I would never give up God's gift of eternal life to me through Jesus Christ without a fight.

The gift is just too precious.

Thomas Nash never gave his mind up without a fight.

God loves atheists and scientists and math guys, too...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J6C09BgTmyE

Freedom of any kind.....freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of action, freedom of the press, freedom of thinking never comes without a protection from coercive forces.

Somewhere in the world there is always a fight because God has decided not to give up on the human race.

Tell the devil to go to hell and take your minds and your wills back.

What the hell is wrong with her?

Hard to argue that feeling concern for Splendour is not well-supported. A ton of posts appearing in a short period of time, in SMP, chit-chatting about how she won't be talking about God any more (repeatedly), and is done with RGT (at least implied), but she can't actually stop herself from doing just that.

I actually felt that she should be given another chance, as she does seem to love the interactions she has with posters that are outside of religion topics, but how many chances does someone get?

Could she be allowed back, but perhaps banned from posting in RGT (for her benefit), or kept to a Splendour containment thread? Probably not...

Splendour was banned in November 2012, I'd wonder why someone felt a strong enough affinity to a much changed forum to want to start posting after a 2+ year hiatus. And want to post enough to reg new accounts as soon as the old ones are banned.

Probably off her meds.

A lot of men on two plus two remind me of the Israelites, also. Neither group was ever lost in the Wilderness.

Funny how you people criticize a person who is actually a believer, unlike all the half-ass ones who are just too much of a bitch to admit it in public due to ridicule.

At least she is a person of conviction.

I can at least respect that.

The word itself is gendered, dude.

You are literally referring to a woman's uterus when you use it.

I don't understand, honestly, how people miss this connection with, say, what a "hysterectomy" refers to.

I am not disagreeing with you regarding etymology. However, in common usage I don't think it connotates gender anymore than a word like "emotional".

Agreed. Language is a living thing and evolves over time. Words take on new meanings. "Holocaust" meant something very different to the ancient Greeks.

No that's hysterical.

She has a real blog? Link?

As much as it pains me to say it, Doggg is right here.

It isn't just the etymology, it is that the word has a long history of being used to describe in particular women being crazy in a way it just hasn't been used for men. Kind of like yes you can compare white people to monkeys, but there is a much stronger historical association of the slur being used for black people.

Note that there is a standard nongendered connotation (that of being funny) but when used as a criticism equivalent to crazy this undoubtedly has heavily gendered history.

Watching God Is Not Dead on Netflix. This movie is hilariously bad.

It's so awful. The scathing atheist review of it is excelent though

Hard to say who the audience is, the idea of "putting God on trial" is antithetical to Christianity.

And it is so very badly written! Almost every piece of dialog is written like the audience is ******ed. "So Chuck, how long have we been brothers?" (I love that example of terrible dialog, courtesy of Vince Gilligan on the Better Call Saul podcast).

This probably doesn't deserve its own thread, but I thought it was a tad interesting:

Lee Strobel, author of the The Case for... books (Christ, Faith, a Creator), has a new book called The Case for Grace. In it he describes having something like a near-death experience, during which he had visions of hell. He was quite careful to stress that this was only a hallucination, not a real Vision.

What's interesting is his book is trying to make a case for belief based on personal experiences, and I'm sure he includes lots of death-bed Visions of heaven that bring people to the wonderful life-giving waters that only Christ can provide.

Why is that interesting? That is the same thing that virtually every book on apologetics, particularly ones involved NDEs, does.

Yeah, I didn't word that well. I thought it was interesting because if he'd seen visions of heaven, he'd surely be presenting them as Visions from God. If he saw heaven and the doctors said the brain often hallucinates when in his condition, he would have dismissed them as skeptics, blinded by The Deceiver to obvious supernatural visitations. Since he saw hell, the medical explanation is now acceptable.

I might just have a bug up my butt where Strobel is concerned, because I agreed to read The Case for Christ for someone who was sure I'd be instantly brought back to Christ after reading it, but it's among the worst books I've ever read in any genre. Strobel is either a cynical man who saw a way to make millions from gullible evangelicals, or he's the most sincerely stupid person to walk the earth.

If your risen lord lasts longer than four hours, see a doctor

I was watching some video on youtube and the guy said it wasn't uncommon for people back in the day to say and actually believe that they were God, or God's son. Is that true? Was in a crashcourse video.

I think you'll need to clarify the question. By God do you mean the Christian God of the Bible, or do you mean any god?

I don't think people commonly claimed to be the Christian God, and even people claiming to be more generic gods is debatable (e.g, Egyptian pharoahs). Many rulers claimed to have Divine authority, but I don't know how many really claimed to be actual gods.

I'll ask a different question. How did it come about that Jesus was labeled/confirmed as the son of God?

I guess the short answer is "he said it," and backed up the claims by performing miracles.