I am open to rational answers, but not hokum. Using mythos to prove mythos is no answer.
I've said I'm not open to suspending rationality or sanity, you say that means I won't listen to you....um.....

The entirety of Christianity hinges on one thing; the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is a historical event and can be investigated that way. Jesus Christ is a real person who lived 2000 years ago in Israel. This isn't mythos and there is good evidence to believe it happened.

How do you know there's no FSM? I've seen exponentially more evidence of his existence than Yahweh's. I've eaten pasta. I absolutely believe in it more than Yahweh, but that's not a high bar.
Edit: How do you know there's no Allah? Odin? Zeus? Mythra? Mot? Cthulhu?

We both know that the fsm is a joke religion invented to mock Christianity.

The scripture tells us that men have worshiped other gods for thousands of years, but that what they worship are demons. So I believe those beings exist, but they aren't what they claim to be. One of Satans primary tools to deceive mankind is false religion. He provides supernatural confirmation of these religions. There is a desire in mans heart to worship God, and it gets corrupted so that man is willing to worship just about anything. In western culture, men idolize money, materialism, carnal lusts, even themselves. Our idols are less obvious but they are still idols.

One more time, my questions were 1.why is God's word so easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate? (Edit: especially given that properly interpreting it is allegedly the only way to escape eternal torture, seems like a set up.)

Any truth is easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate. This isn't a phenomenon unique to the scriptures; this is the reality of living in a fallen world. Corrupt men distort truth for their own gain. Look at the political situation in our country; how is what politicians do different from what prosperity preachers do? It really isn't.

The fact is that the gospel is very simple to understand; even a child could understand it, and they do. Gods word is very clear about our need for salvation and how to obtain it. It's man who overcomplicates it, distorts it for gain, or deliberately conceals the truth. Trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and believe He was raised from the dead. You don't need to be a theologian to understand that.

2.why is disbelief apparently worse than murder, rape, and slavery and so not covered by Jesus's sin erasing sacrifice and the only sin that's totally unforgivable.

How did you come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't die for unbelief? We all have unbelief that needs forgiveness which we receive by repentance. His atonement is not automatically transferred to everyone; the condition of receiving forgiveness is to believe. If you don't believe you won't receive forgiveness because you failed to meet the condition, not because unbelief is worse than murder necessarily. Dying without forgiveness for your sin is the problem, not that it can't be forgiven, but it can't be forgiven without repentance. It's kind of like this:

Let's say you had cancer and the only cure was in Los Angeles. You had no way to get there but God sent you a car to get you to Los Angeles and get the cure. When it arrived you didn't believe it would take you there so you didn't get in. A short time later you died of cancer.

So what was the reason you died? It was your unbelief that stopped you receiving the cure, but it was your cancer that killed you. In the same way it is your unbelief that keeps you from coming to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, so you will die in your sin.

I am interested in and open to an actual answer to either or both if you have one. It won't make me believe, but it might help me understand those who do a little better.

I'm happy to answer your questions newtboy..I just didn't want it to turn into another internet argument. I appreciate your candor

I am open to rational answers, but not hokum. Using mythos to prove mythos is no answer.
I've said I'm not open to suspending rationality or sanity, you say that means I won't listen to you....um.....

I offered precise questions in hope of precise answers, but got off topic rambling and accusations I won't listen. Understand why I don't respect that?

First, that's not an answer at all or even addressing my questions, it's a misdirection question.
Second, I don't know, but I'm 100% sure there's been zero credible evidence of it that I've ever heard of, as are you, and that it's a totally incredible story which require extraordinary evidence.

How do you know there's no FSM? I've seen exponentially more evidence of his existence than Yahweh's. I've eaten pasta. I absolutely believe in it more than Yahweh, but that's not a high bar.
Edit: How do you know there's no Allah? Odin? Zeus? Mythra? Mot? Cthulhu?

One more time, my questions were 1.why is God's word so easily misstated, misunderstood, misidentified, misused, confused, and used for evil and hate? (Edit: especially given that properly interpreting it is allegedly the only way to escape eternal torture, seems like a set up.) 2.why is disbelief apparently worse than murder, rape, and slavery and so not covered by Jesus's sin erasing sacrifice and the only sin that's totally unforgivable.
I am interested in and open to an actual answer to either or both if you have one. It won't make me believe, but it might help me understand those who do a little better.

*quality nutjobs

We are talking about the same idiot that agreed with a conservative talk show host, all the way back in 2011, that doing away with all amendments after the 10th "would eliminate many problems."

The amendments repealed would contain:

13th - Abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

14th - Defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post–Civil War issues.

15th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.

19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex.

24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax.

26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.

Yeah, I could see how making slavery legal again, making it impossible for the people you don't like to be citizens, and preventing undesirables (Blacks,Women,Poor,Young) people from voting would help a certain section of voters.

When Maher used it and Ice Cube came on to tell him how wrong he was I did sort of feel like its divisive power was perpetuated by the double standard it seemed to represent - black people can use it, white people can't. Honestly I thought it was all a bit hysterical (not hilarious), not that I doubted the authenticity of people taking offence, just that there was an obsession over the word rather then Maher's intent that only furthered the divide between black and white.

Now I think I missed the point. Naively I believed the end goal was to sterilize the word through usage, that the fact a word can cause offence is a sort of aberration. Recently I was made to understand that the word is venomous for good reason. It should be offensive because it represents not just a terrible history of slavery, but also of the continued oppression, both overt and insidious, that blacks experience.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and often I think that is how us whites use it. Mostly our intentions are good, we want to be part of that group... but we never will be because we will never experience that word the way a black man or woman will. I don't think I was a racist (well, so far as any of us are free from bias) when I used it before but I think it was ignorant and wrong of me. To only care for your own intent and ignore a word's symbolism is lazy and self interested.

I'd like a future where the word truly does lose contemporary meaning, but I don't think we get there by ignoring what it still represents to others.

$0.02

Your video, Sheriff Steve Prator, Unwittingly Admits Modern Day Slavery, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 1 Badge!

Although there are (hopefully) no statues to Hitler in Germany, to be honest, there is an ongoing debate about remebrance of the Wehrmacht and its generals by the Bundeswehr.
There are still some Bundeswehr bases named after Wehrmacht generals who fought in WW2. And there was a recent report about Wehrmacht paraphenalia (a small part of them clearly praising the Nazi ideology) in Bundeswehr bases.

But the main point in the debate about confederate memorials is that taking down statues or flags does not automatically state that every last Confederate soldier was personally fighting to uphold slavery. What those statues commemorate is what the confederate army as a whole were fighting for.

I wonder how many of the people who marched in Charlottesville and supposedly protested for a more diversifeid view of the confederacy (you see, I am not talking about the KKK, people here but the "Not all of those people were Neo-Nazis"-People) have the same thoughts about islam?
How many of them say "I think most muslims are not terrorists", how dare you take down statues of their generals and leaders?".

"A lot of racism comes from projection. White Americans have a stereotype of black people being criminals purely because they can’t acknowledge that it was actually white people that stole them from Africa in the first place. Today, you have the spectacle of black men being gunned down by cops who, by way of mitigation, release footage to show that the victims were running away. This is what happens when you don’t understand or even acknowledge history. You end up in a situation where, when slavery is the elephant in the room in your relationship with African Americans, you think it’s OK to say that you killed one of them because he was trying to escape."

Frankie Boyle

In the name to help Americans we get another Democrat program to keep the black man down.

Even after Republicans ended Democratic controlled slavery. Democrats still find ways to oppress.

Democrat policies have done more to hurt the black man than any other cause.


Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a reputation as a friend of black people, yet he signed laws that promoted racial segregation throughout the United States.

When will you sifters learn... Democrats are the enslaving party.

Well, that's what I was taught were proofs, even if just proving simple addition....but that shouldn't be an introduction to math, I got them in geometry/algebra 2 my sophomore year.
Well, kids not understanding basic math isn't new either, senior year remedial math existed when I was in school, but wasn't the norm. If your assessment is correct, that's pretty sad.

All that said, I got paddled in 5th grade for insisting 4-5=-1. My teacher didn't understand negative numbers. Just saying, poor educators aren't a new thing, but they do suck ass.

The big problem is education is so politicised now that it's near impossible to figure out what's actually being taught and what stories are pure hyperbole. Here in the U.S. we've heard all kinds of insane claims about 'common core', most of which were bullshit, because making a federal standard for education wasn't what many wanted (how dare they tell us the war of northern aggression was about slavery, these slanderous accusations will not stand, sir) so a movement was born to oppose it by all means possible, which usually meant outrageous lies.
I'm really glad I don't have kids in school, I would probably home school them if I did.

Is anyone surprised that this guy has a large personal collection of slavery mementos?

He doesn't get that he's right...
.....church, one that doesn't get set on fire or shot up...white privilege.
Jobs where you get paid a decent wage for hard work....white privilege......
Police there to help you, not see you as the enemy...white privilege.


This was just another 20 minutes of a display of pure ignorance and racism....of course @bobknight33 thinks this is "truth" that disproves white privilege....but it's really a display of white ignorance and deep seated hatred.

That slave story was utter apologist bullshit. That did not happen, a slave throwing a fit doesn't get their way and aren't just allowed to keep their family, they get beaten to death. Just pure bullshit....like most of what he says.

Southern white farmers/ranchers are the biggest, most entitled welfare queens around, I speak from experience.

I'm a white man who lived in East Palo Alto for years, and I walked through it alone dozens of times after midnight. No one bothered me. I have seen black men accosted in white neighborhoods for being black repeatedly.

This was pure bigoted ignorance and lies, bob. Don't be proud of this idiot, be ashamed. It's not Christian to denounce and deride others who don't have the advantages you have, nor is it Christian to pretend you and your free ancestors with rights had it just as bad as slaves and blacks that couldn't even vote and weren't considered humans.

The only message of truth I see is the truth that many white southerners are insanely ignorant and completely devoid of empathy for others or rationality....but just try to take their farm subsidies for not growing corn and you'll hear about how they are the true downtrodden in society and the blacks are in control, all on welfare, and are the ones destroying the country.

It's div-EYE-siv, not div-e-siv, you fucking inbred hick moron.

And plenty don't want to get rid of the confederate flag because it's divisive. It's because it represents slavery and oppression.

Look, if you feel this is "white washing history" (an argument so ironic it's almost some kind of amazing meta-criticism on itself), then just think of the confederate flag like the swastika.

Should we forget it? Hell no... it's an important part of history and we should see it in books and museums and movies.

That doesn't mean we want the fucking thing hanging on every street corner.

One flag says yes to racism and slavery.

The other flag says yes to inclusiveness and minding your own damn business instead of poking your nose into the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Yeah, that's totally the same thing.

Re. slavery and sins of fathers

I don't think anybody is suggesting that white folks be held personally responsible for slavery, but you do need to accept that, in the main, whites start life with a headstart. We still profit from that history, and that is to say nothing of the racism that still exists today.

I'm not sure that Schwarzenegger really gained much from his father fighting on the losing side of a war. As far as I am aware he came to America almost penniless and somehow manufactured a career for himself. Like...maybe if his dad had got a load of looted art or something and then Arnie inherited that... idk.

Anyhoo, he's white, so he had that going for him.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.