If Evolution were true...

[Tomatoman]

Am I to assume that you're venting some disgust at Jesus' physical characteristics not being profiled in the Bible, because you want to alter your features to look like Him, so you can go around fooling people?

If not -- and I do suspect not -- then I've made my point.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Had God done this your way, then "Jesus" would have appearances all throughout history, with attendant followers being led astray.

No. I thought it was obvious, but I'll explain it to you. Question: is it easier to pretend to be someone if everybody else knows what that person looks like or if no one has a clue? Got it now? That is why I suggested you try again. It was purely on the grounds that you had your argument back to front and were not making any kind of sense.

From this you jumped to me rejecting all explanations. Now can you see where you went wrong?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Evolution has no idea how anything started! All it can do is question God's Word.

Any thinking person should question "God's Word" as much and as often as possible. Why shouldn't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I thought it was obvious, but I'll explain it to you. Question: is it easier to pretend to be someone if everybody else knows what that person looks like or if no one has a clue? Got it now? That is why I suggested you try again. It was purely on the grounds that you had your argument back to front and were not making any kind of sense.

From this you jumped to me rejecting all explanations. Now can you see where you went wrong?

You don't get it, do you?

My wife and I won't allow pictures of "Jesus" in this house.

Satan can (and probably will), use those pictures during the Tribulation to fool people into taking the mark.

(But I'm sure this is a little over your head, as your reply will most likely demonstrate.)

 

[Fenny the Fox]

Any thinking person should question "God's Word" as much and as often as possible. Why shouldn't they?

People should question all things they hear and read and see. Everything is based, at least in part, on relative decisions and biased views. [Skepticism in essence.]

 

[Nathan Poe]

You don't get it, do you?

My wife and I won't allow pictures of "Jesus" in this house.

You know, it's interesting -- Muslims forbid images of Muhammed for some of the very same reasons we're discussing here -- can't afford to confuse the image with the genuine article.

Satan can (and probably will), use those pictures during the Tribulation to fool people into taking the mark.

I don't presume to know the mind of Satan as well as you do, but I'm going to assume that he's smart enough to fool people with or without a detailed physical description.

(But I'm sure this is a little over your head, as your reply will most likely demonstrate.)

Well, that is where most of the hot air goes.

 

[Tomatoman]

You don't get it, do you?

My wife and I won't allow pictures of "Jesus" in this house.

Satan can (and probably will), use those pictures during the Tribulation to fool people into taking the mark.

(But I'm sure this is a little over your head, as your reply will most likely demonstrate.)

You are aware that the accepted images of jesus is an invention that can't possibly look anything like the character in the gospels aren't you? And you are aware why aren't you? Please say yes. (I have a horrible, horrible feeling you are going to say no.) This means that your decision not to have any images of jesus in the house is completely without justification. This would seem to be very sad as you are clearly someone who would love to have a picture of jesus in your house. And I can't see why you not having an image in your house that is in every church in christendom is going to make any difference.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Here's a thought -- suppose for a moment we did find a reliable, unquestioned, detailed account of Jesus' physical appearance -- and what if he was ugly?

I'm talking the most hideous, repulsive, cross-the-street-to-avoid, fell-out-of-the-ugly-tree-and-hit-every-branch-going-down looking waste of skin the world had ever seen?

How many Christians would follow a man knowing he looked like an industrial accident victim? How many are right now going to say it's not possible because they would never follow such a man? How many are going to accuse me of blasphemy for even suggesting such a thing?

 

[AV1611VET]

People should question all things they hear and read and see.

Believe me -- no one questions what they hear and read and see more than I.

 

[jpcedotal]

Look, I do not believe is some big human conspiracy theory (though I do believe is a satanic false religion conspiracy). To me, it boils down to simple economics.

There are two main theories of how life began and is sustained...Creationism and evolution. Sure there are others but they are pretty much irrelevant. Now, the cash coming into this branch of "science" is leaning toward evolution, I can not argue that fact. The reasons behind this I can argue but the fact remains...money is pushing for evolution. So , if I am a scientist, at the very least (the most honest) I am going to exhaust my resources in proving/backing the evolution theory, before I even glance at Creationism. AND if more money comes in pushing evolution...that's where I am going to make my life's work. At the very worst (the most dishonest), I am going to tweak a fact, shave a fossil, make a stretch that will take years to disprove in which I have already gotten another check or two and came up with a different "idea".

So, I am going to stick with God and take my chances.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Believe me -- no one questions what they hear and read and see more than I.

King James wrote it -- that settles it.

Why must you lie about your own biases, AV?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Look, I do not believe is some big human conspiracy theory (though I do believe is a satanic false religion conspiracy). To me, it boils down to simple economics.

There are two main theories of how life began and is sustained...Creationism and evolution. Sure there are others but they are pretty much irrelevant. Now, the cash coming into this branch of "science" is leaning toward evolution, I can not argue that fact. The reasons behind this I can argue but the fact remains...money is pushing for evolution. So , if I am a scientist, at the very least (the most honest) I am going to exhaust my resources in proving/backing the evolution theory, before I even glance at Creationism. AND if more money comes in pushing evolution...that's where I am going to make my life's work. At the very worst (the most dishonest), I am going to tweak a fact, shave a fossil, make a stretch that will take years to disprove in which I have already gotten another check or two and came up with a different "idea".

So, I am going to stick with God and take my chances.

There are things more valuable than money -- are you saying you believe in creationism because there's nothing in it for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know, it's interesting -- Muslims forbid images of Muhammed for some of the very same reasons we're discussing here --

Do you blame them?

-- can't afford to confuse the image with the genuine article.

It's not a matter of confusion -- we don't think that's what Jesus looked like in the first place.

It's a matter of what is called diabolical mimicry; meaning you probably won't understand.

I don't presume to know the mind of Satan as well as you do...

That's your fault.

2 Corinthians 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

... but I'm going to assume that he's smart enough to fool people with or without a detailed physical description.

And I'll assume he's gotten an advantage of you; so I can pray for you.

How's that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do you blame them?

It's not a matter of confusion -- we don't think that's what Jesus looked like in the first place.

It's a matter of what is called diabolical mimicry; meaning you probably won't understand.

Every crucifix, stained glass window, painting, and dramatic portrayal (including Ted Neeley's!) is a product of the devil desinged to confuse you -- but you're far too smart to fall for that.

That's your fault.

2 Corinthians 2:11 Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.

And I'll assume he's gotten an advantage of you; so I can pray for you.

How's that?

Arrogant and narcissistic -- pretty much par for your course.

Carry on.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are aware that the accepted images of jesus is an invention that can't possibly look anything like the character in the gospels aren't you?

Yes, I'm fully-aware of that.

White -- long hair -- looking like a clown...

And you are aware why aren't you?

I think I have a clue.

I'm under the impression that whomever came up with that, did so to mock Him.

Please say yes.

Yes.

(I have a horrible, horrible feeling you are going to say no.)

Then you don't know me very well; but what else is old?

This means that your decision not to have any images of jesus in the house is completely without justification.

No, it's not.

Pictures of [who my wife and I call] the Antichrist creep us out, and we've even torn them out of our Bibles.

This would seem to be very sad as you are clearly someone who would love to have a picture of jesus in your house.

Again, you are way off the [pun] mark [/pun].

And I can't see why you not having an image in your house that is in every church in christendom is going to make any difference.

You've been to 'every church in christendom', have you?

You certainly haven't been to ours, or you wouldn't say that.

I think you have a tendency towards melodrama.

 

[Tomatoman]

It's not a matter of confusion -- we don't think that's what Jesus looked like in the first place.

It's a matter of what is called diabolical mimicry; meaning you probably won't understand.

That's paganism.

 

[Tomatoman]

Pictures of [who my wife and I call] the Antichrist creep us out, and we've even torn them out of our Bibles.

Sorry, you tear pictures of jesus out of your bible and call them the antichrist?


Blimey.

Incidentally,

I'm under the impression that whomever came up with that, did so to mock Him.

Not quite. Early christian iconography is a subject you ought to find fascinating, if you weren't so worried about primitive superstitions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a thought -- suppose for a moment we did find a reliable, unquestioned, detailed account of Jesus' physical appearance -- and what if he was ugly?

I'm talking the most hideous, repulsive, cross-the-street-to-avoid, fell-out-of-the-ugly-tree-and-hit-every-branch-going-down looking waste of skin the world had ever seen?

How many Christians would follow a man knowing he looked like an industrial accident victim? How many are right now going to say it's not possible because they would never follow such a man? How many are going to accuse me of blasphemy for even suggesting such a thing?

As my pastor points out, when Jesus hung on the Cross, He looked like a piece of meat.

You have some distorted idea of what true worship is, don't you?

 

[AV1611VET]

King James wrote it -- that settles it.

Why must you lie about your own biases, AV?

Among other things, I was talking about evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Every crucifix, stained glass window, painting, and dramatic portrayal (including Ted Neeley's!) is a product of the devil desinged to confuse you -- but you're far too smart to fall for that.

That's right -- and for the record, crucifixes are not allowed in our home, either.

Arrogant and narcissistic -- pretty much par for your course.

Carry on.

We plan to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, you tear pictures of jesus out of your bible and call them the antichrist?

Not in that order.

Blimey.

LOL -- you were just ready to ridicule me for having pictures, now you're ridiculing me for not?

Incidentally,
Not quite. Early christian iconography is a subject you ought to find fascinating...

No, actually -- I find it grotesque.

... if you weren't so worried about primitive superstitions.

If not having pictures of "Jesus" in my house is displaying 'primitive superstitions', then so be it.