krustofskie
Well-Known Member
All hail the the almighty Snail. It is so written.
Religion Has Done More Bad Than Good
- Thread starter grape swisha
- Start date
krustofskie
Well-Known Member
What about Hindu's just to name one. Lots of gods there.
lou~dog
Well-Known Member
very true. Its just mind control, look at all the idiots that voted for bush and how badly they fucked our country. DON'T vote bible!
krustofskie
Well-Known Member
Mainly the "churches" (change according to the religion) behind the religions, until recent history when church has been removed from the state. Now its the fanatics turn to use the word of God to suit their means.
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
I see you kids are home from school already.
Theocracy is bad mmmkay?
People tend to do bad things in spite of religion.
Using your logic you could say white/black people have done more bad than good.
Bigotry always thinks it's on the right side, but singling out religion for your hatred, is no different than any other personal lifestyle choice.
Theocracy is bad mmmkay?
People tend to do bad things in spite of religion.
Using your logic you could say white/black people have done more bad than good.
Bigotry always thinks it's on the right side, but singling out religion for your hatred, is no different than any other personal lifestyle choice.
krustofskie
Well-Known Member
Its not hatred, just observation of how the powers at be controlling the religions have abused its influence of people to meet their own ends.
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
anyone who's concerned with the attacks on, and erosion of, religious freedoms in America, should read this. There's also a link to this material at the bottom.
The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection https://www.rollitup.org/200906035014/culture-wars/the-white-house-attack-on-religion-continuesrepealing-conscience-protection/print.html https://www.rollitup.org/component/option,com_mailto/link,aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yaWdodHNpZGVuZXdzLmNvbS8yMDA5MDYwMzUwMTQvY3VsdHVyZS13YXJzL3RoZS13aGl0ZS1ob3VzZS1hdHRhY2stb24tcmVsaWdpb24tY29udGludWVzcmVwZWFsaW5nLWNvbnNjaWVuY2UtcHJvdGVjdGlvbi5odG1s/tmpl,component/ Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40
June 3, 2009
by David Barton
WallBuilders.com
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.
A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs.
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.
- - - ◊ ◊ ◊ - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182
correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12
While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:
The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection
Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40
June 3, 2009
by David Barton
WallBuilders.com
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.
A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs.
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.
- - - ◊ ◊ ◊ - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182 correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12
While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:
The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection https://www.rollitup.org/200906035014/culture-wars/the-white-house-attack-on-religion-continuesrepealing-conscience-protection/print.html https://www.rollitup.org/component/option,com_mailto/link,aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yaWdodHNpZGVuZXdzLmNvbS8yMDA5MDYwMzUwMTQvY3VsdHVyZS13YXJzL3RoZS13aGl0ZS1ob3VzZS1hdHRhY2stb24tcmVsaWdpb24tY29udGludWVzcmVwZWFsaW5nLWNvbnNjaWVuY2UtcHJvdGVjdGlvbi5odG1s/tmpl,component/ Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40
June 3, 2009
by David Barton
WallBuilders.com
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.
A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs.
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.
- - - ◊ ◊ ◊ - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182
correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12 While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:
- The Bible is the most republican book in the world. 13 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, U. S. PRESIDENT
- I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian Religeon to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world. 14 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
- [T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 15 NOAH WEBSTER, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER, LEGISLATOR, JUDGE
- They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments. 16 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
- [T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. 17 DANIEL WEBSTER, "DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"
The White House Attack on Religion Continues : Repealing Conscience Protection
Written by David Barton Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:40 June 3, 2009
by David Barton
WallBuilders.com
Some of the first acts of the new presidential administration make it clear that there has been a dramatic change in the way that traditional religious faith is going to be handled at the White House. For example, when the new White House website went public immediately following the inauguration, it dropped the previously prominent section on the faith-based office.
A second visible change was related to hiring protections for faith-based activities and organizations. On February 5, President Obama announced that he would no longer extend the same unqualified level of hiring protections observed by the previous administration but instead would extend those traditional religious protections to faith-based organizations only on a "case-by-case" basis. 1
Significantly, hiring protections allow religious organizations to hire those employees who hold the same religious convictions as the organization. As a result, groups such as [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Catholic[/COLOR][/COLOR] Relief Services can hire just Catholics; and the same is true with Protestant, Jewish, and other religious groups. With hiring protections, religious groups cannot be forced to hire those who disagree with their beliefs and values - for example, Evangelical organizations cannot be required to hire homosexuals, pro-life groups don't have to hire pro-choice advocates, etc.
Hiring protections are inherent within the First Amendment's guarantee for religious liberty and right of association, and were additionally statutorily established in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress subsequently strengthened those protections, declaring that any "religious corporation, association, education institution, or society" could consider the applicants' religious faith during the hiring process. 2 The Supreme Court upheld hiring protections in 1987, 3 and Congress has included those protections in numerous federal laws. 4 But when Democrats regained Congress in 2007, on a party-line vote they began removing hiring protections for faith-based organizations. 5
The current concern about the weakening of traditional faith-based hiring protections is heightened by the White House's announcement of President Obama's commitment to "pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]sexual [COLOR=green !important]orientation[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]." 6 This act would fully repeal faith-based hiring protections related to Biblical standards of morality and behavior, thus directly attacking the theological autonomy of churches, synagogues, and every other type of religious organization by not allowing them to choose whether or not they want to hire homosexuals onto their [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]ministry[/COLOR][/COLOR] staffs.
The administration's third attack on religion occurred in the President's stimulus bill, which included a provision specifically denying stimulus funds to renovate higher educational facilities "(i) used for sectarian instruction or religious worship; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission." 7 As Republican Senator Jim DeMint (SC) explained, "any university or college that takes any of the money in this bill to renovate an auditorium, a dorm, or student center could not hold a National [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Prayer[/COLOR][/COLOR] Breakfast." 8 Sen. DeMint therefore introduced an amendment to "allow the free exercise of religion at institutions of higher education that receive funding," 9 but his amendment was defeated along a party-line vote.
The fourth attack on tradition religious faith appeared in President Obama's 2010 proposed budget, which included a seven-percent cut in the deduction for charitable giving. Experts calculate that this will result in a drop of $6 billion in contributions to charitable organizations, including to religious groups. 10
The fifth attack is the White House's announcement that it will seek the repeal of conscience protection for health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other health activities that violate their consciences. 11
In order to fully understand the far-reaching ramifications of this announcement, it will be helpful to review the history of conscience protection in the United States.
- - - ◊ ◊ ◊ - - -Today's liberals and secularists attempt to relegate the effects of America's Judeo-Christian heritage exclusively to the realm of a personal theological choice, ignoring the fact that Judeo-Christian teachings also encompass a philosophy of living that is directly proportional to the degree of civil liberty enjoyed in a society. Early statesman Dewitt Clinton (1769-182
correctly recognized that Biblical faith applies not just "to our destiny in the world to come" but also "in reference to its influence on this world," and therefore must always "be contemplated in [these] two important aspects." 12 While today's post-modern critics refuse to acknowledge the dual aspects of Judeo-Christian faith, America's Framers wisely recognized and heartily endorsed the influence of those teachings on the civil arena - especially on the formation of America's unique republican (i.e., elective ) form of government:
- . . . s the most republican book in the world. 13 JOHN ADAMS, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, U. S. PRESIDENT
[*]I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism. . . . It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the to overturn all the corrupted political . . . institutions in the world. 14 BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, RATIFIER OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION
[*][T]he genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion. . . . and to this we owe our free constitutions of government. 15 NOAH WEBSTER, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER, LEGISLATOR, JUDGE
[*]They . . . who are decrying the Christian religion . . . are undermining . . . the best security for the duration of free governments. 16 CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION, FRAMER OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
[*][T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible . . . men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. 17 DANIEL WEBSTER, "DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION"
krustofskie
Well-Known Member
Ok. A lot of that seems a bit unfair. I agree with you that you shouldn't be forced to employ someone who's beliefs go against your principles, thats just stupid. But I don't think that anything the state funds of gives monetary aid to should be used exclusively for one group, wether that be race religion or whatever. I dont think the state should give any money to religous institutions full stop, they should be self sufficient because of their followers.
I believe what Obama is trying to do there is good, just needs some alterations to be a bit more realistic.
And as for getting tax deductions for make charitable donations, shouldn't happen. Why the hell should the state loose its tax money cos someones made a donation to a charity.
I believe what Obama is trying to do there is good, just needs some alterations to be a bit more realistic.
And as for getting tax deductions for make charitable donations, shouldn't happen. Why the hell should the state loose its tax money cos someones made a donation to a charity.
I think we should all sin as much as possible. So if the shit is true we can just take satins place. Welcome everyone to hell playing a b.c. rich warlock.
Man if only I could disign hell it would be the shizzle. I would make it everybodys worst nightmare loose bloody purple pussys on spikes singing the barney intro. That fat red headed kid from sandlot would be there to rape your girlfriend in front of you(if your a chick he would rape you). Man dont give me that job. Give me some weed,some metal and goat horns and its on!
Man if only I could disign hell it would be the shizzle. I would make it everybodys worst nightmare loose bloody purple pussys on spikes singing the barney intro. That fat red headed kid from sandlot would be there to rape your girlfriend in front of you(if your a chick he would rape you). Man dont give me that job. Give me some weed,some metal and goat horns and its on!
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Rasies a good point that I've actually given some thought...
If you were the devil, why would you torment souls? What is the point? You're supposed to be this badass rebel that totally revolts against God right? So why are you there doing his dirty work? Tormenting souls would be Gods purpose for you, you hate God, why would you do shit for him?
Someone answer me that.
I'd make hell THE SHIT! Nobody would ever want to leave! Talk about a paradise, lmfao!
krustofskie
Well-Known Member
The old heaven and hell concept. Didn't the Muslims and Christians just make up the concept of an afterlife to steal the Jewish followers as Judaism has no afterlife.
CrackerJax
New Member
Think of the devil myth as more of a prosecuting attorney. The devil says man is corrupt, and Jesus says no. The devil merely proves his point over and over again to G*D. See G*D.... they are just corrupt little things.... look how easy I can move them from scripture.
That's the way the Devil is.
That's the way the Devil is.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
If it's a church organization, fine.Otherwise, you should not be able to discriminate against any potential employee on the basis of personal belief.
(And churches should have to pay taxes like any other corporation.)
(And churches should have to pay taxes like any other corporation.)
The devil has changed since the Old Testament...he was placed by god in the old testament to fuck with man...In the new testament,he became an enemy of god,lol.
Green Cross
Well-Known Member
You have obviously never read the Bible, because Satan was not "placed" by God. Satan was created by God, but Satan rebelled, just as you all are rebelling against God.If it's a church organization, fine.Otherwise, you should not be able to discriminate against any potential employee on the basis of personal belief.
The devil has changed since the Old Testament...he was placed by god in the old testament to fuck with man...In the new testament,he became an enemy of god,lol.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Uh..yes, I have.God told Satan to go ahead and tempt Eve.God also told him to go ahead and hurt Job.They're a team. If you believe the Bible. And as for "rebelling", it's hard to rebel against a work of fiction which cannot be proven.Even if your god were real, I still wouldn't worship him.He's a tyrant.A boogeyman.
You have obviously never read the Bible, because Satan was not "placed" by God. Satan was created by God, but Satan rebelled, just as you all are rebelling against God.
CrackerJax
New Member
But of course G*D would have known before creating the devil that he would rebel.... so there is no rebellion Green cross. The devil is doing exactly what G*D wants.... always. The devil is doing G*D's intended work.
According to the Bible that is.... The rest of us see only a myth.
According to the Bible that is.... The rest of us see only a myth.
Stoney McFried
Well-Known Member
Hey Cracker.Did you "myth" me?