Part 11 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Why is your biased opinion any better without any shred of evidence?
So I see your satan side is speaking again. Or is it still. lol. ok buddy.

 

Isn't the catholic church the front man for the mafia?

 

You said I never answered the question and I told you I have and so you need to actually see my response, until then you will misinterpret which is what you are good at...lol

So go back and see how I answered your question. Along the way take notes...lol

 

As others have asked. What purpose was Jesus. If he isn't needed for eternal bliss, then why send him? To mess up people who have heard of him? But can't fathom if he was a miracle man or not.

 

Native americans have their own spiritual world and will never be in the God of abrahams heaven or hell. They have their own spritual resting place.

- - - Updated - - -

Well he did prove you speak for satan and not christianity.
So we'll give that one to Gorn Captain.

 

Satan will keep all things to satan.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't misinterpret. But I do get a runaround ala satan style.

 

Where does the Bible said "Believe what you want...we're cool"?

Nope Galileo was put on trial to save him from his secular rivals heresy was just an excuse to satisfied his enemies.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy
It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved.

Yup, a very devoted Catholic was Galileo that the church came to his aid and protection against his secular enemies.

 

We already know history has already been written and happened without the Catholic church no modern Europe only barbarians, Muslims, Hindus and Chinese man gods and no atheism.

Europe is what it is now because of Christianity and modern India, Japan and China are where they are now thanks to Europe modern industries.

Christian Europe = industrial Europe = modern Europe = the World = India under British Christian, America under Europe Christian, Japan influence by Europe Christian etc. etc. = World Progress!

 

The Catholic church is the front man of God and the mafia is your government.

 

Tough Question because man today we can say with absolute certainty that we aren't exactly angels but with God punishing to death all but 8 people it speaks volumes of how bad people must have been during the time of Noah.

 

Lol! Yeah I'm going in order, where you talking sometime in June or July of 014?...lol

Hey, at least I'm still here...eh? And I'm still chugging along...choo!...choo!

 

The belief is that under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses wrote Chapter 1 of Genesis.

 

Simmer down Grasp!...such language! You know Inc made a good point. You guys know you can't argue with Inc...cause he always wins...he is the forum's debating champ!

 

No kidding sherlock!...lol Can't argue with you here...cause you are right. The Christian religion as we know got it's official/initial start when the disciples of Jesus witnessed Jesus reappearing to them after He'd been dead for 3 days. So they were the witnesses to His resurrection. This happened just a tad short of 2000 years ago.

 

So suppose the Noah story is true. Which one of the eight wrote the story?

 

I have just woken from a good nights sleep and I have no intention on going on a wild goose chase.

 

Two other factors led into this feedback process. One was the cycle of Church corruption and reform where people would donate land to the Church in hopes of saving their souls. This would make the Church rich and corrupt, which would trigger a new round of reforms by devout church members. The reformed Church would thus attract more donations of land, and the cycle would start over.

As a result, the Church had large amounts of land, making it a major source of wealth and power in the early medieval state. This created the problem of local nobles fighting and scheming to control Church lands. Typically, they would give their younger sons the offices of bishop or abbot (head of a monastery) while passing the family lands on to the older sons. However, putting a bishop's robes on a young noble did not usually change his wild and warlike ways, and we find bishops and abbots engaged in drinking bouts and fighting in the front ranks of battle along with the most unruly of the other nobles. The problem of these ambitious nobles trying to gain control of Church lands also fed into the vicious cycle of land regenerating wealth, making nobles more independent, and so on.

Naturally, this situation did little for the piety of the Church. Also, as a result, the lower clergy were largely unsupervised, illiterate, and ignorant of the religion they were supposedly in charge of, while carrying on fairly lax lifestyles themselves. This is not to say there were not any good pious Christians at the time. One of the remarkable things about the history of the medieval Church is the fact that pious individuals did exist and occasionally prevailed against the corruption that constantly plagued the Church. Still, the view we get of the early medieval Church is not a very pretty one.

http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/birth/5/FC41-2

 

And the church do not deny any of those dark church years all of the church history were well and fully archived those people are just men that are bound to sin just like there are also many good and saintly Christians who lived a very true Christian life and made great contribution to the expansion and modernization of civilization, science and medicine.

 

Your denial borders the realms of babbling unrealistic incoherent nonsense. Can't you come up with a denial that at least borders the realms of non-babbling realistic coherent sense?

Let me again tell you something that is not babbling unrealistic incoherent nonsense. The Genesis account was kept pure and accurate throughout the centuries by the benevolent guidance of God until it was finally written down by Moses.

 

No, he was not an eyewitness, and you're right, he could not have been, for he wasn't even born yet. The belief is that under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Moses wrote Chapter 1 of Genesis.

Ooops! you were doing good but now you're wrong. Moses was the lead star character of the Exodus story as well as the writer of the story.

 

You're talking to yourself here...right?...lol

 

Yeah, I agree you simply tell it like it is, that you are angry, hateful and spiteful. But what you can't see, others can see plainly to let you know but of course what you can't see yourself you will be in denial of it.

You got to get over you childhood experiences you encountered with those Catholic priests. Ask God to help you because it is evident you can't do it yourself and so you need divine help from the Almighty!

 

Moses get credit for writing the book of Deuteronomy. Did he also write Deuteronomy chapter 34?

 

Of course not, that's when Joshua took over the helms, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

So Moses gets credit for writing the book except for the chapter(s) that he didn't write. Why should anyone believe he wrote any of them since there's not any passages that says that he wrote them? At least in the New Testament the writer gave himself a name and took credit for writing the stuff.