Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?

  1. #1 Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?

    Luke
    18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

    Jesus has been quoted, misquoted, his quotes have been softened or added to by the various writers of scripture years after the original text was put to paper.

    Many say they follow Jesus yet have not given all to the poor as instructed by Jesus himself.

    Is there any true quotes in scripture or can we now say that all of it has been interpreted all out of shape?

    With the finding of new scripture over the last few decades, should the Vatican not be thinking of a new bible.

    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together he meant it as a first best guess. We must remember that at the time many other scriptures were rejected and we do not know how those fit with the new found scriptures that were not even considered for the bible. If they would have been available at the time, would the Bible that we have be the same?

    Since Fundamentals are presently making laughing stocks of all those who use the Bible with their interpretations and literal readings, I wonder if it is not a good time for the Vatican to make a clear statement with a new Bible without all the colorful mythical creatures, talking snakes and 10 headed creatures that are pushing Christianity into a grave?

    The Bible is a book of philosophy for good living. It is not a book of fantasy. I believe that people are sophisticated enough today to recognize it’s worth without the artistic liberty of the ancients.

    Presently, Secularists are growing about twice as fast as Christianity and Islam. Primarily, I believe because of the fact that the Bible is open to ridicule because of those that read it literally. It is hard for Secularists to see the philosophy while they are laughing.

    Debate.
    Is leaving the Bible as is hurting Religionists or would we be helped with a new Bible in reversing the flow of our laughing friends into Secularism.

    Regards
    DL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Presently, Secularists are growing about twice as fast as Christianity and Islam.
    Assuming you are speaking only of USians, that's just a matter of small numbers. Flying spaghetti monsterism grew exponentially there for a spell, not hard to do when you start at 1.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    With the finding of new scripture over the last few decades, should the Vatican not be thinking of a new bible.
    That is the way to creating a new religion. Most would say that this is the last thing we need. But I do not quite take such a view. I believe that new religions arise BECAUSE there is a need. And notice that this is still the case if a con artist is taking advantage of such a need for his own enrichment.

    Furthermore, in a free society I believe that new religions certainly will arise when there is a need. BUT in the case of your suggestions I think religions matching your description already exist. Check out the "church of religious science" (including the main denomination of which is the United Church of Religious Science). And by the way this is NOT my church and I do not consider this church Christian, but I do have a couple of second cousins in this church.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together
    Constantine did no such thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    The Bible is a book of philosophy for good living.
    No it is not. It does have a few aspects of such but that really is not what it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    It is not a book of fantasy.
    Clearly no. Some people might argue that a lot of its contents are fantastic and with little basis in reality, but it is clear that it is not written for the same purpose as what we call fantasy. It is written with every intension that it should be taken seriously.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Presently, Secularists are growing about twice as fast as Christianity and Islam.
    I would be pleased if this was the case for I am proponent of secularism but I don't see the evidence of this. I also don't see secularism as being in opposition to or incompatable with Christianity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Primarily, I believe because of the fact that the Bible is open to ridicule because of those that read it literally. It is hard for Secularists to see the philosophy while they are laughing.
    When you consider the difference between us, this question of literal and not literal is revealed to be an issue that is far from black and white. In fact I think the whole idea of "taking the Bible literally" is completely bogus. The truth is that this is really just one of the means by which there is room for interpretation and I think what is far more destructive are those who unreasonably claim that there is no room for interpretation, or those whose attitude toward the Bible would be to say that if the Bible said the moon was made of green cheese then they would believe it.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Greatest I am wrote:

    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together
    Constantine did no such thing.
    How do you know that Mitchell? Instead would it not be more educational to understand where GreatestIam is coming from by asking him exactly where he got that idea from? GIA, where did you hear or read that?

    Greatest I am wrote:

    The Bible is a book of philosophy for good living.
    No it is not. It does have a few aspects of such but that really is not what it is.
    Really not what it is in who's opinion? Yours? Everyone's? To some people it is exactly what GIA says it is, to others not. What is it in your belief then Mitchell? Because what the Bible is is subjective to everyone, wouldn't it have been clearer to state that in your opinion it is not a philosophy for good living? For instance, the Bible could be a load of rubbish, or it could all be a true message from God, or it coud be a mix of the two, thats my opinion.

    It is not a book of fantasy. I believe that people are sophisticated enough today to recognize it’s worth without the artistic liberty of the ancients.

    It is though really isn't it? Fantasy? Look at it, the stories are by a margain so far off of probability that its hard to imagine any of it being true. The way it is written and the stories to seem farie tale-ish. Name one part of the great flood, Jesus rising from the dead or the end of the world, that confers with any known logic. Make it up if you have to, like me:

    1: Ice caps melt, catastrophically post ice age.
    2: Jesus regenerated, like The Doctor, because nobody recognisied Him post resurrection (He had to perform miracles again to proove it).
    3: People always want to tell the end. Funnily though, most mythos and legends describe a similar end times.

    ...what is far more destructive are those who unreasonably claim that there is no room for interpretation, or those whose attitude toward the Bible would be to say that if the Bible said the moon was made of green cheese then they would believe it.
    Yes and they either do it due to:

    A: Feeling threatened by those who can falsify their belief to others.
    B: If they don't they'll burn in hell.

    No way out really, poor soles.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    [quote][quote="mitchellmckain"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am



    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together
    Constantine did no such thing.
    He paid the bills. He got what He paid for. A tool for social control. If Not Constantine for that purpose then who and for what purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    The Bible is a book of philosophy for good living.
    No it is not. It does have a few aspects of such but that really is not what it is.
    Then what is it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    It is not a book of fantasy.
    Clearly no. Some people might argue that a lot of its contents are fantastic and with little basis in reality, but it is clear that it is not written for the same purpose as what we call fantasy. It is written with every intension that it should be taken seriously.
    Is that why it begins with talking snakes and ends with 10 headed monsters. Can we take it seriously knowing this.

    I also don't see secularism as being in opposition to or incompatable with Christianity.

    Secularists believe in equality of the sexes and sexual freedom for gays as well as abortion rights and birth control, to name a few. Christianity is not compatible with these. Overall, a huge difference.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    mitchellmckain

    I tried to wikipedia some thing on Constantine and the bible could not find something quick. If you google gnostic gospels you can view a number of sources that will speak to this.

    It is well known, too bad you wont take my word for it. Work for the info then.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
    Posts
    2,096
    Greatest I Am wrote:

    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?
    Luke [18]:
    18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
    Why must this be considered an admission by Jesus that He is not God. It could just as well mean, "You have recognized my goodness and, therefore, you have also recognized my Godhood."

    If only God is good and Jesus is also good, then they would be one and the same.
    Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein

    If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together he meant it as a first best guess. We must remember that at the time many other scriptures were rejected and we do not know how those fit with the new found scriptures that were not even considered for the bible. If they would have been available at the time, would the Bible that we have be the same?

    nothing in this statement is right
    constintine did not make the bible in the sense you think
    it was not the first best guess
    most of the other scriptures were very recent, or used by non-christians
    and yes the bible would have been the same
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Why must this be considered an admission by Jesus that He is not God. It could just as well mean, "You have recognized my goodness and, therefore, you have also recognized my Godhood."

    If only God is good and Jesus is also good, then they would be one and the same.
    This explanation would make a lot more sense if there was a "because" in the text between Jesus' "Why do you call me good?" and "No one is good but god alone." A plain reading of the text definitely seems to convey that Jesus is saying he isn't god.

    Also, Jesus interjecting a "By the way, just wanted to remind you that I'm god" before answering the guy's question seems pretty out of place.

    At best, it would appear to be badly translated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Oh there is no doubt that this verse makes a good case that Jesus denied that He is God. BUT it is not definative. Likewise there is nothing in the words of Jesus as reported in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that definatively claims that Jesus is God. It is pretty clear that the basis of Christian doctrine that Jesus is God is not the words of Jesus in these three gospels. Instead these are the claims of the apostle Paul and the writer of the gospel of John.

    In the gospel of John we do have the incident in John 10 where the Jews talke up stones to stone Him because they perceive Him to be claiming to be God. In response, Jesus does not deny that He is God but dodges around the issue with a suggestion that Scripture says that all man are "gods". In this story we see the whole situation in a glance. Jesus cannot say that He is God and have His teachings be taken seriously be the Jews. Thus there are very strong common sense reasons why Jesus would therefore make no such claim, whether He was God or not. Yet at the same time we see no clear and definative denial either, only words which can be taken either way according to the inclination of those that hear.

    Thus it is precisely Jesus' intention for those that hear Him to follow their own inclination on this matter, to believe that He is God if they are so inclined and to believe that He is not God it they are inclined that way. But why would a man speak in this way? According to all tradition, a good and holy man would quickly and clearly deny that He is God in order that His followers would not be misled.

    But if Jesus really is God then why does He not just plainly say so? Clearly it cannot be from any kind of fear. The answer is found in Matthew 20:28, He came not to be served but to serve. Even when they thought Him only a man they sought to make Him king (John 5:15). So how much more so would declaring Himself to be God completely defeat the purpose for which He came to the world.

    In any case, it is the undeniable conclusion of the apostle Paul (in his epistles) and the writer of the gospel of John that Jesus is God. Thus the decision of the canon makers in the first eccumenical councils to include these writings, reflecting the dominant beliefs of Christian community at the time, was that this belief that Jesus is God is central to what Christianity is all about. That decision remains the consensus of the Christian community to this day.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Jings heres yet another childish post...

    I am no theologian, but perhaps Jesus was simply pointing out that he was lesser manifestation of God? After all he refers to God as the "Father" and he himself had taken on human form.

    On the other hand there are BAZILLIONS of instances when Jesus all but says he is God...

    Greatest I am, please please PLEASE stop with these threads

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Greatest I Am wrote:

    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?
    Luke [18]:
    18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
    Why must this be considered an admission by Jesus that He is not God. It could just as well mean, "You have recognized my goodness and, therefore, you have also recognized my Godhood."

    If only God is good and Jesus is also good, then they would be one and the same.
    Scripture tells us not to add anything to the writings. You add quite a lot to distort the word to make it fit what you want.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    I believe that when Constantine put the Bible together he meant it as a first best guess. We must remember that at the time many other scriptures were rejected and we do not know how those fit with the new found scriptures that were not even considered for the bible. If they would have been available at the time, would the Bible that we have be the same?

    nothing in this statement is right
    constintine did not make the bible in the sense you think
    it was not the first best guess
    most of the other scriptures were very recent, or used by non-christians
    and yes the bible would have been the same
    He paid the bills. He got his tool for social control and manipulation.

    If you want to check Gnostic gospels you will find information on all the book burning that went on in those days of scripture that showed a much different Christianity.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    Quote Originally Posted by daytonturner
    Why must this be considered an admission by Jesus that He is not God. It could just as well mean, "You have recognized my goodness and, therefore, you have also recognized my Godhood."

    If only God is good and Jesus is also good, then they would be one and the same.
    This explanation would make a lot more sense if there was a "because" in the text between Jesus' "Why do you call me good?" and "No one is good but god alone." A plain reading of the text definitely seems to convey that Jesus is saying he isn't god.

    Also, Jesus interjecting a "By the way, just wanted to remind you that I'm god" before answering the guy's question seems pretty out of place.

    At best, it would appear to be badly translated.
    The ancient people of religion used to say that the orthodox and they would read the same doctrine and that while they read it and saw white the other would read it and see black.

    We are there again. notice the orthodox reaching for and adding meaning and words to a very simple phrase.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Just for fun and thought.


    God + woman = abomination.


    Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

    Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

    God with Goddess is then OK.

    Man with woman is then OK.

    God with woman is then. Not OK .

    Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

    There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

    God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

    Consider also, the trinity.

    Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

    God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
    He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

    God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

    God + woman = abomination.


    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?

    Luke
    18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
    Is Jesus admitting that He is not God here, or is He asking whether or not the ruler with the question is acknowledging that Jesus is God because he acknowledges that Jesus is good?

    The rest of the passage suggests that the ruler is not sincere when he called Jesus good because the ruler does not really acknowledge Jesus as God since he is not willing to follow Jesus, i.e., God.

    Luke
    018:018 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

    018:019 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

    018:020 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.

    018:021 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

    018:022 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

    018:023 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

    018:024 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

    018:025 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    On the other hand there are BAZILLIONS of instances when Jesus all but says he is God...
    "Bazillions"? I am not familiar with that number. It is not another name for zero? If not then in counting to this number we must start with at least 1, right? So please give us this one -- one clear example of Jesus saying "I am God."


    Look I think I made about the strongest argument that can honestly be made for Jesus being God. But I don't see how it helps just to pretend that the case is stronger than that or any more obvious than that.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    [quote="flaja"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?

    Luke
    18A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
    19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.

    There is no question mark after the statement. Therefore it is not a question. It is a clear statement of the beliefs of Jesus.

    No one is good- is an all inclusive statement. Except God- places God above Jesus since he includes himself in his all inclusive statement. He does not say except me also.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    On the other hand there are BAZILLIONS of instances when Jesus all but says he is God...
    "Bazillions"? I am not familiar with that number. It is not another name for zero? If not then in counting to this number we must start with at least 1, right? So please give us this one -- one clear example of Jesus saying "I am God."


    Look I think I made about the strongest argument that can honestly be made for Jesus being God. But I don't see how it helps just to pretend that the case is stronger than that or any more obvious than that.
    There are strong arguments here as well.

    God + woman = abomination.


    Consider God as a species and man as a different species.

    Usually, entities reproduce with their own kind.

    God with Goddess is then OK.

    Man with woman is then OK.

    God with woman is then. Not OK .

    Man with Goddess is then Not OK.

    There are lower species as well to us as we are to God.

    God would not set a precedent that says it is OK to reproduce with a lower species. If He did, it would open the door for man and our meat.

    Consider also, the trinity.

    Simply said, if Jesus was in the beginning then He was before his mother was and he would not go forward in time to somehow impregnate his own mother. Such takes paradox too far.

    God is a full God. Not a chimera. To say that Jesus is somehow part of God is to insult both man and God.
    He has the same position of highs and lows as we all get in heaven. Heaven is communistic demographic shape and no one shares 1st place with God the father.

    God does not reproduce out of wedlock. He does not break His own laws.

    God + woman = abomination.


    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    It appears to me that Greatest I Am is publishing duplicating posts all over the religious sections of the forum, and is starting new threads daily simply with the aim of spouting the same nonsense ideas on and on and on.

    Some of the things he is saying and derogatory wording is he is using could be highly offensive to some peoples beliefs on this forum.

    Whereas I agree that the forum should be a place where people can express their ideas, is it really necessary to be so insulting as well as duplicating and propagating these ideas and insults so enthusiastically.

    Only one word comes to mind to decribe this type of activity

    Troll
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    It appears to me that Greatest I Am is publishing duplicating posts all over the religious sections of the forum, and is starting new threads daily simply with the aim of spouting the same nonsense ideas on and on and on.
    The frequency and similarity of his threads is indeed a sore point with me and I addressed this concern with him in the thread with his name as the title, where I told him that it was like shouting to drown everyone else out, and thus pretty impolite behavior. I think it is a valid complaint, and it is something I am watching closely, for example here is the dates on which he started new threads:
    Oct 21, Oct 31, Nov 8, Nov 17, Nov 20, Nov 24, Nov 25, Nov 27, Dec 1, Dec 2
    Not quite every day, but it is distressingly frequent.

    If he starts any more threads or bumps his own threads without having interactions with others, I will start merging these threads. So you can cast your vote most effectively by ignoring his threads.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Some of the things he is saying and derogatory wording is he is using could be highly offensive to some peoples beliefs on this forum.
    Well yes. I cannot say that I find them very pleasant either. BUT respect for other peoples beliefs is NOT a standard for this subsection of the forum. You can certainly argue for this as something which rational and civilized people should do, and that is something that I do rather frequently. But the venting of fustrations and criticisms of religious beliefs is one of the traditions of this sub-section, and I don't think that is going to change, unless the adminstrator of this forum tells me otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Whereas I agree that the forum should be a place where people can express their ideas, is it really necessary to be so insulting as well as duplicating and propagating these ideas and insults so enthusiastically.
    Well I have taken to eliminating your posts which have no content except meaningless insults. I hope you approve.


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Only one word comes to mind to decribe this type of activity

    Troll
    There are a lot of people here who have a lot of trollish characteristics, myself included. The bar against this is pretty low in this sub-section of this forum. Read the rules to see where the bounds of what is acceptable lies, and in the top post (sticky) you can read my philosophy for moderating this sub-section as well.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain


    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Whereas I agree that the forum should be a place where people can express their ideas, is it really necessary to be so insulting as well as duplicating and propagating these ideas and insults so enthusiastically.
    Well I have taken to eliminating your posts which have no content except meaningless insults. I hope you approve.

    And do you delete your own posts that are meaningless and insulting?

    No of course you don't.
    Absum! has never been bored in her life, but is becoming increasingly bored of the Science Forum! :?


    (.·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.¸☼¸.¤...-♥»゜・*.:。✿*゚‘゚・✿.。.:* *.:。·.¸❀¸.·´¯`·.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    And do you delete your own posts that are meaningless and insulting?

    No of course you don't.
    Well I am glad you understand that at least. Of course, it would make no sense for me to have the job to police my own actions. The job of policing my actions would be the job of the administrator of the forum.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior DivideByZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    260
    you don't need a new bible because he (god) doesn't exist....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible? 
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?

    DL
    Wait till you read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The steamy scenes are so divine. :P

    How did the Nicaeans miss this? Probably working in poor lamplight.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •