[Keepalive]

I have a short Quick intervention ,about Christianity,..
I think that the Biggest Difference,between Islam and Christianity Is that Islam say That God Is "One" and you should Worship him alone..
And he have No Son..(How you Accept The idea of "The God Have A son")?When He's nothing like us..
Yes ,god say's that we are made like/by/on his image.,
But It mean ,discerning,aurally...,Not the Form of our bodies.
About Jesus,He is a normal human,A messenger,but the miracle was that he born without father,without Sperm..
And he didn't crucifixion,but God uplift his body,and he will return to earth at sometime ,and make All humans Believe in god (maybe because the science will prove the miracle in his DNA), and then he will die a normal death.
* i have a Quick reading of the New Posts..
-I didn't meant the defects Such as the useless parts of the DNA that you was talked about (those maybe we didn't understand them yet),but i meant defects like 4 example aging..
-And What do you mean that the programs are "artificial"..
Programs made by humans,and humans made by God.
* I just Posting this ,Not to God Ask me Why I didn't.

[Linuxephus™]

I have a short Quick intervention ,about Christianity,..
I think that the Biggest Difference,between Islam and Christianity Is that Islam say That God Is "One" and you should Worship him alone..
And he have No Son..(How you Accept The idea of "The God Have A son")?When He's nothing like us..
Yes ,god say's that we are made like/by/on his image.,
But It mean ,discerning,aurally...,Not the Form of our bodies.
About Jesus,He is a normal human,A messenger,but the miracle was that he born without father,without Sperm..
And he didn't crucifixion,but God uplift his body,and he will return to earth at sometime ,and make All humans Believe in god (maybe because the science will prove the miracle in his DNA), and then he will die a normal death.

Negative.
The "Biggest Difference" betwixt Christianity and Islam is that God had a Son who gave said Son, his only begotten Son, to die for the Sins of All who came before Him and after Him that All should be Saved, 600 years before Muhammad and thus 600 years Before the establishment of the Qur'an and the Islamic belief it is based upon. The secondary biggest difference with Christianity and all other Religions in the world is Christ Resurrected.
There can be zero denial of this.
There is zero denial of this.
It is Unique in all of the history of Mankind, be that verbal history, or written history.
None before have this single most established fact.
Christ is and was the Son of God.
More than a Prophet.
He was/is God Incarnate as recorded by history, as acknowledged by history, as written by history.
Irrefutable beyond all doubt.
Thus, please, by all means be so kind as to cease contradicting your own self with such comments as "he was a normal human" when No Normal Human could be born without a human father, as per the words you just commented with.
Created in the image of God physically and spiritually.
Not "aurally".
Christ is acknowledged as having had a very Human appearance, thus discounting your allegation in validation of We, who are created in God's image physically.
Christ was Crucified.
Even the Qur'an makes mention of this.
I suggest you seriously educate yourself before any further commentation on the subject matter reading as how many contradictions you've made with your very own Misunderstandings evident even by the most inexperienced who happen upon this thread.
I don't Think, I merely acknowledge the facts for what they are, regardless of what those facts may be, which saves me numerous headaches figuratively speaking.
Thinking, without research into the facts, is what has yet again lead to this commentation from me, here, to you my friend.
Knowing will always be superior to Thinking because Knowing is an acknowledgement of the facts for what they are versus Thinking of what it is that the facts are stating when no thinking is required on the merit of the facts standing of their own accord.
Thus negating any potential misunderstanding caused by thinking, when Knowing what the facts are remains a far simpler.

[Solixious]

The "Biggest Difference" betwixt Christianity and Islam is that God had a Son who gave said Son, his only begotten Son, to die for the Sins of All who came before Him and after Him that All should be Saved, 600 years before Muhammad and thus 600 years Before the establishment of the Qur'an and the Islamic belief it is based upon.

Agreed

The secondary biggest difference with Christianity and all other Religions in the world is Christ Resurrected.

I beg to differ. Their are MANY religions in the world (still existing) and MOST of them do not mention Christ at all.

There can be zero denial of this.
There is zero denial of this.

I just denied it.

It is Unique in all of the history of Mankind, be that verbal history, or written history.
None before have this single most established fact.
Christ is and was the Son of God.
More than a Prophet.
He was/is God Incarnate as recorded by history, as acknowledged by history, as written by history.
Irrefutable beyond all doubt.

Do not be fooled by what is written in history. Forget not in your speed sire, history is never right for it is written by the victors. It is just a vague representation of real facts.

I suggest you seriously educate yourself before any further commentation on the subject matter reading as how many contradictions you've made with your very own Misunderstandings evident even by the most inexperienced who happen upon this thread.
I don't Think, I merely acknowledge the facts for what they are, regardless of what those facts may be, which saves me numerous headaches figuratively speaking.
Thinking, without research into the facts, is what has yet again lead to this commentation from me, here, to you my friend.

You say you don't think and merely acknowledge the facts. That is a valiant display of ignorance of your part.

Knowing will always be superior to Thinking because Knowing is an acknowledgement of the facts for what they are versus Thinking of what it is that the facts are stating when no thinking is required on the merit of the facts standing of their own accord.
Thus negating any potential misunderstanding caused by thinking, when Knowing what the facts are remains a far simpler.

True. Knowing will always be superior to mere thinking. But you fail to mention this my friend, knowing wrong thing is far more inferior to thinking. Accepting things as it is presented to you is so unwise. Just because someone says it, it does not mean it is right. This is the biggest folly everyone makes.
It is a fact that their are many things said by religion that normal human intellect or science have not been successful in understanding. But let us not forget the fact that their and much more things that science did which no religion could ever mention or explain.
When we consider religion, we are suppose is accept it as it is. Very inflexible and always right kind. But that is not the case with science, or logic for a matter of fact. It accepts what is right and not something that was written thousands of years ago and people have been believing in it ever since. You can hardly verify what religion says is right. Religion has always been a limiting factor in development while science has been the opposite of it. I choose to believe in what I see and do myself.
(no offense)
Cheers

[Linuxephus™]

@Solixious:
{I beg to differ. Their are MANY religions in the world (still existing) and MOST of them do not mention Christ at all.}
-->>Exactly.
There are many religions in the world, most still existing, that make no mention of Christ, which defines them as man made religion by that very fact which in turn negates your argument as invalid because it fails to provide adequate rebuttal to the evidence of Christianity being the only historically accurate account of the Son of God having died, and Arisen where no others make mention of such information due to their inherent weakness of human nature.

{I just denied it.}
-->>Your intent is to use the word "deny". Yet your use of the word holds more ignorance than it does validity because you fail to provide evidence beyond all doubt as to your weak use of the word "deny".
Thus in turn, does your use of the word remain as a chosen ignorance of denial which holds no sway over the simple truth.

{Do not be fooled by what is written in history. Forget not in your speed sire, history is never right for it is written by the victors. It is just a vague representation of real facts.}
-->>Negative.
I currently have no time to be ignorant when it stands thus far I've no time left to be ignorant whilst correcting your ignorance on the subject matter

{You say you don't think and merely acknowledge the facts. That is a valiant display of ignorance of your part.}
-->>I state all thought has lead to the admission and acknowledgement of the truth for what it is, thus having progressed to Knowing, which is the natural conclusion to thinking after all evidential facts have been gathered for review, thus concluding the knowledge thereby gained from the evidence presented.
Versus your line of thought on the material which concludes self drawn theories easily and thus far obfuscated without convincing evidence to the contrary.
Hence, Knowing trumps Thinking as Knowing is always the byproduct of thinking.

{True. Knowing will always be superior to mere thinking. But you fail to mention this my friend, knowing wrong thing is far more inferior to thinking. Accepting things as it is presented to you is so unwise. Just because someone says it, it does not mean it is right. This is the biggest folly everyone makes.
It is a fact that their are many things said by religion that normal human intellect or science have not been successful in understanding. But let us not forget the fact that their and much more things that science did which no religion could ever mention or explain.
When we consider religion, we are suppose is accept it as it is. Very inflexible and always right kind. But that is not the case with science, or logic for a matter of fact. It accepts what is right and not something that was written thousands of years ago and people have been believing in it ever since. You can hardly verify what religion says is right. Religion has always been a limiting factor in development while science has been the opposite of it. I choose to believe in what I see and do myself.}
-->>On the contrary, since Christ is the one crucified, history records the Roman Empire as the worldly Victor and Christ as the Victim, thus negating your use of "the victor is the one that writes history", considering it is in fact the Victor (The Roman Empire, which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church) who indeed wrote that very history in acknowledgement of that truth.
Thus, you stand corrected yet again on material that has been stated numerous times, repeated numerous times, and re-explained using variations of differing words leading to the same conclusion.
You're incorrect.
Tis' as simple as that.
This is not mentioning evidence where known and very credited scientists acknowledging the existence of all of the above, using differing words to attempt the explaining of How.
When I read this thread and stated, "I do.", I meant for all time.

[Solixious]

-->>Exactly.
There are many religions in the world, most still existing, that make no mention of Christ, which defines them as man made religion by that very fact which in turn negates your argument as invalid because it fails to provide adequate rebuttal to the evidence of Christianity being the only historically accurate account of the Son of God having died, and Arisen where no others make mention of such information due to their inherent weakness of human nature.

You are trying to say that it is and can be only bible that is and will be right. Suppose I completely deny that Christianity and bible is right. Instead I say what is written is bible is completely wrong. Words written in it are very far from truth. You can not prove otherwise. History does say Jesus existed. But it never said he was Son of God. The very statement that you deny other religions as man made because it fails to mention Christ shows that you are fanatic. The religions that don't mention Christ have existed for centuries before Christ was known on face of Earth. How can you tell that Christ is Son of God and not a normal human? Don't tell me that it has already been proved. Show me the proof. And by proof, I mean something that proves it, not just a written text or a story we have been hearing and learned by heart since we were just a child.

-->>I state all thought has lead to the admission and acknowledgement of the truth for what it is, thus having progressed to Knowing, which is the natural conclusion to thinking after all evidential facts have been gathered for review, thus concluding the knowledge thereby gained from the evidence presented.
Versus your line of thought on the material which concludes self drawn theories easily and thus far obfuscated without convincing evidence to the contrary.
Hence, Knowing trumps Thinking as Knowing is always the byproduct of thinking.

That way you spoke it bluntly earlier, it didn't mean the way you explain it now. And nay, I do not conclude everything so easily. That is the reason I try to get to the truth whilst you accept something that has been passed down for centuries regardless of its validity.

-->>On the contrary, since Christ is the one crucified, history records the Roman Empire as the worldly Victor and Christ as the Victim, thus negating your use of "the victor is the one that writes history", considering it is in fact the Victor (The Roman Empire, which evolved into the Roman Catholic Church) who indeed wrote that very history in acknowledgement of that truth.
Thus, you stand corrected yet again on material that has been stated numerous times, repeated numerous times, and re-explained using variations of differing words leading to the same conclusion.
You're incorrect.
Tis' as simple as that.
This is not mentioning evidence where known and very credited scientists acknowledging the existence of all of the above, using differing words to attempt the explaining of How.
When I read this thread and stated, "I do.", I meant for all time.

Roman Empire might be a power at the time, but they aren't the writers of history. The church was a different body all together. Most of the historians have been christian and that is the reason they would try to substantiate even tiny bits of possible truths in what is far from truth. Try to read these bits of religions about other religions too. Trust me, you will get many.

[Keepalive]

Well,
"is that God had a Son who gave said Son, his only begotten Son, to die for the Sins of All who came before Him and after Him that All should be Saved"
How you Believe In such thing?! A god sacrifice His son for our Sins..
Why he Should do that?he can Simply Forgive us..
you telling that No one will be accounting because of that?
Then Why we live anymore?Why We suffer anymore? It's just like the Idea Of those who Was give Some Sort of oblation to their God's.. Is it make sense?
-You keep saying that the Islam Came after in many years..It's an Updated version ..think that way..As I was said for every cultures and age there was a different orders and different miracles suit the People of that age..
then the Qur'an and Islam didn't inspired from Bible and Christianity,But it Came from God ..that's Why it's Similar..
Is the History That Honest?! it can't be interpolated?
"Thus, please, by all means be so kind as to cease contradicting your own self with such comments as "he was a normal human" when No Normal Human could be born without a human father, as per the words you just commented with"
I swear I knew that you will say so.. But As i was said I'm not fluent in English And I'm not being So accurate in My words.. I was mean in normal (that he's not a son of god)Not the latterly meaning.
I don't think it's Possible that God that God have the Same Physically Image of us..I was mean in "aurally" That we have Common epithets like seeINg hearING speakINg ..
Not Physically.
Yes,Christ have a human appearance ,because he's not a Son of god,and God have no Son's at all..
By the Way How you say that god bring this son?he married someone?
"Christ was Crucified.
Even the Qur'an makes mention of this."
In this Case you are interpolating the Qur'an.
the Verse in Qur'an Is:
And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. 4:157
So he was Someone like Him In appearance.
"Knowing will always be superior to Thinking because Knowing is an acknowledgement of the facts for what they are versus Thinking of what it is that the facts are stating when no thinking is required on the merit of the facts standing of their own accord."
In some Cases you Can't know For Sure.. you are based On History Which I personally Don't trust.
To be Honest With you ,I'm 22 years Old ,and I'm not Expert in any Thing.. I live in Syria ,And i Was hate my life and my Country Before the War,and Know it's At the highest level..
I'm extremely depressed,So i don't have The strength to argue or to talk about anything,Especially in Subject like This ,And in language Am not fluent At..
So Consider This as last Comment..And Accept My apologies and Thanks 4 ur understanding.
P.s About God Existence Matter ,You are MASTER to answer People..( Sorry 2 interject you into this but you will get the favors from God).
And about Islam and Christianity I hope you People 2 find Someone Far Wiser and with more Knowledge.
Advice 4 people Don't be haughty and make it reason not to Accept What it's true..Cause it's The only Sin that God doesn't forgive(beside making someone or something a Partner of god) and arrogance is the sin that make the devil out of heaven.

[Linuxephus™]

@Solixious
{You are trying to say that it is and can be only bible that is and will be right. Suppose I completely deny that Christianity and bible is right. Instead I say what is written is bible is completely wrong. Words written in it are very far from truth. You can not prove otherwise. History does say Jesus existed. But it never said he was Son of God. The very statement that you deny other religions as man made because it fails to mention Christ shows that you are fanatic. The religions that don't mention Christ have existed for centuries before Christ was known on face of Earth. How can you tell that Christ is Son of God and not a normal human? Don't tell me that it has already been proved. Show me the proof. And by proof, I mean something that proves it, not just a written text or a story we have been hearing and learned by heart since we were just a child.}
-->>I am not "trying to state that the Bible is the only correct Authority on right and wrong."
I'm clearly stating a fact that the Bible is the only Authority on what is right and what is wrong and all else reflected in other texts comes from the foundation of that simple statement.
I never "try" to state anything.
I merely state or do not state.
Thus this leaves a difference betwixt your inference and my statement.
On the contrary, in your chosen denial (which is your God given right of course), "You say" what is written is incorrect, based upon "Your say", which thank God holds no validity for making you correct other than your own self drawn conclusion that holds no importance in the greater scheme of such my friend.
History states Jesus Christ existed and it also states by historical account that he was the Son Of God by that very history. Thus I have no need of proving anything when logic dictates it to be proven, which you're unable to disprove, thus leading to this further correction accordingly.
I "do not Deny other religions as man made".
I make a statement of fact that other religions are man made. Once again allow me to correct your interpretation of what I stated for exactly what it is that I stated.
Am I the "fanatic" or is your mere denial of history merely in fanatical denial?
Understand the difference?
Logic dictates when discussion such as this begins to put your human nature under duress from any refuge from the truth, the emotional stress resulting in having to continue the conversation leads to a name tag being applied in support of your argument that remains only an argument in light of the rebuttal presented.
Good.
I've been expecting this thus far.
Which alludes to your question that is well answered and explained numerous times in the above statements previous to this one, thus far once again requiring no Act of being Proven because the very proof exists as it has for thousands of years.
P.S.-Indeed, there are many religions, more than any sane mind would care to count. Yet it remains that all of those religions are written histories whereas Judaism started as an Oral History long before any written religion began. And as we know, that very Oral History spoke well of Christ long before any written history came into being.

{That way you spoke it bluntly earlier, it didn't mean the way you explain it now. And nay, I do not conclude everything so easily. That is the reason I try to get to the truth whilst you accept something that has been passed down for centuries regardless of its validity.}
-->>I notice your use of the word "validity" in the context of being valid on the points being discussed. Which leads to me giving you the simple truth that you're being lead to while you try with all of your intellect to refute what cannot be refuted on the simple merit of it's irrefutable existence. Thus, were you genuinely attempting to get to the truth, logic dictates there would be no attempt at denying such when such is evident by it's mere reality.
Your interpretation of what I "explained" and what I've explained is inconsistent with exactly what has been explained.
A large difference in what you're attempting versus what is actually taking place.
And as stated before, it's your right of course to deny anything you may see fit to deny, yet that doesn't negate the subject matters existence be that as it may no more than if one were to deny the existence of the Sun, it doesn't make it to cease existing.

{Roman Empire might be a power at the time, but they aren't the writers of history. The church was a different body all together. Most of the historians have been christian and that is the reason they would try to substantiate even tiny bits of possible truths in what is far from truth. Try to read these bits of religions about other religions too. Trust me, you will get many.}
-->>The Roman Empire at that point in history was the literal victor when it came to all conflicts, thus that very history was written and acknowledged by the very Victors (Roman Empire) who sought so long to cease the existence of Christianity.
This also doesn't take into account the Emperor Constantinus of the Roman Empire established the Roman Catholic Church while the Roman Empire still existed, making them one and the same by way of progress.
Your argument on that merit is obfuscated.
Footnote: Regarding my previous "bluntness", that was only necessary based upon the line of thought you directly entered with "I deny that" which was more in the context of a challenge versus "This is what I believe"
Meanwhile, I still love ya' regardless Twinkle Toes.

---

@Keepalive:
{How you Believe In such thing?! A god sacrifice His son for our Sins..
Why he Should do that?he can Simply Forgive us..
you telling that No one will be accounting because of that?
Then Why we live anymore?Why We suffer anymore? It's just like the Idea Of those who Was give Some Sort of oblation to their God's.. Is it make sense?}
-->>God didn't sacrifice his Son so much as His Son *chose* to willingly be sacrificed for the sins of the world, for all time, for all created in His image (infer spiritually and physically).
We suffer not by God's will alone, but from choices we make, thus making the necessity of choosing God's grace apart from our own nature a necessity because Grace apart from nature is clearly evident as to how that results, such as your war torn country as a prime example.

{-You keep saying that the Islam Came after in many years..It's an Updated version ..think that way..As I was said for every cultures and age there was a different orders and different miracles suit the People of that age..
then the Qur'an and Islam didn't inspired from Bible and Christianity,But it Came from God ..that's Why it's Similar..
Is the History That Honest?! it can't be interpolated?}
-->>Negative brother.
You choose to think that way.
I choose to know better. Which in this case does not deny the value of the Qur'an, nor does it deny Muhammad having been inspired to write his own version of the Bible for his people, 600 hundred years later.
As such, I have no further rebuttal on the issue aside from what is reflected by the public record in my own words, which requires no further repeated variations of words to explain the same subject.

{I swear I knew that you will say so.. But As i was said I'm not fluent in English And I'm not being So accurate in My words.. I was mean in normal (that he's not a son of god)Not the latterly meaning.
I don't think it's Possible that God that God have the Same Physically Image of us..I was mean in "aurally" That we have Common epithets like seeINg hearING speakINg ..
Not Physically.
Yes,Christ have a human appearance ,because he's not a Son of god,and God have no Son's at all..
By the Way How you say that god bring this son?he married someone?}
-->>You don't "think" it is possible based upon limited understanding, which nonetheless doesn't negate created in His image spiritually and physically regardless.
Christ was a human being who was/is the Son of God because He was created in the same image we all are. You confuse a simple matter based upon your misunderstanding when the understanding of such is very easily read and comprehended.
Unless you care to allude to God being an 8 armed octopus or something else?

{In some Cases you Can't know For Sure.. you are based On History Which I personally Don't trust.
To be Honest With you ,I'm 22 years Old ,and I'm not Expert in any Thing.. I live in Syria ,And i Was hate my life and my Country Before the War,and Know it's At the highest level..
I'm extremely depressed,So i don't have The strength to argue or to talk about anything,Especially in Subject like This ,And in language Am not fluent At..
So Consider This as last Comment..And Accept My apologies and Thanks 4 ur understanding.}
-->>In all cases I can know for sure, as any can know for sure on the merit of those who preceded us having stated such. Just because any individual might choose to doubt any given material does not call that material into question or doubt.
If that line of logic were to be followed, then did George Washington actually not exist?
Isn't Muhammad a mere figment of our imaginations?
Does the Sun not truly revolve around the earth?
Of course not, to all of the above.
That is why history exists, for the next generation to have a foundation to further build upon.
In closing for all of the above; any individual is free to believe whatsoever, yet evidence and the very defining of that evidence being called into doubt only remains as a result of personal doubt, which should never be confused with evidence itself being doubtfull.
Hence, this current conversation along those very lines.
A mere establishment and explanation of the evidence at hand.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.

[Solixious]

-->>I am not "trying to state that the Bible is the only correct Authority on right and wrong."
I'm clearly stating a fact that the Bible is the only Authority on what is right and what is wrong and all else reflected in other texts comes from the foundation of that simple statement.
I never "try" to state anything.
I merely state or do not state.
Thus this leaves a difference betwixt your inference and my statement.
On the contrary, in your chosen denial (which is your God given right of course), "You say" what is written is incorrect, based upon "Your say", which thank God holds no validity for making you correct other than your own self drawn conclusion that holds no importance in the greater scheme of such my friend.
History states Jesus Christ existed and it also states by historical account that he was the Son Of God by that very history. Thus I have no need of proving anything when logic dictates it to be proven, which you're unable to disprove, thus leading to this further correction accordingly.

That part shows that you are a fanatic. By the way I never mentioned "my God". So your statement that I choose that "my God" is right instead of Jesus is far from truth. You choose to accept the only part of history where it states that Jesus was Son of God. But this is also a part of History that Jesus was believed as a fake who just had many followers. So you see, history tells many stories. But you choose to believe only the pretty one.

I "do not Deny other religions as man made".
I make a statement of fact that other religions are man made.

I believe you lack the knowledge of other religions to make that statement. You are clearly reflecting on what you have seen around you. and care to go no further.

Logic dictates when discussion such as this begins to put your human nature under duress from any refuge from the truth, the emotional stress resulting in having to continue the conversation leads to a name tag being applied in support of your argument that remains only an argument in light of the rebuttal presented.
Good.
I've been expecting this thus far.
Which alludes to your question that is well answered and explained numerous times in the above statements previous to this one, thus far once again requiring no Act of being Proven because the very proof exists as it has for thousands of years.

I wouldn't comment on the former part of your post, but I would like to say that stating that the proof exists does not bring into existence. A little hoax never proves a fact.

P.S.-Indeed, there are many religions, more than any sane mind would care to count. Yet it remains that all of those religions are written histories whereas Judaism started as an Oral History long before any written religion began. And as we know, that very Oral History spoke well of Christ long before any written history came into being.

This shows your lack in knowledge about other religions and history. I'm too tired and would not go over the pain of correcting your fact because it is futile and I know it.

-->>I notice your use of the word "validity" in the context of being valid on the points being discussed. Which leads to me giving you the simple truth that you're being lead to while you try with all of your intellect to refute what cannot be refuted on the simple merit of it's irrefutable existence. Thus, were you genuinely attempting to get to the truth, logic dictates there would be no attempt at denying such when such is evident by it's mere reality.
Your interpretation of what I "explained" and what I've explained is inconsistent with exactly what has been explained.
A large difference in what you're attempting versus what is actually taking place.
And as stated before, it's your right of course to deny anything you may see fit to deny, yet that doesn't negate the subject matters existence be that as it may no more than if one were to deny the existence of the Sun, it doesn't make it to cease existing.

Their is a little story I would like to tell you for this one.
People always thought that they saw light every morning. But they realized one day that light could not be seen by human eyes.
That is the end of the story. I'm not sure if you'll grasp it's moral though..

Footnote: Regarding my previous "bluntness", that was only necessary based upon the line of thought you directly entered with "I deny that" which was more in the context of a challenge versus "This is what I believe"
Meanwhile, I still love ya' regardless Twinkle Toes.

I love you too :wub:

[Nailo]

"I'm clearly stating a fact that the Bible is the only Authority on what is right and what is wrong and all else reflected in other texts comes from the foundation of that simple statement." BUAHAHAHA! It always amazes linuxfetus how 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).Not only that but god himself have order the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill” meh a good example would be the killing 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).the also destruction of 60 cities and the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).I could go on but lately i been short of time.

[Linuxephus™]

@Solixious:
{That part shows that you are a fanatic. By the way I never mentioned "my God". So your statement that I choose that "my God" is right instead of Jesus is far from truth. You choose to accept the only part of history where it states that Jesus was Son of God. But this is also a part of History that Jesus was believed as a fake who just had many followers. So you see, history tells many stories. But you choose to believe only the pretty one.}
-->>Negative.
That part shows you to merely be in fanatical denial. Which was the entire point in the comment being worded as it was.
By the way, I never mentioned that you had made mention of "my God" [is right instead of Jesus]. Those words came from you directly in the above statement is another misunderstanding of what you read from me and then misquote when my literal words are right there to contradict the very lack of understanding you applied to my words.
Not I to my words.
But you to my words.
In fact, I very clearly stated directly that it "was your God given right to choose denial" in whatever degree you see fit. Followed by "regardless of what denial you choose [because you say so] be that as it may holds zero validity for correctness when your very "say" is incorrect, thus making you wrong, which changes nothing at all except the inept attempt you make at justifying your "say".
Concluding the above that stands your own wording in the light of failing to even comprehend what it is you read from my very words when they are very specifically crafted to avoid any misunderstanding.
I'd state quite correctly that you have a lot of comprehension skills that you are in need of updating yourself on my friend accordingly.

{I believe you lack the knowledge of other religions to make that statement. You are clearly reflecting on what you have seen around you. and care to go no further.}
-->>What you believe in support of your own personally incorrect opinion regarding me and my knowledge of religion in general is not so much what you genuinely believe so much as it is your inability to convincingly rebutt the very statements you read from me. On top of the second time your own words in quoting of mine own words has shown the misunderstanding you have encountered when you read my dissertation, which is a fault belonging to you and not I, considering I certainly know what it is that I'm transcribing with full knowledge of what I'm stating. Admittedly, it is to be expected for one to call into question another's knowledge when the one calling the other's knowledge into question is lacking the understanding to continue a discussion that one is hard pressed to remain relevant within.
And I won't bother addressing here your lack of understanding regarding various religions since that has been made mention of above as of these words.

{I wouldn't comment on the former part of your post, but I would like to say that stating that the proof exists does not bring into existence. A little hoax never proves a fact.}
-->>On the contrary, I make no statement that proof exists when such a statement is not necessary due to the very numerous instances of that being evident.
What you mean to state is: You cannot comment on it per a level of disproving said evidence by the very realistic manner in which it exists except your attempt to label such as a hoax and other varying use of words that remain in the poorly conceived state of theory.
In fact, you're quite correct when it comes to your opinion failing to exist on a realistic level that can withstand the obvious reality for what the situation exists as on a factual basis that you've researched to this point yet cannot come to grips with as such.

{This shows your lack in knowledge about other religions and history. I'm too tired and would not go over the pain of correcting your fact because it is futile and I know it.}
-->>This shows my vast understanding on a wide area of subject fields that has in this case been used to correct common misunderstandings as is the norm for those who either simply do not genuinely know or as is your case, a fanatical yet poorly conceived denial.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Were the subject material along different matters, you would not be so frustrated with me personally as the very context of your words give statement to. And I'm okay with that as it comes with the territory of my job description.
You still remain free to merely disagree as an agreement reading as how none of this changes my outlook with you or any other individual for the negative.
It's been an excellent conversation, and that is the fact I will abide by regardless. Were it any other way or were I at least offended, we would be having a completely different discussion that would leave no doubt as to given offense.
Much to your credit, you have carried this conversation further than even what LiveFaster has.
As such you'll respect my knowledge on the subject material, and I'll regardless respect your choice of belief to the contrary.
Thus have you now the means to exit on the grounds of us agreeing to disagree.

---

@"LiveFaster":
{It always amazes linuxfetus how 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).Not only that but god himself have order the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill” meh a good example would be the killing 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).the also destruction of 60 cities and the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).I could go on but lately i been short of time.}
-->>It always amazes me how such a brilliant mind as yours will always quote a passage or an individual even knowing full well it will be rebutted to the contrary of your quoting, followed by several Inboxes of bantering, and then no further commentation from you on the material rebutted.
As such, logic dictates you took the time to look those passages up and either read them quickly, or took the time to read before posting them here with an intentional misquote, fully expecting me to rebutt it with what the author genuinely states.
In this case, I'm going to do the last thing you expect me to do which is to let the Reader read such as they choose or not and let the Bible speak for itself as no intentional misquote by you is going to change what any author in the Bible genuinely states in the context of their very passages.
Essentially, this is one time you will not troll me into doing research that you're too damn smart to be ignorant of.