Is Satan really evil or is God just making stuff up?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|TyrantDragon55

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

Will you take an Agnostic? The rise of Christianity was a huge part of what made the roman empire fall, I'd say that's pretty damn relevant.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|yoshi-lnex

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

Throughout history many artists and philosophers are not fully discovered or appreciated until after their death.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|yoshi-lnex

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

So, we can't write about a historical person or event unless that event or person is happening right now? There goes 99.9% of history!:roll:

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

And you act like the Bible isn't historically accurate? The Gospels are the most detailed and reliable documents we have from that era!

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|TyrantDragon55

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

Throughout history many artists and philosophers are not fully discovered or appreciated until after their death.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|Dracargen

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

So, we can't write about a historical person or event unless that event or person is happening right now? There goes 99.9% of history!:roll:

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

And you act like the Bible isn't historically accurate? The Gospels are the most detailed and reliable documents we have from that era! (Proof? sounds like an assumption to me, I know that's what christianity is, but still...)

Oh, and I counter your wiki article with another

LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLCptJSparrow

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

I actually meant more along the lines of having evidence to support their existence, or even any evidence at all.

Oh, and I counter your wiki article with another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There]yoshi-lnex

"Flemming asserts that the divine Jesus was based on older, mythic "savior figures" such as Thor, Balder, Beddru, Deva tat, Dionysus, Mithras, Bacchus and Horus, arguing that these figures shared one or more similarities to Jesus, including being born of a virgin on December 25, being killed on a cross or tree, being visited by Magi from the East, riding donkeys into the city and being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, etc. Flemming accuses Christian leaders of being reluctant to teach early church history because it supports, rather than debunks, the theory that Jesus was a mythic figure rather than a historic personage. "

That's where I stopped.

That is the biggest load of bull**** ever thought up. That "theory" has been disproven so thouroghly that there is absolutely no credit to it or its proponents; to cite that is desperation incarnate.

As for the Gospels, http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

Criticism of Biblical texts is nodifferent than criticism of any other ancient text. They are historically accurate.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

[QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLDracargen

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLDracargen

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

Josephus (A.D. 37 - c. A.D. 100)

Josephus' Antiquities (early 2nd century A.D.) refers to Jesus in two separate passages. The common translation of the first passage, Book 18, Ch. 3, part 3, is disputed and is most likely from an altered source. F. F. Bruce has provided a more likely translation:

Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross, those who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble, and the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him is not extinct even today.

The translations of this passage are discussed in Josephus: Testimonium Flavianum from Jesus.com.au.

The second passage is from Book 20, Ch. 9, part 1:

...so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...

(Note: The Antiquities can be found at several different sites, including the Christian ****cs Ethereal Library, Perseus Digital Library and Crosswalk.com)

Tacitus (c. A.D. 55 - c. A.D. 117)

Annals, book XV:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a ****hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Suetonius (c. A.D. 69 - c. A.D. 140)

Lives of the Caesars - Claudius, sec. 25:

He banished from Rome all the Jews, who were continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.

Lives of the Caesars - Nero, sec. 16

Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a ****of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.

Julius Africanus (c. 160 - c. 240)

Chronography, XVIII refers to writings by Thallus and Phlegon concerning the darkness during the Crucifixion:

On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun...Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth - manifestly that one of which we speak.

Origen (c. 185 - c. 254)

In Against Celsus, Origen quotes Celsus, a second-century skeptic, on Jesus. Celsus' view of Christians and Christianity, an article from Bluffton College, contains relevant excerpts.

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c. 113)

Letters, 10.96-97 records Pliny's dealings with Christians

Many people were never even heard of until long after their deaths. . .

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLCptJSparrow

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

When it comes to historical documents, they are assumed true until proven false by other, more reliable documaents.

For example, we uncover a document that says there was a big storm near the Fertile Crescent in the year 123.

But we see in a more reliable document that it was very dry that year.

The burdon of proof is on the skeptic to disprove these documents; If he can't, then there is no reason to believe they are fake outside of our own paranoia.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLCptJSparrow

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

The document has to be written in the period between 0 - 37, and by official Roman sources. If you can link me a document meeting this criteria, I'll drop my arguement and admit the existence of Jesus.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLDracargen

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

When it comes to historical documents, they are assumed true until proven false by other, more reliable documaents.

For example, we uncover a document that says there was a big storm near the Fertile Crescent in the year 123.

But we see in a more reliable document that it was very dry that year.

The burdon of proof is on the skeptic to disprove these documents; If he can't, then there is no reason to believe they are fake outside of our own paranoia.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLjointed

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

The document has to be written in the period between 0 - 37, and by official Roman sources. If you can link me a document meeting this criteria, I'll drop my arguement and admit the existence of Jesus.

[

The document has to be written in the period between 0 - 37, and by official Roman sources. If you can link me a document meeting this criteria, I'll drop my arguement and admit the existence of Jesus.

jointed

I like how your criteria falls under the years before Josephus was born, which was the year 37.:|

[QUOTE="jointed"][

The document has to be written in the period between 0 - 37, and by official Roman sources. If you can link me a document meeting this criteria, I'll drop my arguement and admit the existence of Jesus.

Dracargen

I like how your criteria falls under the years before Josephus was born, which was the year 37.:|

Yeah, around the time of Jesus..

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]LOL PROVE TO ME THAT SILVER_DRAGON17 EXISTS LOL LOL END CONVERSATION LOLCptJSparrow

http://www.gamespot.com/users/Silver_Dragon17/

Fabrications!:o

Well, if there are no historical documents from 0-37 confirming the existence of Jesus... we can't be sure he existed. And if he did, the writings about him can't be considered accurate...at all.

So Josephus is inaccurate. . okay.

I supoose we'd better stop writing about the American Revolution. . .or, you know, any history at all. . .since that hasn't happened for over two-hundred years. . .

Your logic fails...

There are documents from the time around the revolution. There are documents proving the existences of the American troublemakers.

But we have no documents drirectly confirming the existence of Jesus.

The document has to be written in the period between 0 - 37, and by official Roman sources. If you can link me a document meeting this criteria, I'll drop my arguement and admit the existence of Jesus.

It will not prove his existence 100%. But the credibility of such documents is essentially higher then documents written decades after his alleged death...and that's good enough for me.

This is assuming that the mere reality that these documents appear to exist in, is real.--But I will assume it is in order to inquire a bit more...Who established the precedent that the burden of proof is on the skeptic? I have always seen it as evidence for the document's asserted accuracy weighed against evidence for the document's skeptic.CptJSparrow

This reality may or may not be real, but there is no reason to believe it isn't, therefore, in order to keep our sanity, we must assume it is.:P

As for who established this, I do not know. But when proving the accuracy of an historical document, we have to look at what the document is about.

Another example: I find a document that says the Declaration of Independance was written in the year 1778. Now, assuming I know nothing about the Declaration's first writing, I check out sources that say 1776, see how reliable they are in comparison to the 1778 document, and eventually I'm going to conclude that the document I have is false and that the Declaration was written in 1776.

Instead of that process, say somebody sees my document and says "Nuh-uh! It was written in 1776!" He is the one who has to go looking for the proof to show me I'm wrong.

But that's just one way. I think there are others.

It will not prove his existence 100%. But the credibility of such documents is essentially higher then documents written decades after his alleged death...and that's good enough for me.

jointed

Read this: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

I still say that Satan is only represented as evil because he doesn't believe in god. Isn't that what original stanism was? Not believing in a god?-Sniper99-

Satan believes in God more than anybody else on Earth.:|

[QUOTE="jointed"]

It will not prove his existence 100%. But the credibility of such documents is essentially higher then documents written decades after his alleged death...and that's good enough for me.

Dracargen

Read this: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Okay I'll do that, tektonics is , after all, a completely unbiased website...

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

It will not prove his existence 100%. But the credibility of such documents is essentially higher then documents written decades after his alleged death...and that's good enough for me.

jointed

Read this: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Okay I'll do that, tektonics is , after all, a completely unbiased website...

In this case, yes, it is.:|

[QUOTE="-Sniper99-"]I still say that Satan is only represented as evil because he doesn't believe in god. Isn't that what original stanism was? Not believing in a god?Dracargen

Satan believes in God more than anybody else on Earth.:|

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="jointed"]

It will not prove his existence 100%. But the credibility of such documents is essentially higher then documents written decades after his alleged death...and that's good enough for me.

Dracargen

Read this: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Okay I'll do that, tektonics is , after all, a completely unbiased website...

In this case, yes, it is.:|

No it's not...

I can post you a bunch of crappy links from anti-christianity sites about "the Jesus myth"...but it won't further this discussion.

If Jesus existed, why won't you show me any documents that meet my criteria? (the Romans are after all famous for their documentations of.... almost anything).

Everyone always says that God is the good guy, but ever heard of the term "scapegoat"?

How do we know that Satans views are being fairly represented in the bible? Satan made some points about pleasures of the flesh being good, God rattles on about how evil gay people are (they really don't seem evil to me) and everyone automatically sides with God?

You know what else is true? Fire is cool. Yeah, I said it. Brimstone is a pretty rock too. And why exactly aren't animals allowed into heaven? Animals are cool. My cat can play the Piano so I think he deserves to get into Heaven, don't you?

stopitandtidyup

In what part of the bible says god that gays are evil?

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] This is assuming that the mere reality that these documents appear to exist in, is real.--But I will assume it is in order to inquire a bit more...Who established the precedent that the burden of proof is on the skeptic? I have always seen it as evidence for the document's asserted accuracy weighed against evidence for the document's skeptic.Dracargen

This reality may or may not be real, but there is no reason to believe it isn't, therefore, in order to keep our sanity, we must assume it is.:P

As for who established this, I do not know. But when proving the accuracy of an historical document, we have to look at what the document is about.

Another example: I find a document that says the Declaration of Independance was written in the year 1778. Now, assuming I know nothing about the Declaration's first writing, I check out sources that say 1776, see how reliable they are in comparison to the 1778 document, and eventually I'm going to conclude that the document I have is false and that the Declaration was written in 1776.

Instead of that process, say somebody sees my document and says "Nuh-uh! It was written in 1776!" He is the one who has to go looking for the proof to show me I'm wrong.

But that's just one way. I think there are others.

[QUOTE="stopitandtidyup"]

Everyone always says that God is the good guy, but ever heard of the term "scapegoat"?

How do we know that Satans views are being fairly represented in the bible? Satan made some points about pleasures of the flesh being good, God rattles on about how evil gay people are (they really don't seem evil to me) and everyone automatically sides with God?

You know what else is true? Fire is cool. Yeah, I said it. Brimstone is a pretty rock too. And why exactly aren't animals allowed into heaven? Animals are cool. My cat can play the Piano so I think he deserves to get into Heaven, don't you?

big_boss4life

In what part of the bible says god that gays are evil?

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|TyrantDragon55

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

Will you take an Agnostic? The rise of Christianity was a huge part of what made the roman empire fall, I'd say that's pretty damn relevant.

There's absolutely no denying what Christianity has done in history, but my focus is on the person of Jesus Christ. Just because the whole basis on Christianity is from him, doesn't make him "historically relevant."

The real question is ,

Is God really evil, or is Satan just making stuff up?

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="gasmaskman"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]Jesus was a historical person, you know.:|gasmaskman

No he isn't. The only proof of him exists in the Bible. He does nothing relevant to provide the teaching in our school systems.

:lol::lol::lol:

Man, I will get ATHEISTS to back me on this: Jesus was as real as Ghandi.

Will you take an Agnostic? The rise of Christianity was a huge part of what made the roman empire fall, I'd say that's pretty damn relevant.

There's absolutely no denying what Christianity has done in history, but my focus is on the person of Jesus Christ. Just because the whole basis on Christianity is from him, doesn't make him "historically relevant."

Paul had much more to do with the spread of Christianity than Jesus himself did. I think most historians would agree with that.

I was about to writ a long post of the similarities in Christian, Norse Sumerian and Greek mythologies, comparing Lucifer (the light-bringer) and Prometheus, Pandora and Eve. The Legend of Jonah appearing in the Sumerian mythology, as well as the Deluge figuring in several religions (Greek, Hindu, Epic of Gilgamesh). But it got too long, and you can simply use wikipedia to check it up.

So ill just quote Stephen Roberts: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Cheers

If you look at Genesis 2 and the Tower of Babel, god doesn't come across all that well. Genesis 2, God lies, serpent tells truth. Tower of Babel: all humanity works together; God feels threatened, makes them all speak different languages. This happens, imo, because these stories are adapted from the Jahwist source; basically babylonian folk traditions featuring good and bad deities, but there can only be 1 in the bible, so somewhere something' going to have to give.

I've heard that Satan in Jewish mythology isn't actually that "bad" of a guy compared to his Christian counterpart.

aw, ****. who bumped this?

Yeah, this topic? From December of 2007.

Satan bumped it, I think.

Yeah, this topic? From December of 2007.

Satan bumped it, I think.

Theokhoth

no, it was agent517 and to think that this was his first post.......

He's evil alright, but I don't think it's all he's cracked up to be. Like, combined, humanity is more evil than Satan. Satan can be a scary guy, but he really isn't the source of all evil.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Yeah, this topic? From December of 2007.

Satan bumped it, I think.

MFaraz_Hayat

no, it was agent517 and to think that this was his first post.......

WARNING USER HAS ENTERED RANT MODE

God is an egotistical person believe in my son or pay for the sins which we had nothing to do about just because two people were stupid enough not to listen doesn't mean that all humans are as stupid. Also, I can sorta side with what satan was thinking except for the praise him as well part. God created the angels to serve and praise him (aka pretty much slaves) Then he goes and creates the human race who has free will, yet the angels are still forced to praise him. I call BS I could care less if god comes to my door right now I'd tell him that unless he lets people who are good into heaven and not just thoes who believe in his son then he can go right ahead and **** himself.

Yes, I said it god is a ****ing selfcentered, egotistical, maniac. What happens to the people who never even heard of Jesus do they just get sent to hell with everyone else who didn't know or believed. How fear is that this is my #1 problem with christianity. Also, when I say my view point to a christian they say don't worry about others worry about your own soul. I mean WTF I though the point was to spread the glory of god so why the **** shouldn't I be worried about others souls.

Only reason I'd want god to be real is so that all these christian didn't waste their life serving some made a person in a book which was created by mortal men.

RANT OVER...

WARNING USER HAS ENTERED RANT MODE

God is an egotistical person believe in my son or pay for the sins which we had nothing to do about just because two people were stupid enough not to listen doesn't mean that all humans are as stupid. Also, I can sorta side with what satan was thinking except for the praise him as well part. God created the angels to serve and praise him (aka pretty much slaves) Then he goes and creates the human race who has free will, yet the angels are still forced to praise him. I call BS I could care less if god comes to my door right now I'd tell him that unless he lets people who are good into heaven and not just thoes who believe in his son then he can go right ahead and **** himself.

Yes, I said it god is a ****ing selfcentered, egotistical, maniac. What happens to the people who never even heard of Jesus do they just get sent to hell with everyone else who didn't know or believed. How fear is that this is my #1 problem with christianity. Also, when I say my view point to a christian they say don't worry about others worry about your own soul. I mean WTF I though the point was to spread the glory of god so why the **** shouldn't I be worried about others souls.

Only reason I'd want god to be real is so that all these christian didn't waste their life serving some made a person in a book which was created by mortal men.

RANT OVER...

blackldragon

Wooooooooo! That was fun to read. (Seriously)

Wooooooooo! That was fun to read. (Seriously)

Shad0ki11

lol After actually reading it myself I don't think I made my self very clear. Maybe one day I'll rewrite everything and just post a new topic to see who agrees or not. Horrible sentence structure, grammer, etc. I couldn't even understand some of the stuff I said. Guess that what happens when you rant. :D