Talk about a hypocrite!

[Lance]

www.washtimes.com/national/20021126-14786718.htm


While I don't disagree with Pat that we should scrutinize the Koran, the same attention should be paid to the bible as well. Both are equally bloody.

But I'm sure he only wants the Koran scrutinized and not his holy book.

What a frickin idiot Robertson is:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said yesterday the news media and political leaders have failed to educate Americans about violence in the Koran and in Islamic history and wishes President Bush had never said that "Islam is a religion of peace."

"He is not elected as chief theologian," Mr. Robertson said.
It would have been better for the president to speak only politically about the Islamic world, and not religiously.

The Bible is full (especially the OT) of advocating murder, rape of innocents (including children) and many other attrocities and crude and XXX rated topics.

I agree that the Koran is cut from the same cloth. Rude murderous, filthy.

PR is an asshole. He is interested in 'forcing Armagaeddon' and nothing else. What a sick fuck. I find him to be no better than the slime that attacked our WTC.

Fools all.

www.washtimes.com/national/20021126-14786718.htm


While I don't disagree with Pat that we should scrutinize the Koran, the same attention should be paid to the bible as well. Both are equally bloody.

But I'm sure he only wants the Koran scrutinized and not his holy book.



Pat was just on CNN a few minuets ago stepping all over his tongue trying to explain how the religion of Islam is violent and has no other purpose than to hunt us down and kill us. I found his interview pathetic and shallow to say the least. I also thought his assessment of Islam, as a bloody religion was hypocritical since Christianity has nothing to crow about. His assertion that Christianity is a religion of peace is only true as long as there is a separation of church and state, remove that barrier and Christianity in this country will make Islam look like a welcome refuge.

[guido]

What a frickin idiot Robertson is:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said yesterday the news media and political leaders have failed to educate Americans about violence in the Koran and in Islamic history and wishes President Bush had never said that "Islam is a religion of peace."

"He is not elected as chief theologian," Mr. Robertson said.
It would have been better for the president to speak only politically about the Islamic world, and not religiously.

The Bible is full (especially the OT) of advocating murder, rape of innocents (including children) and many other attrocities and crude and XXX rated topics.

I agree that the Koran is cut from the same cloth. Rude murderous, filthy.

PR is an asshole. He is interested in 'forcing Armagaeddon' and nothing else. What a sick fuck. I find him to be no better than the slime that attacked our WTC.

Fools all.


Interesting, isn't it? The fact that PR says Bush isn't elected as chief theologian, but if PR had won an election, I'm sure he would have accepted that title.

[wendy]

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o


Fuckin A, Wendy ....Fuckin A!

Can I get an "Amen"?

[Ed Edwards]

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o
God helps them that help themselves :)

[Slipped Mickey]

It's all about air time. Osama bin Robertson cannot stand it when Osama bin Falwell gets air time. It's a thing they have going. Using Jesus to further their own selfish desires. Each time either of these buffoons opens his mouth it does more to weaken the strangle hold the RR has on the GOP than any one else could ever hope to accomplish. Roberston is nothing if not self serving. If sure Bush has had to re-evaluate his fundie friendships lately because of the Osamas bin Robertson and Falwell.

It's just more of the same from the Chirstiban.

[Lazarus]

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o


Those who believe that God will slay their enemies for them, and are Christians, have failed to heed Jesus' words to "Love your enemies." :o

[the bib]

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o


;D

[wendy]

Those who believe that God will slay their enemies for them, and are Christians, have failed to heed Jesus' words to "Love your enemies." :o

They are the same assholes who love to quote from Leviticus. ::)

[greginboise]

I'm not sure what inspired this crude attempt at moral equivalence, but it is just that-a crude attempt.

First, I have no sympathy or feelings for Robertson or Falwell. If they were rolling around on the floor with their guts on fire, I wouldn't piss on 'em to put it out.

Second, the bible is, for the most part, a history. It describes events. To criticize a book for describing events, regardless of the violent nature of it's content, is ludicrous.

Finally, I am unaware of a recent case of a coutry going to war against a neighbor as a result of reading the bible, or at the request of a religious leader. The last time was the eighth, in 1270. You can stretch the definition, and list crusades until 1669, and even include the various explorers of the New World as conducting a religious war. But none of these were at the behest of the bible. I am unaware of anything in the bible that comes remotely close to the Koran in terms of commanding it's followers to go out and kill. Further, the koran was designed to provide guidance in every aspect of life, from finances to government. This is a significant departure from the bible, and the reason it is so difficult to get these crackers to renounce their ways. One can be a Christian and be for or against this policy or that program; not so with Islam.

[Meshuga Mikey]

www.washtimes.com/national/20021126-14786718.htm


While I don't disagree with Pat that we should scrutinize the Koran, the same attention should be paid to the bible as well. Both are equally bloody.

But I'm sure he only wants the Koran scrutinized and not his holy book.


The BIBLES Bloody books are FOLLOWED by another set of BOOKS that do NOT ADVOCATE MURDER, and in fact are fairly CLEAR about how we are to ATTEMPT to TREAT OUR NEIGHBORS,...the KORAN BY CONTRAST has no such CHAPTERS,...many many of the suras,...instruct the MUSLIME believer to corner and slay the infidel~!!

THEY KNOW NOTHING OF REASONING TOGETHER~!!!


ENOUGH HALF BAKED CONTEMPT of concerned God Fearing Men who ask that we become A BIT M<ORE AWARE OF the TREACHOROUS ISMLIMIC WORLD VEIW~!!

READ THEIR KORAN, or EREAD IT AGAIN with an open Mind ,.........and THEN TELL ME ABOUT THEIR RELIGION OF PEACE~!!!

I'm not sure what inspired this crude attempt at moral equivalence, bubt it is just that-a crude attempt.

First, I have no sympathy or feelings for Robertson or Falwell. If they were rolling around on the floor with their guts on fire, I wouldn't piss on 'em ot put it out.

Second, the bible is, for the most part, a history. It describes events. To criticize a book for describing events, regardless of the violent nature of it's content, is ludicrous.

Finally, I am unaware of a recent case of a coutry going to war against a neighbor as a result of reading the bible, or at the request of a religious leader. The last time was the eighth, in 1270. You can stretch the definition, and list crusades until 1669, and even include the various explorers of the New World as conducting a religious war. But none of these were at the behest of the bible. I am unaware of anything in the bible that comes remotely close to the Koran in terms of commanding it's followers to go out and kill. Further, the koran was designed to provide guidance in every aspect of life, from finances to government. This is a significant departure from the bible, and the reason it is so difficult to get these crackers to renounce their ways. One can be a Christian and be for or against this policy or that program; not so with Islam.


That was then this is now. Back then they went to war because God was on their side. Today they go to war because they want the oil.

www.washtimes.com/national/20021126-14786718.htm


While I don't disagree with Pat that we should scrutinize the Koran, the same attention should be paid to the bible as well. Both are equally bloody.

But I'm sure he only wants the Koran scrutinized and not his holy book.


The BIBLES Bloody books are FOLLOWED by another set of BOOKS that do NOT ADVOCATE MURDER, and in fact are fairly CLEAR about how we are to ATTEMPT to TREAT OUR NEIGHBORS,...the KORAN BY CONTRAST has no such CHAPTERS,...many many of the suras,...instruct the MUSLIME believer to corner and slay the infidel~!!

THEY KNOW NOTHING OF REASONING TOGETHER~!!!


ENOUGH HALF BAKED CONTEMPT of concerned God Fearing Men who ask that we become A BIT M<ORE AWARE OF the TREACHOROUS ISMLIMIC WORLD VEIW~!!

READ THEIR KORAN, or EREAD IT AGAIN with an open Mind ,.........and THEN TELL ME ABOUT THEIR RELIGION OF PEACE~!!!



I have a bumber sticker that says: "God save me from the Christian's" I think it might be time to put it on my bumber.

What's the difference in a zealot like yourself and a Muslim zealot? I think both of you if provoked would kill for your God.

[buzaw]

Oh for crying out loud..what good is an omnipotent God if he can't slay your enemies?

:o


Correction. SLAY HIS ENEMIES! Bingo! There we have it. The explanation of how he used Israel in the OT to wipe out HIS ENEMIES. Then when HIS PEOPLE turned from him to follow HIS ENEMIES, supreme God used HIS ENEMIES to chastize HIS PEOPLE to get them back to HIM.

Now, isn't that what gods are suppose to do? THEIR THING??

[buzaw]

What a frickin idiot Robertson is:

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said yesterday the news media and political leaders have failed to educate Americans about violence in the Koran and in Islamic history and wishes President Bush had never said that "Islam is a religion of peace."

"He is not elected as chief theologian," Mr. Robertson said.
It would have been better for the president to speak only politically about the Islamic world, and not religiously.

The Bible is full (especially the OT) of advocating murder, rape of innocents (including children) and many other attrocities and crude and XXX rated topics.

I agree that the Koran is cut from the same cloth. Rude murderous, filthy.

PR is an asshole. He is interested in 'forcing Armagaeddon' and nothing else. What a sick fuck. I find him to be no better than the slime that attacked our WTC.

Fools all.


Interesting, isn't it? The fact that PR says Bush isn't elected as chief theologian, but if PR had won an election, I'm sure he would have accepted that title.


Guido, can you document any statement ever by PR that would indicate that he would do any such thing? You hyena's are ripping up decent Americans who have always promoted Americanism and who've never physically harmed anyone, some even likening them to murderous terroristic Islamics. That's sick, no matter how you cut it. If these Christian American patriots are that bad, some of you people should be likened then to the gang of kids who beat the helpless neighbor to death for defending himself. ::)

[Slipped Mickey]

Buzzy are you talking about "Diamond Mine" Robertson? The man who said that there is no place in America for any religions other than Christianity? The man who said he would do all he could to establish a theocracy? Is that the harmless guy to which you refer? ::) ::)

[buzaw]

Buzzy are you talking about "Diamond Mine" Robertson? The man who said that there is no place in America for any religions other than Christianity? The man who said he would do all he could to establish a theocracy? Is that the harmless guy to which you refer? ::) ::)


And your documentation is......?

[Meshuga Mikey]

Documentation Señor-?? We dont got to show you no Steenking Documentation!

Butrs seriously now I am of the Opinion that the documatation will come from the main library at The School of Pompous Hysterical Undiffereintiated Rebellious Youth. headquartered in Hollywood California~!! :o

[Slipped Mickey]

Buzzy are you talking about "Diamond Mine" Robertson? The man who said that there is no place in America for any religions other than Christianity? The man who said he would do all he could to establish a theocracy? Is that the harmless guy to which you refer? ::) ::)


And your documentation is......?


"Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him."
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985

"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'" --from Pat Robertson's "The New World Order," page 218.

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them."
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

"It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into (our) institutions (today) are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."
-- Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

" cult is any group that has a form of godliness, but does not recognize Jesus Christ as the unique son of God.... One test of a cult is that it often does not strictly teach that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who Himself is God manifested in the flesh.... Christian-oriented cults include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), the Worldwide Church of God, Christian Science, Unity, Unitarianism, The Way International, Rosicrucian Society of America, Bahai, Hare Krishna, Scientology, the Unification Church, and the Jehovah's Witnesses."
-- Pat Robertson, CBN pamphlet entitled "Cults," dated 1992

That's a start Buzzcock.

[Slipped Mickey]

And http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/forests/liberia/downloads/Robertson.pdf

Pat Robertson is a hero to a few. Insignificant to most. A joke to many.

[Slipped Mickey]

Buzz this is juicy.

Robertson Takes Flak for Gold-Mining Venture
Freedom Gold has not yet mined much in Liberia, but it is already producing critical media attention for its founder.
By Chuck Fager | posted 01/21/2002

When televangelist M. G. "Pat" Robertson tried to buy into a Scottish bank in 1999, a public outcry forced the bank to cancel the deal. Now Robertson is taking flak for another business deal. In 1998, Robertson formed a $15 million company, Freedom Gold Limited, to look for gold in Liberia. In 1999, the company signed an agreement with the government of Liberia to begin gold-mining operations.

Freedom Gold has not yet mined much of the precious metal, but it is already producing critical media attention for its founder and principal investor.

The first and loudest denunciations have come from The Washington Post. Colbert King, the Post's deputy editorial page editor, has published a series of articles excoriating Robertson for the deal, and especially for the involvement of Liberian President Charles Taylor. King noted that the agreement gives a 10 percent equity to the Liberian government.

In a letter to the editor, Robertson denied that the Liberian government owned part of the company. Robertson wrote that Freedom Gold has hired 130 Liberians "and is assisting Liberians in gaining a better life." In "Christian Liberia," he added, "Freedom Gold has found freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and what appears to be a judiciary dedicated to the rule of law."

James Mathews, Freedom Gold's manager, says the company has built a free medical clinic serving 1,000 families.

King derided as "bunkum" Robertson's upbeat description of conditions in Liberia, and noted that the United Nations has placed an arms embargo on Liberia. King quoted a State Department official who said the U.S. government "has not encouraged either trade or investment in Liberia due to the absence of the rule of law and President Taylor's support for armed insurgencies."

Operation World estimates that 38 percent of Liberians are Christians. A civil war, lasting from 1989 to 1996, left the economy in shambles. The jobless rate is 95 percent.

The average annual income is $490. Taylor, who had set off the civil war in 1989, came to power by force in 1996. A suspect election confirmed his position in 1997.

The main insurgency Taylor has supported is in neighboring Sierra Leone, which has many productive diamond mines. Last spring, United Nations investigators accused Taylor of smuggling and selling these diamonds to buy weapons and enrich himself.



Read the rest here. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/002/14.18.html)

[buzaw]

Ok Mickles, I see where you're coming from, but to set up a theocracy, he'd have to amend the Constitution n I don't think that's what he had in mind with his statements. If he were elected, he like all elected presidents would be allowed to choose who he wants to serve under him. Let's say he did get elected and chose Christians. Would the republic fall apart? Nonee. If it didn't pan out n the majority didn't like his tenure, the next elections would settle the matter. That's how republics work.

I maintain that to liken him n Falwell to the murderous terrorists is real stupid n sick.

Quotes, buzz? You want quotes?

I'm your Huckleberry...

We have imagined ourselves invulnerable and have been consumed by the pursuit of ... health, wealth, material pleasures and sexuality... It [terrorism] is happening because God Almighty is lifting his protection from us.
-- Pat Robertson, blaming American lifestyles for bringing God's judgement upon us in the form of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in a three-page statement released Thursday, September 13, 2001, quoted from AANEWS #958 by American Atheists (September 14, 2001)

This is God's power and he sent this thing to warn us ... we needed a shock.
-- Pat Robertson, remarking on the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, quoted by Robert E. Norlander in a dispatch of September 14, 2001

Here the idiot shows his true colors:

We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over.
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally, quoted from Robert Boston, The Most Dangerous Man in America, p. 29

Tell me these are not the words of one fucking dangerous man.......

If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious.
-- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992

Come on, Pat, tell us what you really think:

We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective -- to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties.... By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA.
-- Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993. Let's see, now: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How could the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting an establishment of religion be anything but the separation of church and state?

What an America-First sentiment Pat....NOT:

They scream, "First Amendment." Of course, the First Amendment, as you and I both know, is a restriction on Congress.... So it really doesn't have anything to do with what you say or what I say, one way or the other.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, December 10, 1990, deliberately misrepresenting what it means by "Congress shall make no law" by omitting mention of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and yet sniveling about the Supreme Court's state-church decisions

PatINThe Hat claims breaking laws are OKAY - as long as we dont' call them LAWS.

A Supreme Court ruling is not the Law of the United States. The law of the United Sates is the Constitution, treaties made in accordance with the Constitution, and laws duly enacted by the Congress and signed by the president. And any of those things I would uphold totally with all of my strength, whether I agreed with them or not.... I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states ... [but] I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party.... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts.... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose.
-- Pat Robertson, speaking to a group of Washington Post writers, as reported in the Washington Post, June 27,1986

Oops, Pat, you're Zionazi slip is showing:

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 11, 1985, defending his stance that only Christians and Jews are fit to hold public office

[buzaw]

There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993. Let's see, now: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How could the prohibition against Congress making laws respecting an establishment of religion be anything but the separation of church and state?


Well, he's correct. Yes or no? That's exactly why the majority rule in this republic used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal in all DC schools in the early days. Freedom of exercise clause at work from the 1st Amendment. If the majority didn't like it they would settle it at the next ballot box. That's always been the American way. You sheeple think the unelected judges should dictate. That's dictated government. Sorry. Not for me.

Well, he's correct. Yes or no? That's exactly why the mafority rule in this republic used the Bible and Watt's Hymnal in all DC schools in the early days. Freedom of exercize clause at work from the 1st Amendment. If the majority didn't like it they would settle it at the next ballot box. That's always been the American way. You sheeple think the unelected judges should dictate. That's dictated government. Sorry. Not for me.


Only technically correct AND dangerous. Other documents provide the separation and we are assured freedom of religion - something he doesn't mention.

You seem to forget that judges have to follow the law, too.

Pat In The Hat is a kook and a dangerous one. He ain't never caught a rabbit and he aint' no friend of mine.

[buzaw]

You seem to forget that judges have to follow the law, too.

LOL. They don't is the problem. They spin the existing law so as to make law to suit their ideological fancy.

[buzaw]

[b]They scream, "First Amendment." Of course, the First Amendment, as you and I both know, is a restriction on Congress.... So it really doesn't have anything to do with what you say or what I say, one way or the other

This is indeed also true. Yes or no?

[buzaw]

Only technically correct AND dangerous. Other documents provide the separation and we are assured freedom of religion - something he doesn't mention.


Like what documents supersceding the Constitution make separation law??

[b]They scream, "First Amendment." Of course, the First Amendment, as you and I both know, is a restriction on Congress.... So it really doesn't have anything to do with what you say or what I say, one way or the other

This is indeed also true. Yes or no?


It is an enhancement.

Let's take another look at the holier-than-thou hatred of PR.

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991

Now there is a good example of the crazy man's mental state. Everyone that disagrees with him is the Antichrist.

What a loon.

[Ed Edwards]

What am i missing?

CherryBomb is a student of phony TV
pseudo-Christian professional blabbers?

I hope nobody is judging all Christians
of all sorts from Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic,
Protestant, Mormon, etc. on these degenerate
examples. That would be much like
judging all Pagans on the basis of what
we saw of the Wicked Witch of the West
in the Wizard of Oz.

And if that fat pig ever said this in my hearing - I would knock him on the floor with a body punch to the solar plexus and while he was wimpering like the frickin baby he is and sucking air I would deliver a couple of well placed kicks to his groin and watch and laugh while he cried and peed himself.

Then he would know what kind of a man he REALLY is - the kind that needs to be controlled EVERY step of the way by a woman. I could lead him around on a chain and slap him with a rolled up newspaper when he got out of line.

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.

-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992

What am i missing?

CherryBomb is a student of phony TV
pseudo-Christian professional blabbers?

I hope nobody is judging all Christians
of all sorts from Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic,
Protestant, Mormon, etc. on these degenerate
examples. That would be much like
judging all Pagans on the basis of what
we saw of the Wicked Witch of the West
in the Wizard of Oz.


sorry Ed. In no way am I a follower of the "Big Talk - Little Cock" 700 Club Groupies.

They are no different than Al queda - in my mind.

[Ed Edwards]

CherryBomb: "sorry Ed. In no way am I a follower
of the "Big Talk - Little Cock" 700 Club Groupies."

Me neither.

[Slipped Mickey]

What am i missing?

CherryBomb is a student of phony TV
pseudo-Christian professional blabbers?

I hope nobody is judging all Christians
of all sorts from Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic,
Protestant, Mormon, etc. on these degenerate
examples. That would be much like
judging all Pagans on the basis of what
we saw of the Wicked Witch of the West
in the Wizard of Oz.


There are many fine examples of Christianity walking in the world today. There are many fine ones that have come before us. Regardless of what I may believe about Christianity I do believe the Christian ethic is a worthy one. I also believe it is an ethic worth consideration. Unfortunately for reasons beyond my understanding the religion seems to lend itself to abuse by the worst of human beings. Robertson may not be the worst but he is by example no Christian.

I have forgotten where the Bible says what but I do remember that it predicts that in the end times there will be false religions that will fool many Christians. I submit that those false religions would not be Buddhism or Islam but Christian fundamentalist religions. It would be apologists for the likes of Robertson and Falwell that would be most easily fooled. Robertson may be many things but he is in no way my definition of a man who follows Jesus. He may have at one time started on the path of Jesus but he has long, long since sold his soul to something earthbound or less. In doing so he has led many astray and thus compounded his sin.

[buzaw]

I have forgotten where the Bible says what but I do remember that it predicts that in the end times there will be false religions that will fool many Christians.

I Timothy 4:1-3 "Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and comanding to abstain from meats......... "

Also in Revelation 16: 14 we read of devils/demons who work miracles in the latter days. It implies that these false entities will also promote the march of the armies towards Armageddon. Islam is doing just that.


I submit that those false religions would not be Buddhism or Islam but Christian fundamentalist religions.

It's rather silly that those who believe and practice the fundamentals of the New Testament would be the false ones isn't it? Mickles you're just not getting it that in every aspect of life, fundamentalists are ones who follow the fundamentals of their thing, whether it be a pilot of a plane, a political Constitutionalist, A Buddhist, Muslim, or Christian or an engineer. If you're following the fundamentals of something, you're going by the book. Why is that so hard for you to grasp??

[Slipped Mickey]

But Buzz what about the books that were omitted from the New Testament? What about the constant revisions?

But Buzz what about the books that were omitted from the New Testament?

You're talking about the Gnostic texts that shouldn't have been there in the first place -- right?

What about the constant revisions?


What revisions?

[Ed Edwards]

Slipped Mickey: "I have forgotten where the Bible
says what but I do remember that it predicts
that in the end times there will be false
religions that will fool many Christians."

Yes, Jesus did say things like that:

Matthew 24:5 (nKJV):
For many will come in My name, saying,
'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many.

Matthew 24:21-24 (nKJV):
21 For then there will be great tribulation,
such as has not been since the beginning
of the world until this time, no, nor
ever shall be.
22 And unless those days were shortened,
no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's
sake those days will be shortened.
23 Then if anyone says to you,
'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There!'
do not believe it.
24 For false christs and false prophets
will rise and show great signs and
wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Slipped Mickey: "I submit that those false
religions would not be Buddhism or Islam
but Christian fundamentalist religions."

Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality.

[Slipped Mickey]

"Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality."

Tolerance is relative Ed. All religions share a core of truth. At basic level all religions have much in common.

[buzaw]

But Buzz what about the books that were omitted from the New Testament? What about the constant revisions?


Well, if you just go with the books of the protestant Bible, my post makes sense. So what's in those others that would add a whit to meeting the needs of the reader.

Revisions? For the most part they neither add or take away enough to make a lota difference.

[buzaw]

But Buzz what about the books that were omitted from the New Testament?

What revisions?


Hi Jack. Been lookin for you. Glad you're back posting. There's been some revising that shouldn't be, imo, but like you, for all practical purposes, I think the book's still pretty much intact. The Dead Sea Schrolls proved that. I didn't like it when the NIV people took the word "begotten" outa John 3:16 and some other places where that important word was used.

[buzaw]

"Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality."

Tolerance is relative Ed. All religions share a core of truth. At basic level all religions have much in common.



1. The Bible speaks of the devil's "doctrines of demons."

2. If the Bible's true there is a Satan.

3. If there is a Satan, then one should expect him to inspire the false so as to deceive.

4. If Satan inspires the false so as to deceive, the false must have enough truth laced in it so as to make it "palatable."

But Buzz what about the books that were omitted from the New Testament?

What revisions?


Hi Jack. Been lookin for you. Glad you're back posting.

Yeah, me too. Thanks Buzz.

I lost power last night, but they got it cut back on about 12 hours later. My mom went for a day and a half without power, but she has a fireplace, so I crashed over there. ;D

There's been some revising that shouldn't be, imo, but like you, for all practical purposes, I think the book's still pretty much intact. The Dead Sea Schrolls proved that. I didn't like it when the NIV people took the word "begotten" outa John 3:16 and some other places where that important word was used.


There are different versions of the Bible, and some of them do in fact have mistakes. So in that sense, I guess you could say there's been lots of revisions -- most of them in the last century. But I don't think the New Testament books have been revised over and over during the last 2000 years to reflect an ever-changing Christian doctrine, as some people seem to believe.

[Ed Edwards]

Some numbers from 1996.
These are estimates, educated guesses
as the numbers generally aren't available.
Numbers are in millions. Groups with
less than 5 million adherents are not
noted except in type.

5804 - World total population
1955 - total Christian
1126 - total Muslim
981 - Roman Catholic Christian
957 - Sunni Muslim
886 - non-religious
793 - total Hindu
555 - Vaishnavite Hindu
404 - Protestant Christian
325 - total Buddist
282 - other Christians
222 - Athiest
220 - Chineese Folk religions
218 - Orthodox Christian
198 - Shaivite Hindu
182 - Mahayana Buddhist
158 - Shi'ite Muslim
123 Theravada Buddhist
106 - new religionists
103 - ethnic religionists
69 - Anglican Christian
40 - other Hindu
20 - Other Buddhists
20 - Sikh
14 - Jew
13 - other religionists
11 - other Muslims
10 - Spiritists
6 - Baha'i

[Ed Edwards]

Where are the "fundamentalists"?
Where are the "Pagans"?

[Slipped Mickey]

"Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality."

Tolerance is relative Ed. All religions share a core of truth. At basic level all religions have much in common.



1. The Bible speaks of the devil's "doctrines of demons."

2. If the Bible's true there is a Satan.

3. If there is a Satan, then one should expect him to inspire the false so as to deceive.

4. If Satan inspires the false so as to deceive, the false must have enough truth laced in it so as to make it "palatable."


Buzz I so much disagree with where you are coming from with that I wouldn't know where to start. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. We'd have to begin at the very beginning and that's not going to happen.

[buzaw]

"Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality."

Tolerance is relative Ed. All religions share a core of truth. At basic level all religions have much in common.



1. The Bible speaks of the devil's "doctrines of demons."

2. If the Bible's true there is a Satan.

3. If there is a Satan, then one should expect him to inspire the false so as to deceive.

4. If Satan inspires the false so as to deceive, the false must have enough truth laced in it so as to make it "palatable."


Buzz I so much disagree with where you are coming from with that I wouldn't know where to start. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. We'd have to begin at the very beginning and that's not going to happen.


It's not that complicated now, is it Mick? You haveta agree with items one and two no matter what you believe. Right?? So that leaves you with two items.

Are items three and four all that complicated so as to be unable to be addressed?? Is it that you don't like the obvious answers? Is that your problem?

There's a devil for sure, yes siree. I do believe there is a being called Satan, the devil.

[Slipped Mickey]

"Humm... That is what one might would expect.
I would expect more a religion of tolerance,
a religion of commonality."

Tolerance is relative Ed. All religions share a core of truth. At basic level all religions have much in common.



1. The Bible speaks of the devil's "doctrines of demons."

2. If the Bible's true there is a Satan.

3. If there is a Satan, then one should expect him to inspire the false so as to deceive.

4. If Satan inspires the false so as to deceive, the false must have enough truth laced in it so as to make it "palatable."


Buzz I so much disagree with where you are coming from with that I wouldn't know where to start. It's like trying to untangle a box of coat hangers. We'd have to begin at the very beginning and that's not going to happen.


It's not that complicated now, is it Mick? You haveta agree with items one and two no matter what you believe. Right?? So that leaves you with two items.

Are items three and four all that complicated so as to be unable to be addressed?? Is it that you don't like the obvious answers? Is that your problem?


Actually no. Your premise is based on an interpretation of a book which is accepted as truth but so far has not been validated. Further the book is incomplete, edited, and contains contradictions. Lastly you are going to believe as you believe and PROOF would not change what you believe.

If you want let's take virgin birth. We can talk about that for months and when given the facts you are NOT going to change your mind.

[buzaw]

Actually no. Your premise is based on an interpretation of a book which is accepted as truth but so far has not been validated. Further the book is incomplete, edited, and contains contradictions. Lastly you are going to believe as you believe and PROOF would not change what you believe.

If you want let's take virgin birth. We can talk about that for months and when given the facts you are NOT going to change your mind.


So you choose not to address the specific questions posed. Ok, fine. I won't waste any more time on it.

Faith, it's the stuff miracles are made of. :)