Christianity vs. christianity

[KarlMarx1989]

Many people in christian-America do not follow the teachings of Imman-el as Biblia Sacra. Most use Christianity for; their own personal gain, as security so they feel safe, to get their way with people they are uncomfortable around, and a variety of other reasons. These are also people who do not read Biblia Sacra and take the prescriptures in it out of context.

Real Christianity was not intended to even have religion in it. Religion is human's attempt to reach their god through rituals, rites, ceremonies, etc. the "New Testament" of Biblia Sacra teaches that god is trying to reach mankind. It teaches that Imman-el came down to tell people that they don't need to try to reach god, but to just have faith in their god to make things right. A Christian is believes that Imman-el will come down at the end of the world and save all who believed. This means that Christians do not fear the end of the world because they know they did right and that their god will take them up.

Real Christians believe that people are born homosexual. Just as a married man lusts for other women, homosexuals and married men alike are not supposed to act on those feelings. To a real Christian, marriage is for their god, not for each other. Besides, Imman-el said nothing about homosexuals; good nor bad. Any christian who spits hate toward gay people, uses violence on them, etc. is not a Christian. Any christian who believes that god would never create someone to be homosexual is not a Christian.

Nationalism and Christianity do not go together. This is something that the Roman Empire started and the United States continued. When christian-America was founded and emancipated from Britain, the intent was for there to be no Christianity. However, it found its way into the government anyway; and now you have christianity the way America makes it to be, today. Christians, are taught to only have faith in his / her god; not in a nation. god Is the only one authority to a real Christian. Imman-el told people to help every person, this included people of other nations. He taught against discrimination for every human is a sinner. Any christian that believes that military is good and support things like that is not a Christian.

Sports and the ideals of Imman-el also do not go with one another. Everyone is to be treated equally and give glory to god. Any christian who is a fan of sports and glorifies a sports hero is not a Christian. A Christian does not like sports, it creates not only separation of man from their god; but it also makes people glorify someone other than god.

In the teachings of Imman-el, nothing belongs to any human. Everything belongs to god. Therefore, one must hold their possessions with a "loose grip." Imman-el taught that since everything belongs to god that god decided what is done with these possessions. Imman-el taught that people should share. He taught that everything should be distributed so that everyone gets the same amount. People must also not forget that god is all people really need (besides food, sleep, etc.), anyway, so they mustn't put too much attention into their possessions. A christian who has many possessions and never lets anyone else have them and holds onto them tightly is not a Christian. Anyone christian who keeps money in their bank account so they can have it for themselves when they "need" it is not a Christian.

Christians do not watch television for very long each day. They believe that television is taking glory away from god; as it is with literature, ironically. For example, when one likes a book so much that they start paying attention to that author and wait for his / her next book to come out, Christians believe that this takes glory away from god. Any christian who doesn't want to miss a TV show or can't wait for an authors next book is not a Christian.

christianity Is more of a product today. Televangelists are not Christians; but christians. They use Biblia Sacra to make money. Christians would not support this at all. Any christian who watches televised church ceremonies and/or attends "mega-churches" is not a Christian.

A Christian believes that a church is a fellowship of people who believe in god, not a place to go and worship their god. Any christian who believes that they have to go to church because this person believes that it is the place that you worship his / her god is not a Christian. No Christian HAS to go to church, however most still do for they are merely using a building to bring their fellowship of people together so to worship their god.

In conclusion, many people in christian-America are not Christian but they use Christianity for their own purposes. However, this does not happen just in christian-America. Any people in any nation who practice christianity improperly, uses it, or practices catholicism are not Christians.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a follower of any belief system. Even Christianity still promotes that women are not equal to men and that nations should follow god's laws. I do not support either and there are still far more reasons for me not to believe any system of beliefs or religions. I am merely writing on the behalf of the people who aren't like the christians who are not violent and are not oppressive, but rather exclusive, with the Christian religion.

[Invincible Summer]

I agree that what you would consider "mainstream Christianity" is used for selfish purposes, but I don't really see where you're going with this "Imman-el" and "Biblia sacra" stuff.

[RedAnarchist]

Imman-el = Immanuel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel

[KarlMarx1989]

Biblia Sacra = The Bible (It is the original title of "The Bible" especially since bible isn't really a word.)

Imman-el = Immanuel = Jesus (His birth name)

[spiltteeth]

I just call Him Manny.

[KarlMarx1989]

Yes, it is much easier to give him a familiar nickname. I think that is what people did when they call him Jesus. More so when they call him Christ.

[Invincible Summer]

Why do some religious sects not spell out the full name of God? Sometimes I see G-d, and, evidently, Imman-el... is this to avoid being "blasphemous" or whatever?

[Revy]

Real Christians believe that people are born homosexual. Just as a married man lusts for other women, homosexuals and married men alike are not supposed to act on those feelings. To a real Christian, marriage is for their god, not for each other. Besides, Imman-el said nothing about homosexuals; good nor bad. Any christian who spits hate toward gay people, uses violence on them, etc. is not a Christian. Any christian who believes that god would never create someone to be homosexual is not a Christian.


What the hell do you mean by homosexuals not acting on those feelings? I hope you're not arguing that you think homosexuals should not feel free to act on their homosexuality. Because I really think it would be Restriction time for you.



Sports and the ideals of Imman-el also do not go with one another. Everyone is to be treated equally and give glory to god. Any christian who is a fan of sports and glorifies a sports hero is not a Christian. A Christian does not like sports, it creates not only separation of man from their god; but it also makes people glorify someone other than god.

This is just silly. A Christian does not like sports? You've really gone off the deep end there. Most sports is about teams too, not just the adoration of individuals.


Christians do not watch television for very long each day. They believe that television is taking glory away from god; as it is with literature, ironically. For example, when one likes a book so much that they start paying attention to that author and wait for his / her next book to come out, Christians believe that this takes glory away from god. Any christian who doesn't want to miss a TV show or can't wait for an authors next book is not a Christian.

More "wtf" stuff here. Now you're denouncing television and books. Why? Should we just read the boring old Bible? (excuse me, "Biblia Sacra")

Glory to Imman-el! :rolleyes::laugh: (at least it's more original than the "Yeshua" stuff, and it makes a nice pun, "iman" (Arabic for faith) and "el" (Hebrew for God)).

[KarlMarx1989]

I hope you're not arguing that you think homosexuals should not feel free to act on their homosexuality.
Why, of course not. I believe that everyone has different feelings about everything and should have the freedom to express those feelings. However, if it is a dislike; I believe that we can all rise above our baser instincts and not be violent about it.

I am merely stating what Biblia Sacra actually teaches. There are a lot of people who just believe it or they use it for personal gain therefore have no determination to learn any of it. People who actually read Biblia Sacra know all of what I have stated here.

A Christian does not like sports? ... Most sports is about teams too, not just the adoration of individuals.
Imman-el taught that no person is better than another for they are all sinners. Even liking a team of people better than another is still putting some people over others. The same goes for nationalism.

This is something that the Roman Empire started and the United States continued. When christian-America was founded and emancipated from Britain, the intent was for there to be no Christianity. However, it found its way into the government anyway; and now you have christianity the way America makes it to be, today. Christians, are taught to only have faith in his / her god; not in a nation. god Is the only one authority to a real Christian. Imman-el told people to help every person, this included people of other nations. He taught against discrimination for every human is a sinner. Any christian that believes that military is good and support things like that is not a Christian.
Therefore, a christian should not partake in sports if they want to get into this "Heaven."

"iman" (Arabic for faith) and "el" (Hebrew for God)
This is exactly what I am talking about. This is a very misguided statement.

Imman-el = Immanuel is Aramaic (Yes, Aramaic and Arabic are different languages) for "God with us"
"Yeshua" [Actually transliterated as Jeshua] is Hebrew for "Jewah [or as you would spell it: Yewah] Delivers."
Iēsoûs Christós (Jesus Christ) is Greek for "Jewah delivers the annointed one" whereas Iēsoûs = "Jewah Delivers" and Christós = "The annointed one."

I assume that you are not Christian or christian so I can understand why you would not know any of this.

Again, I am not Christian, christian, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, superstitious, etc. I am atheisticaly irreligious. I don't believe any of this myself. I am just showing what Biblia Sacra actually teaches. I feel this is important because people are ruling countries like christian-America with such gross mislead followings of Imman-el's teachings and malpractice of his ways.

[9]

Out of curiosity, if you do not believe it, why do you still write "Imman-el"? I am of Jewish descent, and was taught - although my parents were only mildly religious - to always write "G-d" instead of "God", but I stopped doing this long ago as I don't believe in the nonsense anyway. Every once in a while I'll still, out of habit, write "G-d", but you seem to be writing "Imman-el" quite consciously. So I'm curious of the significance of doing so if you yourself are not Christian.

[Revy]

I already knew what Immanuel really meant. I was just making a rather off-topic observation.
Comparing sports to nationalism? It's just a game. I mean, according to this logic, why play games at all? I guess the only game we should play is Solitaire, huh? (although I like playing Solitaire, actually)

Your posts are still dictating what a real Christian is and inserting these ideas on irrelevant things like sports or television. it still comes off like you're a Christian, albeit a particularly unusual one.

[Demogorgon]

Trying to define Christianity exclusively as if there were some Metaphysical form of it to which it must endeavour to match is plain silly. The only reasonable way to define Christianity is "what Christians believe".

[KarlMarx1989]

It's just a game. I mean, according to this logic, why play games at all?
OK, I may not like sports; but it's for different reasons than "why Biblia Sacra says it would be bad." I am not Christian or christian, like I stated earlier.

Personally, I think that the glorification of the "sports hero" or of a team or a racer, golfer, etc. is teaching the younger generation that physical prowess is more important than intelligence. Furthermore, the media likes to portray a lot of adult entertainment and some television shows and video games for being violent. This is all fantasy, not real. Whereas violence in sports is real. Well, most sports.

Anyway, my point is that people put far too much emphasis and money into sports and that sports tend to promote strength rather than intelligence.

it still comes off like you're a Christian, albeit a particularly unusual one.
Again, I am not Christian or christian. Nor am I Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, superstitious, Shinto, Tao, or any belief in a deity or "intelligent design."

Also, if I were a Christian; I would--unfortunately--an unusual Christian because there is far too much malpractice. And that is what is succeeding in today's society! That is what baffles me.

Trying to define Christianity exclusively as if there were some Metaphysical form of it to which it must endeavour to match is plain silly. The only reasonable way to define Christianity is "what Christians believe".
I agree. Christians and christians both believe different things.

You see, a religion is humans' attempt to get to their god.

1) Imman-el taught that 'god' is trying to get to man. Therefore, Christianity cannot be classified as a religion.
2) christians--ones who don't study or learn about their religion at all and take everything their preacher tells them as fact--still perform what I like to classify as rituals and 'go to church' and do things they think they have to do just so they can get to 'god' in this "Heaven."

Is that clear enough for you? They are both entirely different beliefs, fundementally or otherwise.

[Invincible Summer]

So are you promoting a highly orthodox Christianity that follows the Bible strictly?

[9]

You never responded to my question, and I am genuinely very curious.


Out of curiosity, if you do not believe it, why do you still write "Imman-el"? I am of Jewish descent, and was taught - although my parents were only mildly religious - to always write "G-d" instead of "God", but I stopped doing this long ago as I don't believe in the nonsense anyway. Every once in a while I'll still, out of habit, write "G-d", but you seem to be writing "Imman-el" quite consciously. So I'm curious of the significance of doing so if you yourself are not Christian.

[KarlMarx1989]

Well then, to answer your question; I like to call people by their birth names when possible. His birth name was Imman-el = Immanuel.

[Invincible Summer]

Well then, to answer your question; I like to call people by their birth names when possible. His birth name was Imman-el = Immanuel.

His name was "Imman hyphen el?" And you didn't answer my previous question either:


So are you promoting a highly orthodox Christianity that follows the Bible strictly?

[brigadista]

really who gives a flying...

[KarlMarx1989]

No, to answer your previous question. As I have said countless times before, I am not christian myself. However, I think that we (by we I mean the comrades who live in the US) need to focus on getting rid of the catholic church and all of the other feux-christian followers before we fight the religion itself. It's priority.

[KarlMarx1989]

And in case you want me to answer that question you have sitting right there, yes.

[Dean]

Well then, to answer your question; I like to call people by their birth names when possible. His birth name was Imman-el = Immanuel.

No, its not. Emmanuel means "god with us" and was used to describe "the messiah" before he was even born. If anything, Emmanuel is probably interchangeable with 'Jesus' (which is the common term here I would use not to confuse people).

[KarlMarx1989]

And they spoke Aramaic, so what would they have named him but his Aramaic name. Unless you can manage to find another Aramaic name he was given,,,

I think that this is the same thing as other figures in Biblia Sacra. For example, in The Tanakh, Solomon was named so for in Hebrew it means "peace." To go further back, Jahoshua [Joshua] was named for "Jewah has saved" in Hebrew; because that was his family's native language.

It is the very same with Immanuel. In Hebrew his name was Jeshua--as I stated before--for "Jewah delivers." However, that was not Miriam's native language, Aramaic was. That is why his name was Immanuel at birth.

[spiltteeth]

And they spoke Aramaic, so what would they have named him but his Aramaic name. Unless you can manage to find another Aramaic name he was given,,,

I think that this is the same thing as other figures in Biblia Sacra. For example, in The Tanakh, Solomon was named so for in Hebrew it means "peace." To go further back, Jahoshua [Joshua] was named for "Jewah has saved" in Hebrew; because that was his family's native language.

It is the very same with Immanuel. In Hebrew his name was Jeshua--as I stated before--for "Jewah delivers." However, that was not Miriam's native language, Aramaic was. That is why his name was Immanuel at birth.

I believe the correct term is 'Bibliotecha Sacripopolous'

[KarlMarx1989]

I believe the correct term is 'Bibliotecha Sacripopolous'
Oh, yeah; ***** about the title Biblia Sacra because I didn't call it 'The Bible' but none of you have said anything about my use of The Tanakh which, to you, would be "The Old Testament."

Seriously, fight the whole thing if you're going to fight it. If not, shut up about it. Choosing your battles is not a good way to go about revolution, comrades.

[Jazzratt]

Oh, yeah; ***** about the title Biblia Sacra because I didn't call it 'The Bible' but none of you have said anything about my use of The Tanakh which, to you, would be "The Old Testament."

Seriously, fight the whole thing if you're going to fight it. If not, shut up about it. Choosing your battles is not a good way to go about revolution, comrades.

God fucking damn it, take your head out of your arse for fuck's sake.

[KarlMarx1989]

Is it not true that no one has complained about The Tanakh even though it is the same as calling Biblia Sacra Biblia Sacra?

If you know what I mean, then why complain about it? If you all really have things to do concerning revolution then why are you so fixated on what I call what?

I really don't think it matters. Why can't you stick to the issue at hand?

[KarlMarx1989]

Seriously!

[gorillafuck]

No, to answer your previous question. As I have said countless times before, I am not christian myself. However, I think that we (by we I mean the comrades who live in the US) need to focus on getting rid of the catholic church and all of the other feux-christian followers before we fight the religion itself. It's priority.
So we should go around telling people that they aren't practicing Christianity correctly? Why would we do that?

Anywho, fighting religion is generally pointless in my opinion. Religion will only really leave society when people no longer need to cling to it.

[KarlMarx1989]

fighting religion is generally pointless in my opinion. Religion will only really leave society when people no longer need to cling to it.
If someone could've just stepped up and said that in the first place...you know?

[spiltteeth]

Is it not true that no one has complained about The Tanakh even though it is the same as calling Biblia Sacra Biblia Sacra?

If you know what I mean, then why complain about it? If you all really have things to do concerning revolution then why are you so fixated on what I call what?

I really don't think it matters. Why can't you stick to the issue at hand?

The Tanakh ? What the hell is that? Do you mean this? :

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/tank_jpg38dee7bba78c2848e8d9f7a8d87.jpg

[KarlMarx1989]

Of course, what I am talking about--if you had read my whole post, you'd know this--is what many people who follow the masses call "the Old Testament." The Jewish called it The Tanakh far before Immanuel was around. When this "New Testament" was added by "the messiah's disciples" Sa'ul (known by pretentious dickheads as Paul) named the concoction Biblia Sacra.

[gorillafuck]

If someone could've just stepped up and said that in the first place...you know?
Excuse me but did you just get mad at me for not responding soon enough?

[KarlMarx1989]

Excuse me but did you just get mad at me for not responding soon enough?
No, not at all. What I meant was that it would've been better if someone had mentioned something like that earlier. I am glad, overall, that someone did. I am not angry at all. I apologize for the vagueness of my last post.

[Jazzratt]

Of course, what I am talking about--if you had read my whole post, you'd know this--is what many people who follow the masses call "the Old Testament." The Jewish called it The Tanakh far before Immanuel was around. When this "New Testament" was added by "the messiah's disciples" Sa'ul (known by pretentious dickheads as Paul) named the concoction Biblia Sacra.

Do you talk like this when you're in the pub? Honestly if you have to spell out to people what you mean whenever you dredge up an obscure word for something that is well understood then you're not really acting in the interests of understandable communication. Not only does it make people less inclined to hear you out it can also obsfucate the point you're trying to make - for example I had to guess from context that "Immanuel" is Jesus in your idiolect.

[spiltteeth]

So, since almost nobody knows Snoop Dogg's birth name, when talking about rap, even to hip hop fans, it would be retarded to say, "Hey, Cordazar Calvin Broadus's new album just dropped! Holy Immanuel it's hot!"

Don't you have babblefish for your language?

[KarlMarx1989]

Do you talk like this when you're in the pub? Honestly if you have to spell out to people what you mean whenever you dredge up an obscure word for something that is well understood then you're not really acting in the interests of understandable communication.No, I don't; because everyone else--outside of this website--that I talk to about things like this know exactly what I'm talking about. This may be because they do a thing called Studying. What's this you ask. Why, I'd be happy to answer that.

Studying is when you read about a single subject and remembering facts (that's F-A-C-T facts, OK?) about it and using them when presenting what you've learned.

or just look up the definition, you know what I'll put it up for all to see:

Study
–verb (used with object)
1. to apply oneself to acquiring a knowledge of (a subject).
2. to examine or investigate carefully and in detail: to study the political situation.
3. to observe attentively; scrutinize: to study a person's face.
4. to read carefully or intently: to study a book.
5. to endeavor to learn or memorize, as a part in a play.
6. to consider, as something to be achieved or devised.
7. to think out, as the result of careful consideration or devising

[KarlMarx1989]

And if you want my point back:

My point in this thread is that there is what Immanuel taught and then there's what most self-described "christians" do regarding what Immanuel taught. Two very different things.

[spiltteeth]

And if you want my point back:

My point in this thread is that there is what Immanuel taught and then there's what most self-described "christians" do regarding what Immanuel taught. Two very different things.

Who the hell is Imannuel?

[spiltteeth]

No, I don't; because everyone else--outside of this website--that I talk to about things like this know exactly what I'm talking about. This may be because they do a thing called Studying. What's this you ask. Why, I'd be happy to answer that.

Studying is when you read about a single subject and remembering facts (that's F-A-C-T facts, OK?) about it and using them when presenting what you've learned.

or just look up the definition, you know what I'll put it up for all to see:

Study
–verb (used with object)
1. to apply oneself to acquiring a knowledge of (a subject).
2. to examine or investigate carefully and in detail: to study the political situation.
3. to observe attentively; scrutinize: to study a person's face.
4. to read carefully or intently: to study a book.
5. to endeavor to learn or memorize, as a part in a play.
6. to consider, as something to be achieved or devised.
7. to think out, as the result of careful consideration or devising

I believe the correct word is "stoody"

[Jazzratt]

No, I don't; because everyone else--outside of this website--that I talk to about things like this know exactly what I'm talking about. This may be because they do a thing called Studying. What's this you ask. Why, I'd be happy to answer that.

Studying is when you read about a single subject and remembering facts (that's F-A-C-T facts, OK?) about it and using them when presenting what you've learned.

or just look up the definition, you know what I'll put it up for all to see:

Study
–verb (used with object)
1. to apply oneself to acquiring a knowledge of (a subject).
2. to examine or investigate carefully and in detail: to study the political situation.
3. to observe attentively; scrutinize: to study a person's face.
4. to read carefully or intently: to study a book.
5. to endeavor to learn or memorize, as a part in a play.
6. to consider, as something to be achieved or devised.
7. to think out, as the result of careful consideration or devising

Laugh? I nearly. But really I would have thrown you out of the pub long ago were I the barkeeper.

Fucking grow up. I can assure you that I know of no one I have met, no matter their qualifications, field of study or store of general knowledge has ever used any of the terms you have in reference to fairly everyday concepts and objects. Perhaps though it's because most people I have met have studied useful subjects (such as chemistry or physics), ones that hold a certain amount of interest (english literature or philosphy for example) or have not "studied" as a single occupation or in an official capacity for sometime yet nevertheless continue to improve themselves. Perhaps were I to meet you and your group of highly specialised academics I could see the point in constant, pointless, word substitutions designed seemingly entirely so that you can behave like a condescending prick to the majority of the english speaking world.

[KarlMarx1989]

I would have thrown you out of the pub long ago were I the barkeeper.
Fair enough; but what does this have to do with the topic?

Fucking grow up. I can assure you that I know of no one I have met, no matter their qualifications, field of study or store of general knowledge has ever used any of the terms you have in reference to fairly everyday concepts and objects.
This may be because those people learn from others who use 'Jesus' and 'Bible' when referring to these things. Also, what would you call the book the Jewish read? You see, to them it is not an old testament. They call it The Tanakh. They call it that because that is what it was named. Just as that added with this "New Testament" was first named Biblia Sacra which in English is Sacred Book. So where did 'Bible' come in to all of this. So I don't deal with shit like that, it gets people so sidetracked that they miss just how much the New Testament contradicts the whole 'religion' surrounding Immanuel (This 'Jesus' character's birth name).

You are from England, correct? You sound a lot like an American when you talk like that. Americans call football 'soccer' and the last letter of the English alphabet is pronounced "zee" rather than "zed", here, in America. Americans still use the standard system for fuck's sake! And to Americans, 'Bible' is a word and Jesus is the name of the Messiah. They don't even consider Iesous which is the origin of this whole Jesus fiasco.

Perhaps though it's because most people I have met have studied useful subjects (such as chemistry or physics), ones that hold a certain amount of interest (english literature or philosphy for example) or have not "studied" as a single occupation or in an official capacity for sometime yet nevertheless continue to improve themselves.
Not to alarm you, but there is a such thing as studying about one thing and studying about others on the side; you know on your free time. It doesn't take all that long at all to learn about Biblia Sacra and what it teaches. Maybe just a couple hours of reading per day. That is what I do.

[Jazzratt]

This may be because those people learn from others who use 'Jesus' and 'Bible' when referring to these things.

No surprises there. That's because, whether or not you approve, those are the generally accepted words used throughout the english speaking world.


Also, what would you call the book the Jewish read?

I've never actually known. I do not know anyone who is religiously jewish and have never had cause to find out much about Judaism.


You see, to them it is not an old testament. They call it The Tanakh. They call it that because that is what it was named.

Fine by me.


Just as that added with this "New Testament" was first named Biblia Sacra which in English is Sacred Book. So where did 'Bible' come in to all of this.

I don't know, I have never studied the etymology of the term "bible". It is, however, undeniably the term we use now. Language changes over time so attempting to be nice by using nonstandard terms is a complete nonstarter.


So I don't deal with shit like that, it gets people so sidetracked that they miss just how much the New Testament contradicts the whole 'religion' surrounding Immanuel (This 'Jesus' character's birth name).

I don't see how using the standard fucking terms sidetracks you from anything.


You are from England, correct? You sound a lot like an American when you talk like that.

Erm, okay?


Americans call football 'soccer' and the last letter of the English alphabet is pronounced "zee" rather than "zed", here, in America.

Americans call association football soccer because that is one of its names and stems from "association" in much the same way as rugger (a term for rugby) derives from "Rugby Football". While I don't use americanised language as a rule (or at least consciously, using the internet for any amount of time will cause bits and pieces to spill into my lexis) I don't see it as being some sort of aberrant and perverted thing to avoid at all costs.


Americans still use the standard system for fuck's sake!

A large amount of Britian still goes by the imperial (standard) system; I will drink a pint of beer at a seat that's a few feet off the ground and a handful of yards from the bar (on the other hand I'll have a 50 gram packet of pork scratchings and possibly a 25ml measure of whisky. We're somewhat schizophrenic in our measurements). Personally it would be good to see a nicer system like the metric used universally here in England.


And to Americans, 'Bible' is a word and Jesus is the name of the Messiah. They don't even consider Iesous which is the origin of this whole Jesus fiasco.

I'm afraid to say this is the case in Britain, Australia and other parts of the Anglosphere. I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that people who follow the religion use those terms and they, arguably, have the last word in what is and isn't correct parlance.


Not to alarm you, but there is a such thing as studying about one thing and studying about others on the side;

Well shit, there I was thinking that people only ever posessed a single set of skills. That's where me and my mates must have gone wrong, we've all single mindedly studied only one area. It's like we all have very sevre autism or something :rolleyes:


you know on your free time. It doesn't take all that long at all to learn about Biblia Sacra and what it teaches. Maybe just a couple hours of reading per day. That is what I do.

The bible and its lessons hold minimal interest for me. I'll read about them if they have relevance to something else I wish to study but for the most part I see no value in trying to learn about them and I certainly do not wish to start now simply to please you and begin talking your idiolect.

[KarlMarx1989]

I certainly do not wish to start now simply to please you and begin talking your idiolect.
That's fine. What I am asking for is as I understand your idolect that you do the same without all the fuss. You know what I mean, keep using what you would use just as if we were having a conversation in person. That is all I have been trying to say. If we understand each other, then I think we can definitely move along with this.

Again, my point in this thread:

Many people who claim to be christians don't actually follow the ways of Immanuel nor do they even follow a lot of the law laid down in "The Torah" which is the first five books in The Tanakh that were written by 'Moses.' People are ruling countries with this malpractice and utter ill-knowlege to the religion they are ruling with.