Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Are Evangelicals Evil?


  • Please log in to reply
2348 replies to this topic

#41 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 24 September 2008 - 09:06 PM

What were his teachings that were seperate from the teachings of mainstream Christianity?


I never was a member of his cult so I cannot give you the specifics of what he taught, only that he stopped teaching "thus sayeth the Word" and started teaching "because I said so".

I gather you are not very familiar with Christian churches and evangelicals in particular.
  • 0

#42 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 24 September 2008 - 09:12 PM

I never was a member of his cult so I cannot give you the specifics of what he taught, only that he stopped teaching "thus sayeth the Word" and started teaching "because I said so".

I gather you are not very familiar with Christian churches and evangelicals in particular.


Well then its speculation. Purely what you think you heard him say, maybe, possibly, you really don't know...

I can't go by that.

Tell me what he taught that was against, different from mainstream Christianity.

If you can't do that then obviously you neither familiar with Jones nor Christian churches and evangelicals in particular...
  • 0

#43 RobertD

RobertD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23744 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 12:45 AM

The God of the Bible allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

Reports exist of sexual slavery in the United States. They include sexual slavery of children under inhumane conditions, working children in organized crime as well as in legitimate businesses, and trading sexual favors for contracts and business .

In 2002, the US Department of State repeated an earlier CIA estimate that each year, about 50,000 women and children are brought against their will to the United States for sexual exploitation.


It is estimated that there are 60 million survivors of childhood sexual abuse in America today.

Approximately 95% of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused.

It is estimated that children with disabilities are 4 to 10 times more vulnerable to sexual abuse than their non-disabled peers.


The most recent statistical data available on child homicide rates, Murray said, indicated that the U.S. had the highest infant-child homicide rate.

Even in the 5-14 age group, he said, the U.S. non-gun murder rate is more than double the rates taken from the international sampling group.

In 1992, after the fatal shooting of 7-year-old Dantrell Davis as he left the Cabrini-Green public housing project for school, the Chicago Tribune put every child murder on the front page (generally no murders were front page news). 62 child murders were reported that year just in Chicago.

In the U.K. the number of child homicides has averaged 79 a year for the last 28 years. The Home Office also provides unpublished figures on the relationship between the child victims of homicide in any one year and the principal suspect. Latest figures for 2000/2001 show that parents were the principal suspect in 78 per cent of child homicides.


Saddam charged with crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 men. The English Evangelical Protestants have killed 78 children every year. We invaded Iraq and killed over 1.2 million people to liberate Iraqis.

I for one would not mind invading the UK and could tolerate the deaths of over 6 million English to save to life of one child.

Rescue all children from Evanglical Protestant evil doers...


Rather hypocritical to blame the evangelicals for the doings of the satanists...
  • 0

#44 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 02:18 AM

Rather hypocritical to blame the evangelicals for the doings of the satanists...


Good point...

The question should then be; are Evangelicals Satanists?
  • 0

#45 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:06 AM

Canadian Evangelical Media Zionists Expose Themselves...Again

By Victor Fletcher
9-24-8

The zionists have apparently passed a spying shopping list to Canada's Evangelical run National Post (founded by jailed criminal Conrad Black, the paper which invented the fake story about an Iranian law that required Jews to wear the Star of David) - to intimidate Toronto Street News; they have now given the same shopping list for intelligence gathering against our little paper to a contact at CBC Radio which is Canada's equivalent to the BBC -- a national government broadcaster on TV and radio across Canada. National Post has already told malicious lies about Toronto Street News - we will have to sue for damages.

Chana Stern, our owner returned the call for us. When she gave them her name reporter Roddekoppe immediately exclaimed: "Oh, you're Jewish!" Her cover story for calling us was to claim she was doing a story on street papers. Though the figures are on the front page of every issue and the publisher's name is printed inside she wanted to know what our sales were (they are on each and every front page) and the publisher's name which is on page 4 of every issue as required by law.

She wanted to know how much our "distributors" make (from 0 to 10 cents for their volunteer costs), then she wanted to know why we talk about zionism and Jews.

Alarmingly, this pattern of intelligence gathering by more than one large Evangelical media organization is aimed at finding out my Jewish printer, my distributors, my income, my salesman's location, my street vendors, my fellow journalists and my family.

Continued
  • 0

#46 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:31 AM

Well then its speculation. Purely what you think you heard him say, maybe, possibly, you really don't know...

I can't go by that.

Tell me what he taught that was against, different from mainstream Christianity.

If you can't do that then obviously you neither familiar with Jones nor Christian churches and evangelicals in particular...

Perhaps you would be in a better position to tell me what your Christian Evangelical church teaches that agrees with what he taught.
  • 0

#47 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:01 AM

Perhaps you would be in a better position to tell me what your Christian Evangelical church teaches that agrees with what he taught.


I already did that. Which you disagreed with but you can't seem to remember on what grounds...
  • 0

#48 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 06:56 AM

Opposition to birth control is growing in conservative Evangelical groups...

The Bush Administration favored an abstinence-only approach to sexuality education, opposing comprehensive information and services for the billions of adolescents worldwide who are or will become sexually active, including through arranged early marriage or forced sexual relationships.

I don't understand why evangelicals use the word "Christian" when they actually mean "we the evangelicals" or even "our Bible study group". Considering Evangelicals tend to have more Pagan beliefs than Christian or anything remotely related to the Abrahamic faiths such as Islam and Judaism. Some Pagans Cults actually hated sex, just like Evangelicals. The reason why Evangelicals dispise sex can be difficult to understand, one has to first research their sexual habits.

If one notices the word Evangelical one immediately notices the similiarity to Ivan the Terrible.

Ivan the Terrible was a ruthless, savage, deranged killing machine. Which explains why 80% of White Evangelical males supported the war in Iraq but deny it.

Ivan the Terrible was not a very good lover and neither are Evangelicals. Which suggests that Evangelicals do not hate sex, they are just exetremely bad at it. Further evidence can be provided by understanding that Evangelicals are simply people who are deathly afraid that someone, somewhere, is having fun.

When the conversation does turn to sex the Evangelical is easily identified by the fact that he will describe his "first girlfriend" as a farm animal or member of the same sex, such as Pastor Haggard, Sen. Larry Craig and Mark Foley or mention novels in which the heroine is raped by a donkey and speak of homosexual romance writers such as Shakespear with great admiration.

The two delusions feed each other.

The one Oprah inspired delusion that sex has to be good each and every single time, if it is not then its not worth having sex with that person and time to find some one new. And the other Evangelical delusion that borders on a pathological belief that sex is evil.

To stand up against Evangelical insanity one has to become an Oprah fan. To understand natural behaviour one has to flee from Oprahism. Problem is that they are in fact two sides of the exact same coin, and the two delusions feed each other.

One does not need to be a Oprah fan nor an Evangelical to have a healthy, moral, loving relationship with their spouse. One has to actually avoid those two delusional idealogies if one wants to remain sane and enjoy partnership.

One can clearly see that Evangelicalism's popularity comes from trying to get away from Oprahism. Evangelicalism has nothing to do with faith, spirituality or love. Evangelicals are people who left one cult and joined another in order to remain exactly the same people. Hate, envy and fear without any accountability...
  • 0

#49 shaukat

shaukat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21822 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 12:55 PM

Evangelists are funny people - they support Zionist entity to fulfill their biblical prophecy (Scofield Bible Study) of gathering Jews in Palestine - so that when their Lord Christ reappear - He would have to travel from country to country to kill the Anti-Christ Jews.
  • 0

#50 Bilbo Baggins

Bilbo Baggins

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12793 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 03:50 PM

German evangelical nazi rally in 1933

Posted Image
  • 0

#51 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:29 PM

[quote name='Horseman']I already did that. Which you disagreed with but you can't seem to remember on what grounds...[/QUOTE]

Jim Jones made the same mistake that egotistical people have made for years. Like Richard Nixon, he foolishly made the mistake of recording his phone conversations. With a bit of research on the net I gleaned this gem from a transcript of one of those taped conversations.

[quote]Jones: Well, I
  • 0

#52 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 05:47 PM

Now it's your turn to tell me what your "Evangelical Church" teaches that agrees with being "agnostic" or "atheist".


Although not a member myself would the Church of England do?

The Church of England is to apologise to Charles Darwin for its initial rejection of his theories, nearly 150 years after he published his most famous work.

The Church of England will concede in a statement that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. It will call "anti-evolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church".

The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to traditional Christian teaching.

The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

"The statement will read: Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Source

No such thing as Evangelical Agnosticism you say?

The Summer 1981 FREE INQUIRY contained the article "What is Agnosticism?" by H. J. Blackham. It dealt primarily with intimations of agnosticism among skeptical philosophers before 1869, when Thomas Henry Huxley invented the term as a label for his personal approach to religious and philosophical questions.

Evangelical agnosticism is really nothing new. It is simply a reaffirmation of the principles enunciated by T. H. Huxley a century ago: It is wrong to say one is certain of the truth of any proposition unless one can produce satisfactory evidence. One's mind should always be open to conviction, and it is all right, after all, to confess one's ignorance about those things that one does not know.

William Henry Young

Tracing the concept back to T.H. Huxley, Young defines "evangelical agnosticism" as the following: "emphasizing a ready willingness to accept the fact that we live without final answers to many questions, encouraging a commitment to consider all possible answers to our questions, and suggesting that it is immoral to advocate answers beyond the extent of our evidence."

As far as your phone tapping goes, it sound more like the conversation that took place between George Bush and Jesus regarding the WMD in Iraq.
  • 0

#53 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 06:22 PM

Although not a member myself would the Church of England do?

Nope!

When I told you "I never was a member of his cult so I cannot give you the specifics of what he taught, only that he stopped teaching "thus sayeth the Word" and started teaching "because I said so".

You responded, "Well then its speculation. Purely what you think you heard him say, maybe, possibly, you really don't know..."

Therefore, by your own criteria, if you have never been a member of the Church of England, you cannot possibly know what is being taught.
  • 0

#54 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 06:39 PM

Nope!

When I told you "I never was a member of his cult so I cannot give you the specifics of what he taught, only that he stopped teaching "thus sayeth the Word" and started teaching "because I said so".

You responded, "Well then its speculation. Purely what you think you heard him say, maybe, possibly, you really don't know..."

Therefore, by your own criteria, if you have never been a member of the Church of England, you cannot possibly know what is being taught.


So according to you I can't accept the word of the Church of England which is a printed document backed by the Church of England and I am not allowed to accept this because I'm not a member of that Church...

But you can present a alleged phone call, without any proof of where it cam from, as fact I must accept.

So let me understand you correctly you are saying that Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs is a clown and his documented statement, "Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century." is pure speculation on my part because I'm not a member of his Church.

Yet your statement, "With a bit of research on the net I gleaned this gem from a transcript of one of those taped conversations." Without proof of where you got it and from whom is not speculation but fact.

In other words what Brown, the Church's director of mission said and is documented is speculation. What you think is fact. What some one actually says in an statment they issued is speculation, what some one claims to have found on the net is fact.

Ok fantastic, thank you for entertaining me...
  • 0

#55 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:10 PM

So according to you I can't accept the word of the Church of England which is a printed document backed by the Church of England and I am not allowed to accept this because I'm not a member of that Church...

No, you set the criteria, not me.

I'm just trying to respect your rules on this.
  • 0

#56 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:25 PM

No, you set the criteria, not me.

I'm just trying to respect your rules on this.


Since I'm in charge, the rules are as follows:

You will entertain me.

I will decide if I was entertained.
  • 0

#57 Michael II

Michael II

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:53 PM

Since I'm in charge, the rules are as follows:

You will entertain me.

I will decide if I was entertained.

Now there you go changing the rules.

No, I'm not here for your entertainment although I must admit to being entertained by your inability to abide by your own criteria. :lol:
  • 0

#58 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 08:55 PM

Now there you go changing the rules.

No, I'm not here for your entertainment although I must admit to being entertained by your inability to abide by your own criteria.


Sorry wasn't entertaining enough...

Try again...
  • 0

#59 RobertD

RobertD

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23744 posts

Posted 25 September 2008 - 10:54 PM

Good point...

The question should then be; are Evangelicals Satanists?


The real question is: Can you tell the difference between the two...?
Since you think Jim Jones is an evangelical, I seriously doubt you have any discernment in spiritual matters. Jim Jones was a satanist.
  • 0

#60 Horseman

Horseman

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18434 posts

Posted 26 September 2008 - 12:13 AM

Jim Jones was a satanist.


Well most Evangelicals are...

In the past Evangelicals talked about Jews eating babies, and about two decades ago we heard, from Evangelicals, about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqis. It seems Satanist and Evangelicals find dead babies to be popular topic of discussion...

Evangelicals, especially "true believers," in the "Prince of Peace" are famous for fighting with each other, just like Satanists who believe in the "Prince of Darkness."

When idiots say they are "evangelized" they mean to say they are now capable of correcting the spiritual defects of everyone who was not rescued by the death of the Virgin Prince whom was ritually sacrificed for the faults of man, who can never be perfect just by his nature.

Are one of those idiots BobbyD?

Progressive Christianity, now these cats are cool. Their tenets specifically state (I am paraphrasing) that they see themselves as having a way, through Jesus, among many ways found in other religions, to understand God.

And Evangelicals want to sell tickets to Purity Balls as a way of reaching out to others...
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru