05 Apr 14
Originally posted by FMFI dont peddle chemical anything and I find it not a little insulting that you insinuate that I do for I have afforded you the dignity of terming your garden organic while I must suffer the indignation of having mine termed 'artificial'. Jesus was real, his teachings are sublime and there for all to examine in the pages of the Bible, his example is in my opinion unsurpassed, there is nothing artificial about it.
I now live my life without the chemical pellets you peddle and feel much better for it.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCalm down. The whole point of my analogy was that the bible is not credible = manufactured = artificial fertilizer, and not needed for a 'spiritual flower' to grow. Insulting? Indignant? Calm down, robbie.
I dont peddle chemical anything and I find it not a little insulting that you insinuate that I do for I have afforded you the dignity of terming your garden organic while I must suffer the indignation of having mine termed 'artificial'. Jesus was real, his teachings are sublime and there for all to examine in the pages of the Bible, his example is in my opinion unsurpassed, there is nothing artificial about it.
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOk I understand, so you make your own compost FMF. I remain calm and capable of rational thought.
Calm down. The whole point of [b]my analogy was that the bible is not credible = manufactured = artificial fertilizer, and not needed for a 'spiritual flower' to grow. Insulting? Indignant? Calm down, robbie.[/b]
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTake a breather. Stop pretending that this light-hearted analogy is "insulting". Your's did not work for me so I offered my own. Calm down. Don't pretend to be "indignant" when someone doesn't find your religion's literature credible. 😀
I remain calm and capable of rational thought.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm not going to type it all out again.
I would just like to ask, if I may, did you have any aversion to a particular portion of the book of revelation, for it must be admitted that its not entirely easy to put the constituent parts together so as to form a whole.
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI dont think you mentioned any passages FMF, for example like the vision of the seven headed wild beast, or the two horned wild beast, or the harlot who drinks the blood of 'Gods loyal ones' and who fornicates with the 'Kings of the earth', etc etc,
I'm not going to type it all out again.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe book is bogus.
I dont think you mentioned any passages FMF, for example like the vision of the seven headed wild beast, or the two horned wild beast, or the harlot who drinks the blood of 'Gods loyal ones' and who fornicates with the 'Kings of the earth', etc etc,
05 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOk fine, but surely there must have been some passages that particularly irked you? resplendent new Jerusalem, the glassy sea, the four living creatures, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the council to the seven congregation of Asia minor etc etc
The book is bogus.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat irked me was that it was bogus. You should simply go on believing it is authentic if you want to. Neither of us affect each other on this issue. I am just a bit disappointed that you did not have the objectivity or empathy to be able to answer the OP question but have instead been trying to defend the book by various means; all of which has been not so interesting.
Ok fine, but surely there must have been some passages that particularly irked you? resplendent new Jerusalem, the glassy sea, the four living creatures. the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the council to the seven congregation of Asia minor etc etc
05 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFWhen someone makes a claim, a truth claim about a book like, 'its bogus', and then produces no actual example from the contents of the book itself which demonstrates its 'bogus nature', what are we to think FMF?
What irked me was that it was bogus. You should simply go on believing it is authentic if you want to. Neither of us affect each other on this issue. I am just a bit disappointed that you did not have the objectivity or empathy to be able to answer the OP question but have instead been trying to defend the book by various means; all of which has been not so interesting.
05 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAuthorship: no agreement on who even wrote it. The "vision": why should anyone believe claims about its authenticity? Was there a "vision" at all? Where's the corroboration? Where's the evidence that anything supernatural occurred? No credibility. No reason to accept it as genuine and no reason to accept any teaching based on it.
When someone makes a claim, a truth claim about a book like, 'its bogus', and then produces no actual example from the contents of the book itself which demonstrates its 'bogus nature', what are we to think FMF?
The content of the book ~ "the seven headed wild beast, ...the two horned wild beast, ...the harlot who drinks the blood of 'Gods loyal ones' and who fornicates with the 'Kings of the earth'" ~ is neither here nor there. I don't think the Book Of Mormon is credible either. Or The Koran. I don't need to discuss the contents of them either.