "I am glad I read both of your replies" Which other reply do you refer to? I beg forgiveness before-hand for being easily confused at times
But anyway...
On the "Evil twin": Very interesting. I'd never heard any of this before (don't worry you don't have to feign surprise at my ignorance on the subject
) and it really is quite thought-provoking. The first thing that comes to mind is that perhaps the principal of all myth getting it's basis in truth comes into play here...but maybe that just's my rationalizing insticts coming to the surface.
The Psalm: I do not claim to understand every word of the Bible. Indeed, I most certainly do not understand every word. I also do not claim that there aren't passages of it that make me squirm and doubt it's validity.
Also, I must admit to mispeaking in my previous reply. I have made quite a mistake in what I said and most openly admit it. May it forthwith be stricken from the record.
Upon further reading of Psalm 137 in several translations, I have come to the conclusion that it is one of those such "squirm & doubt" passages. So I have spent a good hour or so looking up 137 in various commentaries and such and have found MUCH expounding on the nature of God that I do not at all agree with from Christian preachers and the like who I am not surprised to be in disagreement with. All this in an attempt to unify my thoughts on this matter and try to proceed as level-headedly as possible. (It is certainly worth it though.)
I have stumbled across this quote from Adam Clarke I almost like (though it certainly clears not all questions from my mind or eradicates my squirming):
"Verse 9. Happy shall he be that taketh, etc. That is, so oppressive hast thou been to all under thy domination, as to become universally hated and detested; so that those who may have the last hand in thy destruction, and the total extermination of thy inhabitants, shall be reputed "happy" -- shall be celebrated and extolled as those who have rid the world of a curse so grievous. These prophetic declarations contain no excitement to any person or persons to commit acts of cruelty and barbarity; but are simply declarative of what would take place in the order of the retributive providence and justice of God, and the general opinion that should in consequence be expressed on the subject; therefore praying for the destruction of our enemies is totally out of the question." --Adam Clarke.
And then of course there's ones like this that make me want to jump up and become a secular humanist on the spot:
"Verse 9. Happy shall he be, etc. With all possible might and speed oppose the very first risings and movings of the heart to sin; for these are the buds that produce the bitter fruit; and if sin be not nipped in the very bud, it is not imaginable how quickly it will shoot forth ... Now these sins, though they may seem small in themselves, yet are exceedingly pernicious in their effects. These little foxes destroy the grapes as much or more than the greater, and therefore are to be diligently sought out, hunted, and killed by us, if we would keep our hearts fruitful. We should deal with these first streamings out of sin as the Psalmist would have the people of God deal with the brats of Babylon: Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. And without doubt most happy and successful will that man prove in his spiritual welfare, who puts on no bowels of pity even to his infant corruptions, but slays the small as well as the great; and so not only conquers his enemies by opposing their present force, but also by extinguishing their future race. The smallest children, if they live, will be grown men; and the first motions of sin, if they are let alone, will spread into great, open, and audacious presumptions." -- Robert South, 1633-1716
I will not even try pretend to be unappalled and undisgusted by South's comparison. This is probably closest to what I interpret from these verses, although I still most certainly wouldn't agree totally with it:
"He that sows evil shall reap evil; he that soweth the evil of sin, shall reap the evil of punishment. So Eliphaz told Job that he had seen (Job 4:8), "they that plough iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same." And that either in kind or quality, proportion or quantity. In kind, the very same that he did to others shall be done to him; or in proportion, a measure answerable to it. So he shall reap what he hath sown, in quality or in quantity; either in portion the same, or in proportion the like. The prophet cursing Edom and Babel saith thus, "O daughter of Zion, happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us." The original is, "that recompenses to thee thy deed which thou didst to us." ... Thus is wickedness recompensed suo genere, in its own kind. So often the transgressor is against the transgressor, the thief robs the thief, proditoros proditor; as in Rome many unchristened emperors, and many christened popes, by blood and treason got the sovereignty, and by blood and treason lost it. Evil men drink of their own brewing, are scourged with their own rod, drowned in the pit which they digged for others, as Haman was hanged on his own gallows, Perillus tormented in his own engine!" --Thomas Adams.
Hmmm...it is no easy subject to be sure. And I have never been a "fan" of revenge, hence my almost rabid squirming reading through some of the commentaries. You have given me much to consider (and believe me, I will be considering for some time now) and in a most polite and respectable manner. And for that you are to be most heartily thanked. I am in your debt. And I am being most sincere. All the best, now and always. Take care, Sim.
-
I am quite surprised, I am glad I read both of your replies and not simply the one addressed to myself. In one you are polite and cordial, in this reply however, you do not carry the same air of respectability. However, since I see that you are capable of being cordial, I will respond to you as I would respond to any I deem worth my response.
The "twin" god concept comes from older pagan religions. The God of good and the God of evil are, in most religions, thought to be brothers or at least twins (hence the belief in the "evil twin.") In ancient Egypt the Good twin was Osiris/Hours and the "evil" one was Set who was not all that bad of a character. In Norse Mythology the Good was Odin/Balder and the bad was Loki- also more of a prankster then pure evil. In the Hindu religion you have Vishnu/Krishna and Shiva as well as Parvarti/Sati and Kali. In ancient Hebrew, El and Helel (Lucifer. as time progressed, El became YHWH who became Jesus, and Helel became Satan. The myths have not changed as much as you may think. The myth of Helel is based on the "morning star" (Venus) therefore all cultures that were dependent on Astrology for their livelihood has a similar story. The general gist of the story is that the god who represents the morning star, which is the brightest in the night sky just before dawn, becomes over prideful and therefore has to be chased out of heaven so he does not think himself a god.
As for the psalm, the two verses before indicate that the "he" is most definitely god.
137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
The HE in question is El Quanna, the Jealous / Zealous warrior god of the Hebrews, represented by a smoking Volcano. The Secret name of whom was rendered YHWH.
You are quite welcome to disagree with me...
Your Poison
-
To poisonsilver:
In reply to this: "The god you speak of, and his twin the "Devil"
In Christianity, the Devil, Satan, etc. is NOT the "twin" of God or any opposite of His. He is rather a fallen angel, not equal to God in power. Satan is not omnipotent or omnipresent or omniscient, unlike the Christian God.
This is not to say that Christianity is true, merely that calling the "Devil" of Christianity the twin of the God of Christianity is a misrepresentation of Christian doctrine.
Also, Psalms 137:9 refers not to God, but to the enemies of the Israelites, whether you take this to mean earthly enemies or to mean Satan.
Sorry...your comment just caught my eye as I was scrolling down and as a few friends and I were recently discussing this and related matters I thought I'd point it out for your consideration.
Cheers, Sim. -
To Bfantomas
Do you honestly think that putting the same thing many Christians have said IN CAPS, is going to do anything for the argument?
The god you speak of, and his twin the "Devil," do not exist, but some how those who adhere to religion end up killing, maiming, or other wise destroying those who think differently from them. The monotheistic ideology of the all good "god" and the all bad force or demi god is disgusting. The ideologies of hell and original sin are equally disgusting.
Tell me, why would I want to worship a god who is as viscous and moral-less as to throw all non believers into hell? Of whom it is proclaimed in Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
I think I will take a slightly kinder god than the one who inspired the bible.
Your Poison -
GOOD A LITTLE CLICHE,CONTROVERSY IS AN EASY W
THE ONE YOU ARE ACTUALLY REFERRING TO IS NOT GOD,GOD DID NOT DO THESE THINGS ITS TRUE THEY HAPPENED AND SHAMEFUL, PEOPLE ARE DECEIVED AND BELIEVED AND STILL BELIEVE THEIR ACTIONS ARE JUSTIFIED THESE ARE THE ONES WHO DONT TRULY KNOW GOD BUT DO THE WORK OF THE DEVIL IN GODS NAME AS TO DECEIVE YOU AND MANY OTHERS WHEN WILL PEOPLE PLACE THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS SQUARELY IN THE LAP OF SATAN BUT IN STEAD THEY LET PEOPLE WEAK IGNORANT PEOLPLE CONFUSE AND DECEIVE THEM I AM SORRY THAT YOU FEEL THIS WAY AND CAN ONLY HOPE THAT ONE DAY A PERSON STRONG WITH THE REAL GOD WILL SHOW YOU THE TRUTH,DONT GET ME WRONG I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN SEE THINGS THIS WAY BUT THE TRUTH IS HIDDEN FROM MOST -
goooooood write looks like it is well liked
-
i dind't think the poem was extraordinary, but it's not in the style i like. I did enjoy the idea of it, though.
you pissed off alot of intolorent christians.
bravo. -
I just had an idea.. if you put god in quotes.. i.e. "god", it may leave a subtle hint, that the speaker considers those who "kill for god" to actually not serve any god whatsoever.
-
Nice! I love it when people use their poerty to do more than just describe. Your point is very clear and you present it very nicely. Congrats!
~Felicia -
Bravo
Wow. . . I can't believe that these people jump at the bit to get their tuppence in on a poem that bashes their religion. My question, basically, is why can't everyone just read it, acknowledge that there's an opinion out their besides theirs, and fucking move on. I would guess that I'm somewhat of a Christian, but I can find something wrong with just about everything, including atheism. I'm just sick of the shit that people do and say in the name of any major religious deity. There, my tuppence without any fear of persecution, despite the fact that this is clearly a poem on which all thoughts and opinions immediately become bulls eyes. Nothing against anyone, including the luckless writer (I mean, you have to read ALL of these long-winded comments. Jeeze!), but I think that you're all taking life and religions way too fucking seriously. Ya know what? You should all become Buddists! Not a single major, that I know of mind you, has been fought for Budda. I just now realize that I may have spelt that wrong, also that I'm going off the deep end. Anyway, well done on such a controversial poem, that surely meant lots of points for everyone who commented. Damn man, if you put this thing in the featured box, everyone'd be rich.
With a sword of hope and a pen of darkness,
Sir Dakkon -
"The last time politics and religion clashed, people were burned at the stake"
This is an awesome poem I am a head strong christian but I wouldn't kill for god. -
Bravo.
Note my quote.
Very well put...
I don't hold with any deity that uses fear and
punishment to justify [his] existence.
~ crisstiena
-
yeah good job
-
I think more poelple actually kill in the mane of god to fulfill shameful internal desires that need to be socially explained if not justifiably accepted...personally I do not think killing can ever be truely done in the name of God! (not even the Crusades)
thought provoking and very well written! -
Interesting but I wouldn't waste a good applause.
-
GREAT!
Beautiful!! Just so, on point! Love It!!!!!!! -
A very powerful write this has always disturbed me all the wars in religions name a total contradiction of the values they are meant to be promoting i have studied a lot of different religions and dislike those that divide and promote inequality i believe in a universal presence, being god whatever you want to label this not a god that divides and seperates nor religions which promote this. You have written this very well and I am sure provoked much controversy.
-
i'm loving it!
Wow. You couldn't have hit the nail on the head better. This is EXACTLY how I feel about religion, making me wonder if I even have a real faith to associate myself with.
It doesn't get better than this. Great job!
-
I loved this and the little note you had in the shameless. I answered the question without even thinking. I said no. And I totally agree with this whole poem and all it represents. I am a witch a vampire and damn sure not a christian or catholic. I don't agree with putting the fear of anything in someone. I believe in the Creator and never label it. I worship many diety and never one over the other. If that makes me evil than fuckin ey, I'm evil. Blessed Be!
Hugs and bites, Lady Raven
ps: sorry this brought out the Lillith in me, I don't bow to anyone! -
I agree with Vashen. However, I like the Quakers. Fuckin good piece man. I applaud you...~DK
-
I like what you write. Strange enough coming from me, one who believes in God BUT that doesn't stop me from being a true poet and open minded person to look through the eyes of others. Not all Christians hate those who don't believe in God. If they truly wanted to follow Christ, they wouldn't hate them at all, because Jesus didn't hate everyone. He could have, because if He was perfect, then He had perfect reason to hate us because of how stupid we can be. But anywayz, the people who kill "in the name of Jesus" are abusing His power and meaning for being our Lord. They are on a selfish power trip and are hypocrites.
Thinking about it the other day, I realized just how surreal believeing in God really is! And it shook me up I think too. It's a lot to think about for sure. But I gotta go. Great writing Vashen, as always.
♥ Jen -
need I say anything............ well, ok! this is the best 'anti' God poem ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is passionate about proving them wrong! i loved the blood behind the robe thing! well done!
-
“You point out a small fraction of the religion who actually do the things you speak of. “
From the day emperor Constantine gave the power to church Christianity was spread on swords. First though roman army and later though crusades. You might want to familiarize yourself with facts before you start arguments.
“Only a minority (crazy quakers) burned witches,”
Catholic church still has books written around 500 years ago by Bishops detailing how to distinguish witch from others and how they must be killed. Burning also was not limited to witches, anyone who disagreed with church was proclaimed a heretic and burned, no matter how logical their arguments were. Take Galileo as an example…
“The crusades were by one man who lead, and only a small fraction of the people fought in it. “
Now I am curious where do you get this information from? As I suggested before, you should really familiarize yourself with history.
“I do not think your approach is entirely correct in pointing "your" finger at one group of people.”
No approach is “entirely correct”. This is MY way of expressing MY opinion.
“Every religion has done this, every religion has had wars for their "god", every religion has made masses of mistakes that cannot be taken back.”
Indeed, and I never said that other religions have not spilled blood, but that does not change the fact that christians did. If you care for my opinion, I believe no religion is good for human kind and believe in god is an insult to human intelligence.
“Ignorance will continue to breed as long as there is ignorance to spread.”
Isn’t it what Christianity intends to breed in its “hosts” ? How many times have I heard a christian trying to prove that Earth is the center of the universe and sun revolves around it.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm
Check this out they are offering $1,000 to prove them wrong. If this is not ignorance, I don’t know what is!
Edited on Jun 22, 1:39 p.m. because ''. -
Bravo
This is a very good poem, but I'm not even going to bother trying to go into a debate about it. In my eyes, just about every religion has done some dumb shit at one point or another, but some of them have done good that, in deep philisophical theory, balance the scales. Also, if you do the religious bit, it dosen't mean that you have to or desire to condone the acts of past religious nuts, or present, or future. Sorry for ranting, but your poem provoked that bit of me. Good job for sparking a few bits of independant thought in my brain, and bravo -
I agree somewhat, done for debate, as are some of mine, but so what? As long as they are done well, as this is. Very good.
-
not all christians believe in killing for God...I actually agree with you on this though (even though I have christian beliefs) A lot of them do....and even on tv you see priests saying "blow them away in the name of the Lord" I agree with what you say...that is hypocrisy...it even says in the ten commandments not to kill..but unfortunately there are a lot of dumb people in the world, whos' hearts are filled with hatred. But when you hate all christians just because of the few that are hypocrites...then you yourself are sinking to their level, because you are expressing your hatred towards them. I just hope you realize that. ~Rush
-
So-so
You point out a small fraction of the religion who actually do the things you speak of. Only a minority (crazy quakers) burned witches, The crusades were by one man who lead, and only a small fraction of the people fought in it. I do not think your approach is entirely correct in pointing "your" finger at one group of people. Every religion has done this, every religion has had wars for their "god", every religion has made masses of mistakes that cannot be taken back. Ignorance will continue to breed as long as there is ignorance to spread. You can have your opinion, but watch that you do not involve yourself in that ignorance, because I'm looking at it right now. Good luck as a writer, you have potential, just watch yourself. -
Personally, I think you did a really good job with the writing of this poem! You have contstructed it very well, given a complete thought and voiced your opinion in an educated way... it's an all around good poem although I don't agree with the content.
Well done!
Melissa♥
-
I wonder when people are going to stop writing poems merely for the spectacle of debate.
-
Wow, I have never seen so many applauses on a single page. This piece was in two words absolutely amazing. I enjoyed reading it very much so. You have taken your hate and anger and put them into these beautiful verses that just rise the spirit within people. It has brought out our emotions with yours. This is something that I as a writer hope to one day possess. You are truly a wonderful writer.
-
hiss!
-
two things. yes, i agree that many religions can be bad news, if applied improperly, but i do know some nice cristians. as for the poem, i was wondering if you wanted to keep the rhyme scheme all the way through and if you cared that the last two lines in the fourth stanza didnt exactly work with it. i enjoyed the poem though, it was nicely thought out.
-
I'll veer away from the politics of this work and stick with the poetry, instead, if that is all right with everyone. I think this is a well-crafted poem. The emotions behind your words are well expressed and flow well. Rhythm, rhyme and word choice are done very well. Overall, a very nicely written piece.
-
a little to deep
You need to take a step back and ask your self who realy started this...it wasnt me or my country we did cause we knew there had to come an end to the madness of time...
And just because im giveing you a taste of what youve given as a crtittic it dosent mean i dont like your work... -
For some reason, You are reading things which have not been said, the poem says no where that All Christians start wars, I have already said that I do not carry a bias, I think all mass religions are equally harmful to the human race, the fact of the mater is that even if -Christians and Muslims and Jews & any other religious adherents who subscribe to a religion which caters to the masses- did not kill any one, these religions would still be dangerous because of the control they exact over the human mind.
Your Poison -
"Do you have a problem with Pagans?"
I am a pagan myself, but only in terms of spiritual views not any religion that evolved from it. I hope that answers your question :-)
-
Excellent
Is this awsom or what, this is beautiful. Great work. I think that all religions forbid killing people but my belief is certain people use religion as a tool to reach their own ambitions but sorry they gather around them and use the innocent people who do believe but have not learned their religion due to being poor or not knowing to read & write and they are easily delusioned by them or by rich people who are going to benefit from those ambition if fulfilled and it happens all over the world. Only people with enlightened hearts and knowledge of their religion or their belief see that and despies it. -
Do you have a problem with Pagans?
Anyways why are there such HUGE comments! Start a chatroom or something!
Really now. I got lost with the prophecies and other crap.
Comment on the poem, start a group and talk about this there.
Anyways this was a good poem.
~Vladd -
If you would say the War in Iraq was started by all Christians, then you must also say that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are the works of all Muslims. If you would say that so-called "Christian wars" are a means for rising up and "resisting" then once again, how can you say a terrorist attack from another religion is not? I think this was very well written. Perhaps misinformed, and certainly a judgement on all, when every group has those that would give it a bad name. I, personally, am opposed to violence. I also believe that judgemental attitudes are far from the attitude the true doctrine of Christianity would ask for. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and to express yourself freely as a poet. However, I would say that if you wish to call others close minded and judgemental you should strive not to be so yourself. Good opinion piece, strong feeling, and nice word use. Keep writing!
~Stefani~ -
You know a piece is well written when you can get people going with each other in your notes. LOL! As a non-Christian, I agree and disagree with the piece on several different levels, but I do really like how well it was written and laid out. Plus, need I even mention how it gets emotions up? LOL!
-
Wow I really enjoyed your poem and thank you for sharing. I have never seen a response like the one that you have gotten. you must really have some talent to get such a rise out of people. And really fuck what they say!!!! Have fun and be yourself. Keep up the good writes!!!!
~Laurie -
Perfectly Amazing
SO MANY LONG COMMENTS! Eek! Mine, however, explains it all in two simple words: AWESOME and BRILLANT. -
i liked your peom good it was kool i like the title
-
You seem to let your emotions get a hold of you and dominate your argument rather then analyzing my argument and responding with logic, no where did I say that this nation was a Nazi nation, nether did I say that your religion was the only one the hart of wars, but that religion in general is the underling cause for all wars.
You seem to forget, as most Christians do, that the word “religion” pertains to any religion and not just your own. I have no bias as to which religion is worse; I simply feel all religions which are designed to control the masses are dangerous things to the human race as a whole. Regardless of what you think, religion is almost always invoked in war. What, if not religion, would lead one tribe of “god chosen” people against another, what, if not religion would lead the “god blessed troops” against the so dubbed “access of Evil.” You seem to forget that this country is being run by a bunch of right wing nut jobs who are trying to take away the freedoms of their citizens as we speak on the basis of religion and little else.
Your Poison -
You know what I never seen it that way, obviously all wars were started by Christians. Forget the fact that America is a multicultural society, those non-christians would have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, right? I do believe the military only now recruiits white Christian men with blond hair and blue eyes. America is not quite the Nazi state you seem to think it is. The decision to go into a war also doesn't reflect the wishes of the country and it especially does not reflect the wishes any Christian church or any other religion for that matter. Islamic people, as well as all other kinds of religions commit the same crimes. As we speak Islamic soldiers in Sudan are trying to wipe out the Africans, most of which are Christian. How in such cases do the Christians, as you so blantently stereotype, cause these wars. Open your eyes and get away from your radical ideas. No one religion is responsible for any of these wars, followers of religions may very well cause wars but these people could just as easily be called fathers, mothers, sons or daughters, doctors or lawyers, and anything else to characterize them. You simply choose to narrow down the person to their religious beliefs. Their actions don't always reflect their religion and what its intended. Church is for worshiping, not killing. Take care and God bless.
-
Fist of all, I think the "we" reference is to all who oppose Christianity and see it for the lie that it is.
the war in Iraq is just on war which was started by christians, the "terrorists" did not start it, in fact, with all of the wars which have been waged (almost continually) on that area since, oh say the holy crusades, I think those who attacked the US in 2001 were remarkably patent.
"A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "over flight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course. "
- Ward Churchill; http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/ward-churchill.htm
I might add, that it was with the support of many Christians shouting "God bless our Troops"
Every war has traces of religion, some of these are more obvious then others, since religious slaughter likes to masquerade as politics.
Further more, I believe it was Christians who elevated the importance of land and money over the importance of human lives, and what, if not religion, gives rise to racism. Indeed, if you take a few seconds to look, you will find that all religions which are confined to one area and one people elevate that area and people to the position of "god's chosen." With that title embedded in their mind those people can safely go about killing all who are not "God's people" and imagine that god loves them for doing such a thing. In this since, the Aztecs were a kinder race then Jews, Muslims or Christians.
We aren’t trying to make anyone change their religion, we are simply trying to get people to open their eyes to the cruelty which goes on in the name of their religion, in the hopes that the religion based politics and wars will stop and we can achieve something by way of peace.
Your Poison -
bravisima my friend...you have done a wonderful job with this peice............the subject is very good and the way the way you have presented your veiws on it is excelent...good job.......kepp the talent flowing through your veins and always share your gift..
Meus Opus Magnus and Blessed Be my Friend...Alison-Maree
P.S...don't be a stranger...just be STRANGE!!! -
wow
wow amazing! really wow! -
Good piece. I have never seen such a verbose reponse as with this one.
-
Interesting writing and your opinion.
Well again it seems that many construe the Christian belief to something dark and sinister, it is not but rather it is the workings of man proclaiming to be Christians that made all of this a mockery. I agree with Someones-Nobody and after all when the colonists landed in America it was the Indian that they tried to annililate but it was the man that wrote all the interpetations down and said this is what we want you to believe. No amount of bashing will change my faith but it does not mean I condone what some have done in his name they too will face their own judgement. Despite what other try to say otherwise. -
First off, who are we? Secondly, what wars are going on today that christian churchs have started? You have your right to think what you want, but wars would be on going with or without any religion. The wars of today are about land, money and racism. People think they are rebelling when putting stuff like this up, but it doesnt change the mind of any Christians, were not going to stop having faith because of it. Take care and God bless.
-
I liked this.
-
well, considering that I’m still not sure which part of my argument you believe to be "kookery" as you call it, and since I didn't watch Star track, I will say that every thing I have said has been proven one way or another, your religion wasn't the fist "savior" religion, nor will it be the last.
Some of my points show inconsistency in Jesus’ time line... there are not many actual historical figures whose historical time lines are so irreconcilable with actual history. Jesus’ name and deeds point to him being only one of many mythological characters proclaimed to be the savior of the world.
How much do you REALLY know about your Jesus?
His story, like every other savior myth, is based on the Sun’s passage through the day/year.
Good day to you as well madam
Your Poison
-
I think, not being Christian myself, that the name of God is thrown around way too often in politics, arguments, and war. I think we should find a balance if we can't eliminate it completely. Even the US considers itself a Christian country though it is far from it. The President often makes judgments of faith rather than reason. Now I am not against president Bush bad or anything but I think we need, as this poem mentioned, to eliminate the topic of religion from these sorts of things.
-
A great write here, keep on writing.
-
For kookery, asserting as history something that was first put forth in an episode of the first star trek series. It's not even mentioned in ANY scholarly historical document I have ever read - neither for nor against, until very recently.
THe only other thing I will say is that no people in history would have more to gain by Jesus not being a historical figure than the Jews. They have suffered a great deal from false charges leveled against them from his death. Even their scholars admit him as a historical figure.
Your assertions of lies, to use your words, prove nothing, and some are simply incorrect as was the assertion about the governor of Syria. Good day to you sir. -
Suffering and pain are really key note here and you even tell the reader this, which is interesting. Your piece has a solid consistency that really flows and opens up. Tony.
-
Annas was Caiaphas' father in law and preceeded him in the high priesthood. It is never asserted in the Bible that there was a dual high priesthood. Herod appointed them instead of allowing this position to be appointed the normal way as a way to assure there were Saducee leadership there because the Saducees were more friendly to him and to Rome. Annas retained a great deal of influence and an honarary (unofficial) title, but there was never a dual high priesthood, nor is one asserted in the Bible. It is clear that Annas was Caiaphas' father in law, and was previously high priest while Caiaphas served as high priest.
Acts and Luke seem to be asserting it, albite luke moreso then Atcs
Act 4:6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
Luke 3:2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
You can say that this still does not prove the bible speaks of them as joint high priests but Jesus’s life is STILL not reconciled with history.
Luke 3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
“…Lysanis ruled Abline from c. 40 B.C.E. until he was executed in 36 B.C.E. by Mark Anthony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberais and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests; in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from office of high priest in 15 C.E. after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became persist in c. 18 C.E., about three years after Annas”
Luke 3:4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Luke assumes that Isaiah is speaking prophetically of John when in fact Isaiah is speaking of himself.
Isaiah 40:1 Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God.
40:2 Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins.
40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
There are more misquoted “prophecies” in the new testament, if you would like me to continue, I have a list of them.
Matthew
1. The prophecy given in Is.7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. 1:23
2. Matthew claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils the prophecy in Micah 5:2. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
o "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4).
o The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.
It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. 2:5-6
3. "Out of Egypt I have called my son,"
Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse. 2:15
4. Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18
5. "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. 2:23
6. The devil correctly quotes scripture (Ps.91:11-12), while Jesus misquotes Deuteronomy by adding "only" to Dt.6:13. 4:6, 10
7. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
8. Jesus tells his disciples that he will return before they can "go over the cities of Israel." Later (24:14) he says he will not come until the gospel is preached throughout the world. Well, his disciples went over the cities of Israel and then died waiting for the "return of the Lord." Now, nearly 2000 years later, and long after the gospel had been preached throughout the world, his followers still wait. 10:23
9. When Jesus and his disciples are accused of breaking the Sabbath, he excuses himself by referring to a scripture in which priests who "profaned the Sabbath" were blameless. But there is no such passage in the Old Testament. 12:5
10. Misquote of Ps.78:2-3 13:35
11. Jesus visits Tyre which according to Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36, 28:19) was not supposed to exist. 15:21
12. Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. 16:28
13. This verse claims that Jesus fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. 21:4
14. Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. 23:36
15. Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14
16. Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. 24:34
17. "But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." What scriptures? What prophets? There is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. 26:54-46
18. Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 26:64
19. This is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah (11:12-13). 27:9
Mark
1. Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. 1:2
2. Ezekiel (26:14, 21, 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed, never to be built again. But it wasn't destroyed and continued to exist, as shown by this verse in which Jesus visits Tyre. 7:24, 31
3. Jesus falsely prophesies that the end of the world will come within his listeners' lifetimes. 9:1
4. Jesus shows that he is a false prophet by predicting his return and the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. 13:30
5. Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 14:62
Luke
1. Jesus falsely predicts that some of his listeners would live to see him return and establish the kingdom of God. 9:27
2. Jesus prophesies that families will be divided because of him and his teachings. Sadly, this is one prophecy that has been fulfilled. 12:52-53
3. Jesus says that all that he describes (his return, signs in the sun, moon, and stars, etc.) will occur within the within the lifetime of his listeners. 21:32
4. Jesus claims that his suffering and death were a fulfillment of prophecy. But there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. 24:44, 46
John
1. Jesus says that "the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." 5:25
2. Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him. Where? It's a shame he didn't give us chapter and verse. 5:46
3. Jesus says that those who believe in him will, as the scripture says, have living waters flowing out of their bellies. Well that sounds like fun, but there is no such scripture in the Bible. 7:38
4. Jesus falsely prophesies that "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." This will never happen as long a Christian beliefs are based on the Bible. 10:16
5. This verse claims that Jesus fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. 12:15
6. Verse 33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. 19:33, 36
7. Jesus implies that he will return to earth during the lifetime of John. 21:22
Acts
1. Peter says that their strange behavior (speaking in tongues, etc.) was to be expected since they were living in "the last days." 2:17
2. Peter wrongly claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-christians) must be killed. 3:23
3. This verse admits that God's promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. (See Gen.12:7, 13:15, 15:18, and 17:8) 7:5
4. Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, never to be built again. Yet it wasn't destroyed, as is evident from this verse. 12:20
5. Gen.49:10 says that all of Israel's kings will be from the tribe of Judah, yet we see in this verse that Israel's first king was from the tribe of Benjamin. 13:21
6. Paul quotes God as saying, "I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will." But no such quote can be found in the Old Testament. (Although 1 Sam.13:14 does refer to David as "a man after his [God's] own heart." And it makes some sense, too, since David was nearly as cruel as the biblical God.) 13:22
7. In one of the few times that Paul quotes Jesus, he attributes to him words that are not found in the gospels. 20:35
8. Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36) prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, never to be built again. Yet it wasn't destroyed, as is evident from these verses. 21:3-4
9. These verses claim that Moses and the prophets prophesied that Jesus would suffer and rise from the dead. But in what scripture is such a prophecy made? 26:22-23
Romans
1. Misquote of Is.28:16. Ro9:33
2. Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? In any case, if Paul is right about that, then Jesus is a false prophet, since he said he would return before the gospel was preached to everyone. (Mt.10:23) 10:18
3. Paul believed that the end of the world was coming soon. "The day is at hand." 13:11-12
4. Paul believed that Jesus would return and defeat Satan "shortly" -- within his own lifetime. 16:20
1 Corinthians
1. Paul tells the Corinthians to be good until "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (He expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes.) 1:7-8
2. Paul, like Jesus and the other New Testament writers, expects the end to come soon. "The time is short." So there's no time for sex or marriage since the world will be ending soon. 7:29
3. Paul says that the end of the world will come during his lifetime. 10:11, 15:51
4. These verses claim that the scriptures prophesied that Jesus would suffer, die, and be resurrected from the dead. But where are the prophecies that are referred to here? Hosea 6:2 perhaps? But this verse refers to the people living at the time (hence "us") and therefore cannot be fulfilled by the the death and resurrection of Jesus. 15:3-4
Ephesians
Misquote of Ps.68:18, which says: "Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men."
Paul changed the words and meaning of the psalm from "received gifts" to "gave gifts". 4:8
Philippians
1. Paul tells the Philippians to be good "till the day of Christ." So he must have expected Jesus to return within their lifetimes. 1:10
2. "The Lord is at hand." Paul thought that the end was near and that Jesus would return soon after he wrote these words. 4:5
1 Thessalonians
1. Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers. 3:13
2. Paul thought he would live to see the rapture. 4:15, 17
3. Paul prays that the Thessalonians will be good until Jesus returns, implying that he expected this to happen within their lifetimes. 5:23
2 Thessalonians
"The day of Christ is at hand." Paul believed that he would see Jesus' return. 2:2
1 Timothy
Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers. 6:14
Hebrews
1. The author of Hebrews believed that he was living in the "last days." 1:1-2
2. Misquote of Jer.31:32 8:9
3. Jesus sacrificed himself "in the end of the world." 9:26
4. Misquote of Ps.40:6 10:5-6
5. The author of Hebrews believed that Jesus would come "in a little while, and will not tarry." 10:37
6. In Genesis (13:15, 15:18, 17:8) and Exodus (32:13) God promises Abraham and his descendants "the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession." But here Paul admits that God's promise went unfulfilled. 11:9-13
James
1. James quotes a scripture that says, "The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy." But there is no such verse in the Bible. 4:5
2. James thought that Jesus would return soon. 5:8
1 Peter
1. Peter wrongly believed that he was living in the "last times." 1:5, 7, 20
2. "The end of all things is at hand." 4:7
2 Peter
The author of 2 Peter is aware of the failed expectations of early believers. He knows that Jesus, who was to come soon, didn't come at all. Many have begun to ask, "Where is the promise of his coming?" He tries to cover for Jesus by claiming that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years." 3:4
1 John
John thinks he is living in "the last times." He "knows" this because he sees so many antichrists around.
2 John
1. John warns his followers to get ready because Jesus is coming soon. 2:28
2. John expects to live to see Jesus return. 3:2
Jude
Jude says Enoch, "the seventh from Adam", prophesied that God would come with 10,000 of his saints "to execute judgment upon all." But this prophecy is from the Book of Enoch, not from the Bible. 14-15
Revelation
1. John believed that the things that he wrote about would happen soon, within his own lifetime. After nearly 2000 years, believers still believe that "the time is at hand" and that the events described in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3
2. "Every eye shall see him," including those who executed him. Everyone will "wail because of him." But millions have lived and died without ever seeing him coming "with clouds." 1:7
3. John quotes Jesus (1900 years ago) as saying, "Behold, I come quickly." 3:11, 22:7, 12, 20
If anyway would like to check out the links given please check out http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html
For such a “holy book” it sure lies alot
Your Poison -
“The first thing I would recommend is Mantague R. James's “The Apocryphal New Testament for the number of other unofficial gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses that existed beginning in the first century AD. These were rejected as part of the canon, but speak of Jesus. One can make their own interpretation of what historian is reliable, and what is not. Many official historians of more than one nation cannot be relied upon because they speak only of the successes of a nation. Just because a historian is not one of the ones you choose to accept does not make that historian unreliable.”
Hum, a number of books that the Christians decided didn’t fit the canon? NO, say it ain’t so; no Christian would DARE though out a book from their cannon which supports their claim of Jesus, well, not unless it doesn’t fit exactly—like the gospel of Marcion upon which the new testament gospels are built and the cannon based, but his doesn’t fit because his does not describe Jesus as an actual historical, Jewish, person.
Never in my argument have I said I did not find Josephus a reliable historian, it is simply that I am a little bit skeptical of the passage which mentions Jesus because even CHRISTIAN scholars admit that the evidence is far to great for its interpolation, of course, said scholars maintain the name itself is part of the original document, but I have a hard time believing the passage because of the proof that it has been forged.
~~~~
”What was the crime for which Christians and Jews were put to death in the Roman empire from Domitian to Constantine? Taxes you say? More than taxes. People were forced to sacrifice to the genius of Caesar – confessing him as a god. Perhaps you would like that in the US today? For this they gave their lives.”
Well some of them were l\killed for murdering Romans and ruining crops and livestock. The sacrifice, not to Ceasar, but to one of he Roman Gods, was not as big a deal as you are trying to make it; it was a form of taxation and assurance of safety. Most Jews who lived in the area chose to sacrifice to Jupiter with out much complaint. The reason Romans enforced this was because they felt that if they did not then their empire would fall apart.
As for this happening in the US today, I fear me; we are not far from it. Christians are throwing their weight around in politics. There was a time (fortunately we are out of it) when an Atheist could not testify in court simply because he or she was an Atheist. And now Christians are trying to make laws which suit their own narrow minded agenda. I don’t think it should be to long before those laws which hold the church from a hostile takeover of the state are going to disappear.
~~~~~
”If the church was all about power, then they certainly did not start out getting it. The early church leaders were beheaded as seditionists, stoned, boiled in oil, and burned at the stake. It's really stretching to ask us to believe they did that to cover each other in a large conspiracy. The second generation did not see Jesus, but if they were all after power and influence, how did the second generation Christians such as Polycarp go to be burned for their beliefs? If it was all about power, they failed miserably. Maybe there was more.”
All you quoted sounds like a story from Maccabees, from which the Christians stole their martyrdom tales. The reason Christianity had so much appeal too many was because it began as a mystery school, also the reason many other detested Christians was because it was a mystery school, just like all others but threatened to expose the ancient secrets to the world at large.
Many people who were in mystery sects were prosecuted the way you insist Christians were, but that didn’t stop people from joining, are you now going to tell me that “maybe there was more" to all of these cults which kept people turning to them. Well, in at least that you are right; people had a connection with the ancient teachings (which Mystery schools professed to have taught) and therefore there would be people brave enough (or perhaps gullible enough) to join those mystery sects in the fact of the danger they posed.
~~~~
“Nobody I have spoken to in a serious study of the New Testament has put the birth of Jesus at 1 AD. The current numbers of years were derived in the fourth century as monks counted back trying to establish how far removed they were from the birth of Jesus. The Bible itself does not use this system, but only puts it during the reign of Herod (Which must have been Herod the Great). He died about 3 or 4 BC. Most of what I have studied puts the birth of Jesus about 5 or 6 BC because Jesus was about 2 years old when he returned to Israel. This is not a conflict of the NT. This is a mistake of monks.”
This does not really do much by way of resolving Jesus’ life line to any history timeline.
”PoisonedSilver is engaged in serious kookery. I've heard those theories before, and some even more far fetched (some claiming no civilization existed in Europe before AD 1000 and thus trying to prove Jesus was black – personally I don't care about his race, but their work was pure kookery and what PoisonedSilver is putting up is of this genre – not even in line with well established historical work. As such it is not worth a response).”
Please, correct my “kookery” by, fist telling me exactly what it is I said which you identify as “kookery” (since I could not find a definition for the word.) and then tell me how it is wrong, please back this up with evidence, because I can back up every thing I have said with the same.
~~~~
”Now, as for Daniel. Let's suppose that Daniel was fabricated. We need to know at what point it was fabricated. The prophecy about the 4 empires appears twice in this book in different forms, and is explained both times. The first empire is Babylon. No problem, Daniel was a slave in Babylon. The second empire is the Medio-Persian empire. Again, no problem. The third empire is Greece and is named. This happens after Daniel, so if we are saying it was fabricated, then we would have to put this after the conquest of Alexander the Great, his death, and the division of his empire among his generals. The fourth empire devours the empires that the Greek empire has divided into. It is obviously Rome. It also divides from one to two – again Rome in the fourth century. It later appears as 10 in both visions. Now if Daniel were fabricated as you said, it would have to have been at least in the 4th century. The first problem with this is that Daniel is the same in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. The Jews and the Christians were definitely not cooperating in the fourth century – and the Jews would not have changed their canon for Christians. The second big kink in this theory is that Daniel is one of the writings in Qumram known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars place these scrolls before the birth of Christ, and their translation is not secret. The prophecies are still there. One more thing of note – the 70th week is still unfulfilled.”
Ok, let’s suppose that the Jewish testament writings had to be translated into Greek and Roman, I supposed this would have been done when the Roman empire was in power, thus giving the third empire its name…
Now, if I say, I prophesy that in the future fore empires will arise and then fall apart again, I would be as dead on as if I said, I prophecy that in the future I will die. This is essentially what Daniel did.
~~~~~~~
”You look only at one side of history, and ask me how Christians could have done that when they were supposed to be spreading love. In Revelation this was all predicted. The apostate church who has engaged in persecution will be judged – it will not escape God. This was predicted before it ever happened. In fact, there are actually 7 stages of the church there. All have appeared during the church age and still remain. 5 have judgement from God pronounced on them for not repenting. Judgement begins with the church, but it doesn't stop there. It appears to me that none of this has surprised God, although you seem to be amazed at it.”
Well, if my view of history is mono-lateral, yours assuredly, is no more so.
I am not at all surprised that the Roman Empire under the guise of “Christian” has continued to sack and pillage all which is not already under the control of the empire. I just like to point out that the fait which supposedly has for a leader the “prince of piece” has needed the blood of millions of innocents to substantiate that clame.
”As for all Christians being how you say, what would you say of Mother Teresa, Father Brown, Corrie Ten Boom? These are just familiar names, but if you knew Christians like I do (no pre-supposition brought with you), you would see some that are Christian in name only, some that are secular, and some that are as selfless and loving as any human can be. Your stereotype does not fit the general case.”
http://jesus-is-lord.com/mothther.htm
According to these fundamentalists, Mother Teresa can’t go to heaven ether.
I know many Christians, I don’t have a problem with them, but I get annoyed at the continual rash of Ignorance which seems to thy to purge though this country, it is that ignorance I am combating, not the Christians themselves.
The next thing I have to say is rather long so I will stop hear and post the rest as an individual comment.
Your Poiosn
-
This is full of the horrible truth... though those who believe will deny things till the death- it's just because they don't want to consider their actions could be wrong in any way.
Although not all "christians" are so ruthless, the ones who are give them a bad name. Same goes for many other religions. It's our nature to focus on the negative though- so we stereotype based on negative experiences with a certain group.
It amazes me though how much people can try to justify immoral acts. Although all religions claim to preach positive things, their holy books have a lot of violence in them. Contradictions can be made to serve the wrong purpose. Instead of people seeing a balance in the universe, they pick what THEY want to see/hear/do at the time.
Although I wouldn't consider everyone who believes in a idety a virus or whanot (in regards to a plague) the ones who are a plague are ruining for everyone. the whole attitude of "I'm right, you're wrong" only serves to divide us. I think if things were actually true we'd all agree on it, or maybe not but it's something to consider.
Well, anyways, well done on the composition of this piece! -
“I also experienced the change of command when I cried out to God in Jesus name, and had the hand of the demon who had me in his grasp release me, and I experience freedom for the first time in years.”
These demons and these gods – they’re all in your head. If taken literally, this actually sounds like the ravings of a psychopath. I really doubt the sanity of people who literally believe in demons, angels, and other invisible, incorporeal beings they claim to have seen or personally experienced. If taken as a metaphor for the struggles in their lives, yeah, it can make since, but it’s highly misleading, and downright absurd when folks insist that demons LITERALLY had them in their grasp, in some type of physical grasp or state of mind control, or any combination thereof. I don’t know what you’re saying here, but I get a lot of this questionable “I was in the arms of demons” stuff from born-agains. -
“In addition to what you write, Christians have been persecuted the world over. “
Considering it was a minority cult spawning from a pool of other cults that were also persecuted, and considering the conditions of the time, “prophecies” that Christians would be persecuted aren’t exactly breathtaking. That’s like prophesizing that if I started an large anti-political movement I’d get flack from the government. It’s almost ridiculous NOT to expect it to happen.
“That was prophesied. It was also prophesied that a greater persecution is coming at the time of the end. I guess you just have to decide which side you want to take. I've read the last chapter. I know how it ends. I know where I want to stand. “
What time of the end? And this isn’t a black & white world, where you are either a Christian or against them. I’ve read the last chapter. I think the guy who wrote it was a nutjob. I know where I want to stand – firmly in reality.
-
The first thing I would recommend is Mantague R. James's “The Apocryphal New Testament for the number of other unofficial gospels, acts, letters and apocalypses that existed beginning in the first century AD. These were rejected as part of the canon, but speak of Jesus. One can make their own interpretation of what historian is reliable, and what is not. Many official historians of more than one nation cannot be relied upon because they speak only of the successes of a nation. Just because a historian is not one of the ones you choose to accept does not make that historian unreliable.
What was the crime for which Christians and Jews were put to death in the Roman empire from Domitian to Constantine? Taxes you say? More than taxes. People were forced to sacrifice to the genius of Caesar – confessing him as a god. Perhaps you would like that in the US today? For this they gave their lives.
If the church was all about power, then they certainly did not start out getting it. The early church leaders were beheaded as seditionists, stoned, boiled in oil, and burned at the stake. It's really stretching to ask us to believe they did that to cover each other in a large conspiracy. The second generation did not see Jesus, but if they were all after power and influence, how did the second generation Christians such as Polycarp go to be burned for their beliefs? If it was all about power, they failed miserably. Maybe there was more.
Nobody I have spoken to in a serious study of the New Testament has put the birth of Jesus at 1 AD. The current numbers of years were derived in the fourth century as monks counted back trying to establish how far removed they were from the birth of Jesus. The Bible itself does not use this system, but only puts it during the reign of Herod (Which must have been Herod the Great). He died about 3 or 4 BC. Most of what I have studied puts the birth of Jesus about 5 or 6 BC because Jesus was about 2 years old when he returned to Israel. This is not a conflict of the NT. This is a mistake of monks.
PoisonedSilver is engaged in serious kookery. I've heard those theories before, and some even more far fetched (some claiming no civilization existed in Europe before AD 1000 and thus trying to prove Jesus was black – personally I don't care about his race, but their work was pure kookery and what PoisonedSilver is putting up is of this genre – not even in line with well established historical work. As such it is not worth a response).
Now, as for Daniel. Let's suppose that Daniel was fabricated. We need to know at what point it was fabricated. The prophecy about the 4 empires appears twice in this book in different forms, and is explained both times. The first empire is Babylon. No problem, Daniel was a slave in Babylon. The second empire is the Medio-Persian empire. Again, no problem. The third empire is Greece and is named. This happens after Daniel, so if we are saying it was fabricated, then we would have to put this after the conquest of Alexander the Great, his death, and the division of his empire among his generals. The fourth empire devours the empires that the Greek empire has divided into. It is obviously Rome. It also divides from one to two – again Rome in the fourth century. It later appears as 10 in both visions. Now if Daniel were fabricated as you said, it would have to have been at least in the 4th century. The first problem with this is that Daniel is the same in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. The Jews and the Christians were definitely not cooperating in the fourth century – and the Jews would not have changed their canon for Christians. The second big kink in this theory is that Daniel is one of the writings in Qumram known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars place these scrolls before the birth of Christ, and their translation is not secret. The prophecies are still there. One more thing of note – the 70th week is still unfulfilled.
You look only at one side of history, and ask me how Christians could have done that when they were supposed to be spreading love. In Revelation this was all predicted. The apostate church who has engaged in persecution will be judged – it will not escape God. This was predicted before it ever happened. In fact, there are actually 7 stages of the church there. All have appeared during the church age and still remain. 5 have judgement from God pronounced on them for not repenting. Judgement begins with the church, but it doesn't stop there. It appears to me that none of this has surprised God, although you seem to be amazed at it.
As for all Christians being how you say, what would you say of Mother Teresa, Father Brown, Corrie Ten Boom? These are just familiar names, but if you knew Christians like I do (no pre-supposition brought with you), you would see some that are Christian in name only, some that are secular, and some that are as selfless and loving as any human can be. Your stereotype does not fit the general case.
Concerning Quirinius: Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria from about 7 B.C. to about 4 B.C. Varus was not a trustworthy leader, a fact that was disastrously demonstrated in A.D. 9 when he lost three legions of soldiers in the Teutoburger forest in Germany. To the contrary, Quirinius was a notable military leader who was responsible for squelching the rebellion of the Homonadensians in Asia Minor. When it came time to begin the census, in about 8 or 7 B.C., Augustus entrusted Quirinius with the delicate problem in the volatile area of Palestine, effectively superseding the authority and governorship of Varus by appointing Quirinius to a place of special authority in this matter. It has also been proposed that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two separate occasions, once while prosecuting the military action against the Homonadensians between 12 and 2 B.C., and later beginning about A.D. 6. A Latin inscription discovered in 1764 has been interpreted to refer to Quirinius as having served as governor of Syria on two occasions.
Annas was Caiaphas' father in law and preceeded him in the high priesthood. It is never asserted in the Bible that there was a dual high priesthood. Herod appointed them instead of allowing this position to be appointed the normal way as a way to assure there were Saducee leadership there because the Saducees were more friendly to him and to Rome. Annas retained a great deal of influence and an honarary (unofficial) title, but there was never a dual high priesthood, nor is one asserted in the Bible. It is clear that Annas was Caiaphas' father in law, and was previously high priest while Caiaphas served as high priest.
Edited on Jun 09, 4:21 p.m. because ''. -
Well I've got to thank poinsonsilver. It's been a while since I opened my Bible, and thanks to you I think I've found a good place to start reading again.
-
Excellent
Wonderfully stated! Very emotional and to the point, your opinion was stated beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as the flow goes, there are a few spots that could use some fine tuning, nothing that a couple of hours of playin with couldn't fix, but then again, that doesn't really matter to me, I'm more into what the poem says, and you've said it all. Again, wonderful wonderful job! -
Reading this poem, and the resulting "discussion" I'm going to decline to comment.
-
oh god another bible thumping jesus freak that can't get his pompous head out of his ass. damn I can tell you from first hand experience I have seen and experienced sooooo much more love and compassion showed by pagans then the mostly hypicritical bible thumpers that are so egotistical and think there way is the only way and all others are "cast" to hell. I mean if the pompous ass people who believe that because they believe jesus gave his life for their and my 'sins" are going to the "promised" land while living a shameful life that doesnt even come close to living a life of unconditional love while the truly loving indivdials that live a life as close to unconditional love as they can but don't believe that jesus gave his life for their "sins" are going to some purgurtory then your god isnt loving at all. ugh enough of this shit..... your poem was well written I enjoyed it.
prince
Edited on Jun 09, 11:46 because ''. -
Oh my gosh this is disgusting. And now ladies and gentlemen we know why wars are fought over religion.. Good Day sir
-
Unfortunately the power christianity has over the world is neigh impossible to stop. As long as people continue to hope and wish for an easy way out of thinking for themselves, we will have such problems. It is part of human nature to let someone else answer the hard questions for them.
Nice poem, though the flow is a bit iffy in the third stanza. -
beautiful write.
peace and love
<3
-ashley -
"but I'll be back to respond to your faulty history."
You do that. You better prove that it is faulty or your claim is empty.
"In the meantime, I'll just respond to one that is easy. Jesus is spoken of by other historians. The first one that comes to mind is Josephus."
Jesus was not mentioned by any historians that lived during his supposed life. Josephus father for example was a historian and never mentioned jesus. On the other hand Josephus was born in 37CE and could not have any first person experience with jesus who supposedly died in 33CE..
-
”In the early period of the Roman Empire religious tolerance was widespread? I notice you started with Constatine, but skipped the entire period from Emperor Domitian until Constantine. I think you should know something of that period before you even start the rest. “
Well, your church lied about who wrote the scriptures (the FIST gospel wasn’t written until after the first century C.E) and they Lied about the letters of Paul (Some of which have been proven to be entirely forged and others have been proven to be interpolated) they also lied by forging letters from Jesus or some of the other Apostles, as well as forging passages in other manuscripts (the reference to Jesus in Josephus’s work, for example, has been proven to be forged) they also lied about the martyrs you so evidently speak of… why would you need to support a living (risen) Savior with lies?
The martyrdom that the Christians cry about, which is supposed to have happened during the fist century, never happened. True some Christians were killed by the lesser Roman civilians, and Roman officers would sometimes kill church leaders, but, when all is said the Romans cared very little about the “Christian menace.”
Consider this, all of those things which you would view as “good” was from the Roman influence on the Jewish civilization. The Romans were tolerant of any religion --so long as the Taxes were paid, which I believe your Jesus puppet was made to tell his followers… Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.—The Romans brought learning, protection, and all other things which Christianity clams to bring to the heathen to the “light.”
~~~~
”As for the prophecies, the odds of all the prophecies that were fulfilled in the Messiah's first coming ever being fulfilled in one person are about the same as the entire state of Texas being covered 6 inches deep in quarters, then walking into Texas blindfolded for days, bending down, and picking up one particular quarter which you had predicted ahead of time. Over one trillion to one. All of them were fulfilled literally. With that precedence, it would be worth noting that there are 8 times as much prophecy about the second coming as there was about the first coming.”
If what you said about confusion of religion to Vashen held any water before, it is burst now.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/4/984bad.html
instead of quoting the best bits I’ll let you read the thing for yourself.
As for danile, the writer or writers who wrote for him obviously thought the earth was flat. Look at 2:35, 4:11-20
Your aturther(s) of Danile also don’t know their history very well.
(5:2,11,18,22)
Apparently, the author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk (referred to in the bible as "Evilmerodach" [see 2 Kg.25:27 and Jer.52:31]). In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar.-skepticsannotatedbible.com
Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus.-skepticsannotatedbible.com
Now, just what makes you think that Jesus Christ (literally anointed savior) actually came to earth and did all which he is supposed to have done? What makes you believe that impossible claim and reject all other claims of savior gods the world over who all predate the Christ figure?
They all have the same about of evidence for them; Jesus has no more evidence that he was living as Osiris or Krishna do…. But some how people are willing to believe that Jesus was a historical figure with the same amount of evidence that they cite as reason to dismiss the others.
The idea of a messiah came from the Zoroastrian religion. They had the fist doctrines of Armageddon and the fist doctrines of hell. They had the “lord of this world” who continually fought against the “lord of the next world.” The Hebrews only looked to a messiah AFTER coming into contact with the Zoroastrians.
Also, the bible is not monotheistic. It refers to Elohim, which is PLURAL, representing the vast multitude of god and goddesses all represented by EL in their name. EL Elyon, El Shaddai, (who transformed into the devil Shedim) El Quanna, (YHWH) were all separate gods. As well as Jehovah was separate from these, being the god of Judea. Adoni is also PLURAL, its singular forum being Adonis, who is common in the Greek and Roman pantheons. The way that the Jews became monotheistic was very harsh, befitting as Jealous/Zealous godhead (such as the name El Qunna means.) The priests who worshiped YHWH destroyed the convenient high places of worship where people would go to sacrifice their food, forcing the Hebrews to have to pay the priests of the central temple so that they could eat.
Also, evidence is in the name of Israel itself of its pagan origins; Is (Isis moon goddess worshiped by many sects during that time), Ra (Egyptian Sun god), El (gods of stars)
Your religion, and the Judaism it was forced upon as an ancestor are both heavily paganistic.
~~~~~~~~~~~
”If you know prophecy, you should know the 4 world empires as prophesied by Daniel. This is not vague ambiguous stuff like Nostradamus. This is easy to understand when seen in the context of history. Specific enough that it gave those who did not believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy reason to fashion "Dual authorship" theories after the fact - they did not believe it just because "Daniel couldn't have known it" so it must have been written later - but its date is not in question.”
The date IS in question, also, I have read Daniel there are obscure references to mountains and beasts, more obscure then even Nostradamus’s prophecies, and he was the king of bullshit.
~~~~~~~~~~
”You call yourself a pagan, but I see contradiction after contradiction in your page, and in your work. You are not sure yourself ... it's obvious. In this I have an advantage - I was carried away into spiritism and occultism. I have experienced it first hand, and all the mind twisting influence of demonic power over my mind. I also experienced the change of command when I cried out to God in Jesus name, and had the hand of the demon who had me in his grasp release me, and I experience freedom for the first time in years. This all occurred in my teenage years. Unless you have experience this, then you most definitely do not know where I am coming from, nor do you know about the God I serve.”
Well, obviously you do not know which god you serve because there are many gods in the bible who are all represented in translation as “God” so which one is it that you serve?
I will repeat a little of what Vashen said on daemons, there are no such things, all you felt was in your mind and nothing more… I could go into the psychology of this without hearing any more of your experience… but I won’t unless you are interested in it and wish to hear it.
~~~~~~~
“When you have to resort to "self hypnosis," any argument is hopeless. When you go that far afield ... Right there, you are holding to faith only as you are claiming I am doing.”
Do you know what Hypnosis is? You can make yourself remember, and even believe things which never happened. I am sure your parents have told you of your early childhood, and I am sure that the fist time they told you, you did not remember the incident, but the more they told you of it, the more it seemed as a memory of your own. This is just an example of how your brain operates; the human mind is easily fooled.
Psychology is not a faith based system
~~~
I would be happy to go through the prophecies with you, but if you go to the point of "any evidence that Jesus of Nazereth ever existed," I think we would be headed in the direction of you looking at a lighted light bulb and swearing there is no proof it was on. If you really want to look at it, then we will, if you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.”
I of course would love to hear what kind of evidence you have, but don’t be surprised if I counter your arguments as you would counter mine…
~~~~
”I may not know you, but I do not fear you. You may think I have no idea who I am dealing with, but you have no power over me, nor will you ever. Faith, yes, but I challenge you to try it and see: Greater is He that is in me, than He that is in the world. See if you can hypnotize me out of that, or yourself into believing you've had power over me.”
I believe the reference was made because you thought of Vashen as being confused, we have no reason for you to fear us, nor do we want power over you…
~~~
”Judaism was a Religio Licito in the first century AD. In the first century, Christians were called "The sect of the Nazarene," by most Jews, but Christinity started out with the Jews. THey spread from the first church in Jerusalem outward. The first non Jewish church was in Pisidian Antioch. It was in this church where believers in Jesus were first called "Christians." Both Judaism and Christianity were persecuted at various times during the first century - it was not universal acceptance. Both were outlawed at the end of the first century AD and remained illegal until 313AD. During that time, Mirthraism, and various other religions were tolerated - so long as they would give offering to the genius of Caesar.”
Well, some of the Christians were from the “sect of Nazarene” who worshiped a sun god savior before the whole Christ thing supposedly happened. That is why there is a reference to Jesus being in Nazareth which was not established and given that name until the 2nd century. Therefore, having Jesus being called a “Nazarene” exposes just one more of the pagan influences which built the religion.
~~~
”If you want to start with Prophecy, I recommend reading Daniel - it is only 12 chapters. The prophecy of the 4 world kingdoms is in there, and its fulfillment is explained ahead of time. I'll start the discussion with this prophecy, then we can look at the 70 weeks. In the discussion of Prophecy, you might also be interested to note that the false church
which persecuted the saints is also mentioned and judged in Revalation. It was forseen that corruption would exist, but the remnant always remains.”
I had to laugh at this, “I’ll start the discussion with this prophecy.” You sound like a pompous preacher; I would be interested if you could pull it off.
~~~~~
Your Poison
-
I have to go for a while, but I'll be back to respond to your faulty history. In the meantime, I'll just respond to one that is easy. Jesus is spoken of by other historians. The first one that comes to mind is Josephus.
I'll respond to the rest when I get back. -
wow this was amazing! i loved it and I totally agree with you on this one! Christianity isnt about god anymore its about which religion is right AND who has more power, I hate it, This world would be better off without it. Its funny because god said he created us all equal yet christianity still places us in groups, it still divides us. Funny that. Take care GREAT poem well done! If i could applaud this a million times i would. ~QueenT~
-
blasphemous
nice poem...i despise the religion as well...
i consider most religions a waste but i really dislike this one...
cool poem...and i hope the christians fanatical crazies dont find you...because they will do the christian thing and burn you
-
'”When you have to resort to "self hypnosis," any argument is hopeless. When you go that far afield ... “
---
You misunderstood me. I am saying that your belief in feelings of being controlled by demon(s) and being freed by god is nothing more then self induced feeling. You have not supported any of your claims with evidence.
“I would be happy to go through the prophecies with you, but if you go to the point of "any evidence that Jesus of Nazereth ever existed," I think we would be headed in the direction of you looking at a lighted light bulb and swearing there is no proof it was on. “
The reason I am being specific about jesus is because the word means savior and there have been thousdants of those. But the man described in the bible never existed:
The traditional year of Jesus’s birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more then two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E. and there is NO record of mass slaughter being ordered by him. Also Jesus was also supposed to have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was disposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod’s death and there are no records of Jesus or his parents in any census. He was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberais, i.e., 28-29 C.E., when Potious Pilate was governor of Judaea, i.e., 26-36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abline and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanis ruled Abline from c. 40 B.C.E. until he was executed in 36 B.C.E. by Mark Anthony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberais and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests; in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from office of high priest in 15 C.E. after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became persist in c. 18 C.E., about three years after Annas…
And tell me why there has not been a single historian that wrote about jesus when he supposedly lived? Tell me why your only source of belief, bible, contradicts itself all over? Even about jesus… There are 29 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there are only three names in the two lists that are the same.
I will stop here, lets see some evidence for Jesus’s existence.
“Both were outlawed at the end of the first century AD and remained illegal until 313AD. During that time, Mirthraism, and various other religions were tolerated - so long as they would give offering to the genius of Caesar.”
-----
You are correct here. Yes those who refused to follow roman laws did get themselves in trouble. But so will you with your own government if you refuse to pay taxes or submit to other laws on religious bases. I am not saying that romans were fair to them, but those early christians did have a chose of being accepted as an other religion or cult of that time. The question that rises from this though is: Weren’t christians supposed to spread love and acceptance after they came to power? Why for 1700 years they have been mindlessly killing the innocent in attempts to enforce christianity on every culture and government?
Edited on Jun 09, 11:31 because ''. -
When you have to resort to "self hypnosis," any argument is hopeless. When you go that far afield ... Right there, you are holding to faith only as you are claiming I am doing.
I would be happy to go through the prophecies with you, but if you go to the point of "any evidence that Jesus of Nazereth ever existed," I think we would be headed in the direction of you looking at a lighted light bulb and swearing there is no proof it was on. If you really want to look at it, then we will, if you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.
I may not know you, but I do not fear you. You may think I have no idea who I am dealing with, but you have no power over me, nor will you ever. Faith, yes, but I challenge you to try it and see: Greater is He that is in me, than He that is in the world. See if you can hypnotize me out of that, or yourself into believing you've had power over me.
Judaism was a Religio Licito in the first century AD. In the first century, Christians were called "The sect of the Nazarene," by most Jews, but Christinity started out with the Jews. THey spread from the first church in Jerusalem outward. The first non Jewish church was in Pisidian Antioch. It was in this church where believers in Jesus were first called "Christians." Both Judaism and Christianity were persecuted at various times during the first century - it was not universal acceptance. Both were outlawed at the end of the first century AD and remained illegal until 313AD. During that time, Mirthraism, and various other religions were tolerated - so long as they would give offering to the genius of Caesar.
If you want to start with Prophecy, I recommend reading Daniel - it is only 12 chapters. The prophecy of the 4 world kingdoms is in there, and its fulfillment is explained ahead of time. I'll start the discussion with this prophecy, then we can look at the 70 weeks. In the discussion of Prophecy, you might also be interested to note that the false church which persecuted the saints is also mentioned and judged in Revalation. It was forseen that corruption would exist, but the remnant always remains. -
“'In the early period of the Roman Empire religious tolerance was widespread? I notice you started with Constatine, but skipped the entire period from Emperor Domitian until Constantine. I think you should know something of that period before you even start the rest. “
----
I was compressing few hundred years into a paragraph . My point was that many religions were tolerated in Rome until christianity and never after. And christianity was the source of prosecutions ever since, and your argument did NOTHING to disprove it.
”As for the prophecies, the odds of all the prophecies that were fulfilled in the Messiah's first coming ever being fulfilled in one person are about the same as…”
-----
Do you have any evidence at all to support that Jesus of Nathareth had EVER exited? As for those prophesies lets look them over shall we? What once were fulfilled? And most importantly where is the prove?
”You call yourself a pagan, but I see contradiction after contradiction in your page, and in your work. You are not sure yourself ... it's obvious.”
----
Not sure myself? LOL I know what and who I am, it is you who is unsure of who or what you are dealing with
“ I have experienced it first hand, and all the mind twisting influence of demonic power over my mind.”
----
Drugs are bad for you and daemons are your own.
“I also experienced the change of command when I cried out to God in Jesus name, and had the hand of the demon who had me in his grasp release me, and I experience freedom for the first time in years. “
Freedom is relative, you are a slave of the system. As for demons, as I stated before, there are none. You can convince yourself of anything though self hypnosis. Faith does not prove the existence of god or demons no mater how deeply you believe. Please provide evidence.
-
In the early period of the Roman Empire religious tolerance was widespread? I notice you started with Constatine, but skipped the entire period from Emperor Domitian until Constantine. I think you should know something of that period before you even start the rest.
As for the prophecies, the odds of all the prophecies that were fulfilled in the Messiah's first coming ever being fulfilled in one person are about the same as the entire state of Texas being covered 6 inches deep in quarters, then walking into Texas blindfolded for days, bending down, and picking up one particular quarter which you had predicted ahead of time. Over one trillion to one. All of them were fulfilled literally. With that precedence, it would be worth noting that there are 8 times as much prophecy about the second coming as there was about the first coming.
If you know prophecy, you should know the 4 world empires as prophesied by Daniel. This is not vague ambiguous stuff like Nostradamus. This is easy to understand when seen in the context of history. Specific enough that it gave those who did not believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy reason to fashion "Dual authorship" theories after the fact - they did not believe it just because "Daniel couldn't have known it" so it must have been written later - but its date is not in question.
You call yourself a pagan, but I see contradiction after contradiction in your page, and in your work. You are not sure yourself ... it's obvious. In this I have an advantage - I was carried away into spiritism and occultism. I have experienced it first hand, and all the mind twisting influence of demonic power over my mind. I also experienced the change of command when I cried out to God in Jesus name, and had the hand of the demon who had me in his grasp release me, and I experience freedom for the first time in years. This all occurred in my teenage years. Unless you have experience this, then you most definitely do not know where I am coming from, nor do you know about the God I serve. -
“In addition to what you write, Christians have been persecuted the world over. “
LOL while I see some parts of the world that would not submit to christianity and even prosecute its followers. However most of the time it is christianity prosecuting other religions, belief system, philosophy and science all over the world. Since you don’t appear to have any historic knowledge let me tell you a bit about Roman Empire where christianity as we know today started. I’ll try to make this short:
In early ears of Christianity in Rome many other religious movements were active in the Roman Empire: Greek Pagan religion, Judaism, Mithraism, Roman Pagan religion, various secret mystery religions, etc. Religious tolerance was widespread throughout the empire. Christian refusal to recognize the gods of others was offensive. Indeed the existence of the pagan gods was not denied outright; instead they were thought of as demons by Christians. Christians were often described as "misanthropic" (haters of mankind). This one-way religious tolerance lasted until emperor Constantine came to power. He gave the bishop of Rome imperial property where a new cathedral, the Lateran Basilica, would rise, and he provided for the building of other Christian churches across his part of the empire. Constantine granted the Christian clergy special privileges: he allowed people to will their property to the Church. He exempted the clergy from taxation, from military service and forced labor -- as had been granted to the priests of other recognized religions. The tax exemptions for the Christian clergy were followed by a number of wealthy men rushing to join the clergy, and in 320CE Constantine would correct this by making it illegal for rich pagans to claim tax exemptions as Christian priests. He put himself at the head of the Church's effort against heresy, and the bishops accepted Constantine as an authority on godly matters. By 341CE Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire through the evangelical efforts of the early church during the fourth century. The Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees. They effect of these orders was to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older Pagan religions." The period of relative religious tolerance in the Roman Empire ended as Pagan temples were seized and converted to Christian use or destroyed. Priests and Priestesses were exiled or killed. Christianity and Judaism became the only permitted religions. In Spain, bishop Priscillian, who taught some Gnostic beliefs became the first heretic executed by his fellow Christians for religious reasons. The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. By the end of the century, Pagan temples had been either destroyed or recycled for Christian use. Pagan worship became punishable by death.
My point is that from the moment christianity gained power and through today it is a religion that prosecutes just about everyone, including each other!
As for the prophesies you had mentioned, what makes you think they are any more legit then Norse “Ragnarok” for example ? There so many myths with savor gods involved, and most of them predate christianity .
Edited on Jun 08, 9:21 p.m. because ''. -
I will admit that many people have done terrible things in the name of God. They were wrong. Your poem, however, sounds like a threat.
It's not really a surprise even if it is a threat. In addition to what you write, Christians have been persecuted the world over. That was prophesied. It was also prophesied that a greater persecution is coming at the time of the end. I guess you just have to decide which side you want to take. I've read the last chapter. I know how it ends. I know where I want to stand. -
yay awesomeness
I agree--I'm going to print this one off. I love it! I'm not against Christians or any religion, actually I study the religions, and I see wars in every religion, so I think you've hit this on the nose. If you don't already listen to APC -- (A Perfect Circle) you really should check out their newest CD Emotive -- it's all about how war needs to be abolished. Nice job with this and keep writing!
*~amberlyn~* -
o0o0o very bold of you not many would "dis" a whole religion *nods* But i must say you aren't to off i really enjoyed
"How many witches have you burned ?
And how much heaven’s credit have you earned?
How many wars were fought for god?
How many more until you stop?!"
^_^ good job -
fucking awsome!
I love it. It's definately going on my door (is that ok?). I comply with a lot of what's in there. "And how much heaven’s credit have you earned?" I liked that line the most... -
“ I would also not think of any of them as "a plague" for a plague is something that one cannot fight and one is infected by it . However being that freedom of choice exists ...”
The analogy to a plague is that its spreading fast with no concern for its hosts. They are simply a food supply no multiply the plague bacteria further. In attempts to infect the next host Christianity will spam them with mail brochures, books, “special invitations”, etc. People will come coming over to your house every week trying to preach, you will also get numerous phone calls, no matter how many times you tell them not to call… You will be offered free things... Once you become a christian (a carrier), you are no longer of interest. You will be sent to bug other people to join your religion even if they don’t want to have anything to do with it. You will be expected to donate money and time to the church …
As for fighting the plague, your body can and will fight it. And with antibiotics you might have a good chance.
-
oh for goodness sake you're so argumentative some people on here!!I just voiced an opinion which is legitimate as far as I can see and I know a number of christian poets who don't just write about Jesus, I'm Christian i've only twice in my 63 poems written about Jesus!!but I'm not gonna bother saying anymore, the poem was good in its poetic style and language etc...there you go, I've commented on the poem!!
-
http://www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/1573625.htm
lol -
“The mistakes that have been made in the name of God are mans mistakes.”
Of course, god never existed.
“How silly to blame one religious group for these atrocities, or perhaps willingly blind. “
Why is it silly? But you don’t seem to find it silly to blame Hitler for the genocide… By the way Hitler does relate to Christianity, he used it to gain absolute power over people:
The rise of Hitler’s Germany shows an interesting case in point, showing a nation swept by militaristic sentiment coupled with a sense of divine mission. The churches accepted Hitler’s warmongering with religious joy in April 1937, a Christian organization in the Rhineland passed a resolution that Hitler’s word was the law of god and possessed “divine authority” Reichsminister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl announced: there has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christians really are- that is Adolph Hitler. Adolph Hitler… is the true Holy Ghost.” And so the pious gave him their blessing and the churches gave him God’s. – Walker
“Mao killed 3 million in the name of social conquest, Stalin killed 6 million more for the sake of a cause. African nations kill 900,000 and bury them in mass graves. What of Muslems, Jew's, Hindu's , are their hands clean? “
Am I making a claim that any religion is better or that it has not spilled blood of the innocent? Your point is irrelevant.
“Or are you refering to Druids, Wiccans, Sananists, or any other "club" religion? They have spawned more serial killers in this country than all other religions combined ( look it up).”
LOL I hope you are able to support this claim.
“ Wake up. The failure is not in God, but man.”
Wake up. God doesn’t exist.
“Insulting others without a clear picture of reality is childish and petty.”
Since my view of reality obviously clouded by religious dogmas and biases it must be indeed unclear, so why don’t you enlighten me with your superior(christian) view of reality.
Edited on Jun 08, 1:34 p.m. because ''. -
Who are the "we" at the end. Your flow and wording are excellent up until this point. Perhaps you need another paragraph to explain who "we" are.
As for the content, all I will say is that I disagree with it.
Keep writing. -
“Hi, very religeon has made its mistakes”
True except for the spelling of religion
“every person has the right to chose their beliefs”
True, but none should have the right to shuffle their believes down my throat.
“it would be a good thing to take a long cold look at our own, I think you will find non are perfect. “
I have none, no religion that is.
-
"The mistakes that have been made in the name of God are mans mistakes."
Of course. God doesn't exist. No mistakes are REALLY his fault.
"How silly to blame one religious group for these atrocities, or perhaps willingly blind. Mao killed 3 million in the name of social conquest, Stalin killed 6 million more for the sake of a cause. African nations kill 900,000 and bury them in mass graves."
Who they killed is completely irrelevant to the blame he's heaping on Christianity and Christians. One doesn't discount Hitler's actions because, at some other point in time, some other individual was behind genocide. And Christianity has been plaguing the earth for 2000 years, not a couple decades, and it forms an entire framework of life-denying shame-inducing absolutist morality that's derived from ignorant, illiterate goat herders. I'd much rather derive my philosophy and ethics in a progressive, open-minded, rational way, as opposed to basing it entirely off books written by a bunch of men with different views, then proclaiming the entire hodgepodge pile the absolute, infallible word of God himself. It's ridiculous, and there is no rational basis to suppose that the Bible is any such thing. Christianity is no more "true" than African tribal religions that teach that we all came from Ostrich crap.
"What of Muslems, Jew's, Hindu's , are their hands clean?"
No, and I'm pretty sure Vashen will agree with me when I say they all worship nonexistent beings and that all of these religions have been involved in atrocious deeds they attempted to justify with religion – and do so to this day.
“They have spawned more serial killers in this country than all other religions combined ( look it up)”
Really? Can you back this claim up? Sources, please.
“Wake up. The failure is not in God, but man.”
He already knows that.
“Insulting others without a clear picture of reality is childish and petty.”
Assuming others who disagree with you don’t have a “clear picture” or lack understanding is highly suspicious, but I’d also say it could be rather ignorant and presumptuous, too. -
No, I disagree. The best thing to do with poetry is uh...insult Christians (sarcasm). Hey, while we're on insulting people, why don't you actually comment on the poem rather than just generalize about the author and waste space making irrelevent comments? I don't ask Christian poets why they ONLY write about Jesus, do you?
-
Wow, I liked this. The last line is a little weak, though.
-
I will combine your experience with mine and say that as I see it, people in general take offence at what they define as somehow, in some way, wrong. In general, most people in most societies are conditioned by that society what is and is not offensive, even if that conditioning is reverse-conditioning. a Satanist's personal code of what does and does not offend is more personally subjctive than societally objective. My use of the terms "right and wrong" were used more in that sense than in the more traditional one.
Thank you for you applause on my comment.
-
I do not belong to any organised religion myself (such is my choice) however I would also not think of any of them as "a plague" for a plague is something that one cannot fight and one is infected by it . However being that freedom of choice exists ...I feel as I can live harmoniously with those that believe differently than I . I do agree with the part however that religion is usually an undercurrent of many wars , and therein lies the shame of it
Reenie
-
Dear Dominangel. Most Satanists don't believe in right or wrong, just what they themselves take offence to... I agree with all of your other statements & mayhap you will agree with mine.
Adding your comment:
121 old applause
