Over 12,077,819 people are on fubar. What are you waiting for?

H0n3yb33 n W0nd3rland's blog: "Talk nerdy to me!"

created on 07/17/2011  |  http://fubar.com/talk-nerdy-to-me/b342402  |  17 followers

Mainstream Church Doctrine is the complete opposite of what Bible clearly states: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Jesus says I am the Son of God. Church doctrine says: No, you are God the Son! - Jesus says Father is greater than I. Church doctrine says: No, you are co-equal with the Father - Jesus says Son can do nothing by himself. Church doctrine says: No, Son could do all by himself, but to only show an example, he depended on the first and last person of the Godhead. or some say that as second person of the Godhead, he did all by himself. - Jesus says I live because of the Father. Church doctrine says: No, Jesus is self-existent from the eternity. - Jesus says I do not know the day and hour of my coming. Church doctrine says: No, Jesus still knew the day and hour of his coming as second person of the Godhead, or say that he was not allowed by his Father to reveal his second coming. Some even says that as God he knew but as Man he did not know. - Jesus says As Father has life in Himself, so He has Granted the Son to have life in himself. Church doctrine says: No, Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. - Jesus says in the book of Revelation: I was dead, behold now I am alive forever. Church doctrine says: No, only his body died, but the Son did not really die, or say that the Man, Jesus of Nazareth died, but eternal Son of God did not die. - Jesus says that I go to My Father and your Father, to My God and Your God. Church doctrine says: Only his man-side was saying this, or they say that he said this not for himself, but to only set an example for us. - Jesus says We Jews know whom we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. Church doctrine says: Jesus was speaking from his man-side only, when he says: *we Jews know whom we worship, or say that his man-side worship God. - Jesus says Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins. Church doctrine while ignoring that Jesus was Given such great authority says: Jews were correct, Jesus claimed to be deity here, since only God can forgive - Jesus says he who has seen me has seen the Father. Church Doctrine says: Jesus claimed to be deity here, or to be co-equal with the Father. - Jesus addressed God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as his Father. Church doctrine instead of agreeing with Jesus, take side with the Jews who often misunderstood him and says Since Jesus calls God his own Father therefore he is claiming to be deity, or co-equal with God. - Jesus during prayer said to the Father This is eternal life that they may know you, the Only True God, And Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Church doctrine says: Not only the Father is 'the only true God', but the Son and Holy Spirit, are also the Only true God. Some say that Jesus in his prayer was referring to the Triune God (father, son, spirit) that is the Only true God. -Jesus calls God of Israel as his God and Father both before and after the cross. Church doctrine says: No, this applies to his man-side only, he calls God as his God only as a man both before and after cross, but not as second person of Godhead.

In fact the whole cadence of the bible depends on it being true. If Jesus is the God father then no person alive has been redeemed to god. Why? Because if it takes God to live up to his own standard then really Adam and Eve were unjustly accused of doing something they never had the power to namely remaining faithful to God. Hints why Jesus must act as mediator for man. The high priest is a representation of Jesus giving his sacrifice to god for the sake of man. This is why christianity even exist, otherwise we'd still be offering bulls and goats to god for atonement of sin.

We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.1 John 4:15.The Bible requires that you believe Jesus is the SON of God, and He Himself refers to Himself as this, as do His witnesses.Romans 15:6

6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

this verse is really the icing on the cake.

if Jesus has a God than he can't be God so we need to stop saying that he is.

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 

All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is our merciful Father and the source of all comfort.2 Corinthians 1:3

"the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Ephesians 1

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

"Blessed be the GOD AND FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:"

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, who is to be praised forever, knows that I am not lying.

2 Corinthians 11:31

Matthew 28:18-20

John 5:26-27,

“The Father has life in himself, and he has granted that same life-giving power to his SON. And he has given him authority to judge everyone because he is the Son of Man.”

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the SON and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 9:6-8 

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” he then said to the paralytic Rise, pick up your bed and go home.” And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

You don'y seem to understand Jesus words or mission. Jesus got all of his authority from GOD his FATHER.God the Father has all power and He gave that power to Jesus. Jesus has the authority to rule, to teach, to forgive, to judge, and much more.Jesus can't be God. It's plain and simple.

People who say they cant any single verse in the bible that the SON IS NOT GOD obviously have not read the bible good enough because there are over 100 verses plain and clear verses that clearly teach that God and Jesus had a father son relationship! there have two separate identities but they are one in understanding and prophecies in the bible that show that Jesus was not a god he was divine, he came from heaven and was chosen to be the savior of the world but he was human and God's son and not God himself.

You don't make doctrines out of one verse that have a poor interpretation. One verse does not cancel out 116 verses nor all the prophecies. This is verse is not meant to be taken literal because doing that ignores the 116 verses that show that Jesus and God are not the same. Father and son. This verse is simply saying that "there are three that bear record in heaven" and they are one as in they agree with each other! they are on the same level in understanding.The definition of " bear record" means bear witness, give evidence, testify, give a good report. .... bear record, have (obtain, of) good (honest) report. Simply put this verse does not support a trinity! its simply explaining that God and Jesus and the holy Ghost ( which is God's spirit) that he put in us and Jesus are all honest and are in agreement. Any other interpretation is adding to the bible and we are warned not to do that. We must compare scripture with scripture to get a full understanding of the bible. not cherry pick scriptures to fit your own beliefs.

Anubis, guarding the gates to the underworld .Anubis sat surrounded by a moat filled with water called Jackal Lake in the ancient Pyramid Texts. Arkeologists have found evidence of water erosion on the bottom of the spinx dating the spinx 10,000 years older than thought.He's the guard" dog". The word 'sphinx' is Greek, and comes from The Egyptian word 'shespankh' meaning living statue. Its Arabic name is Abu el Hol, or Father of Terror.Who better then to look after the many dead souls in the necropolis beneath the Pyramids?the Egyptians were on a more practical level entirely dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile, without which the water could not reach the fields and crops could not grow nor animals be able to graze and fatten. It is perhaps telling in the light of all this 'doggie' talk that the Ancient Egyptians used the rising of one particular star to mark the point in the year when they knew the Nile was about to rise and provide sustenance for the land. And the modern name of that star? Of course, it is Sirius, the 'Dog Star'So could the Sphinx at Giza really be Anubis? It gazes east into the rising sun, symbol of renewed light/life after the darkness of night/death; it supervises a vast necropolis; and protects the Pyramids, the ultimate symbols of Pharaonic powerit is curious to see that there is a hieroglyph of a jackal, seated in the same position as the Sphinx, yet atop a shrine to mean "he who is over the secrets".......I really wish we could dig under the spinx..wonder what we would find?



There are several other things wrong with the Sphinx. They are:
The back is flat. Who ever saw a lion with a flat back, no big chest, and no mane?The Sphinx is sitting in a deep hole in the ground. Why is that? Why is it not sitting somewhere high up so that it can show off?There is a ruined temple right in front of the Sphinx, with a wall practically up against its nose, and no door in that wall. Why obstruct the view of the Sphinx from the front like that? And if the temple was for worshipping the Sphinx, why is there no access from the temple to the Sphinx, so that you can’t even get to it?The pit in which the Sphinx sits seems to be deeply eroded, as if by flows of water. What caused all that? It looks as if water has poured down the sides. On the other hand, there are no such vertical erosion patterns on the Sphinx itself, which instead has clear horizontal erosion patterns. How can these two different patterns at right angles to each other be reconciled? And what could possibly have caused either of them?

This immediately solves the puzzle of the evidence recorded by the fifth century BCE Greek historian Herodotus, who said that King Cheops let water in from the Nile to surround an island at Giza


crouching dogs looking outwards with their backs turned towards something are guard dogs, protecting what is behind them. And in this case, behind the Sphinx was the sacred necropolis of Giza. So the Sphinx was symbolically protecting Giza. And who was the traditional guardian of the necropolis in Egyptian tradition? It was the god Anubis, and Anubis was a dog. Furthermore, the best known image of Anubis is the Anubis statue found inside the tomb of King Tutankhamun, which shows him as a crouching dog.

Tipping should have never come to be the actual wage for the server. Everyone here thinks servers should get 20% no matter what, so why not just give them a steady wage and up the prices for food? We're already tacking on an "automatic" three, eight, sixteen bucks for tip at the end of the meal. We're already going in expecting to pay more. Just have it come on the bill then. People can still tip you additionally for awesome service, only then it's actually what it's meant to be...a tip...not a wage. I've never tipped poorly for food coming out wrong or having a personal bad day, but no, I don't agree with giving them twenty percent or more if they were crappy at their job. Other minimum wage jobs can be just as demanding, only they're working for a maximum of what...around sixty-four dollars for EIGHT hours of work instead of the typical four to six on any given shift for a waiter or waitress? You do a piss poor job at work for Macy's for minimum wage, and you get fired or fewer hours. That's quite a dock in pay. It's not fair if my bad day ruins someone else's experience some place. I don't agree with poorly tipping good servers or being cheap for no reason. Have the restaurants pay a steady wage and make the tip what it was supposed to be, an extra incentive and courtesy...not an automatic pay to fill in the gap.

They just think differently than the average person.. They don't feel as if they fit in with average people all that well. While the average person thinks about what they're going to do that weekend, they're day dreaming about what the future of society will look like. While the average person wonders what they will eat for lunch, they wonder if the foods we consume today existed in the dinosaur days.. Did they have different fruits in that time.. What kind of plants existed.. How did they evolve.. Does what we eat when we're in the womb effect the way we look as a baby lol.. While their thoughts are different, they relate less to regular people. They just can't relate well and would be more social if they found people more like minded.

Simply put, the restaurant business is getting away with murder. They place the burden of pay upon the customer rather than taking it on themselves, resulting in cheap labor and lower food prices. While it seems like everyone wins, in reality, the customer pays more money than necessary, the restaurant doesn't have to pay their employees fairly, and servers are to EXPECT gratuity or tips. This is corruption and manipulation on a surprisingly large scale.

This is why all arguments about how one should tip is flawed, because it is accepting the manipulation of both customers and servers into a ridiculous agreement. Restaurants see motivated servers earn extra money from the patrons, lower the wages of the servers, then claim the rest will (might) be earned through tips. This creates an unknown variable in the servers pay, as on one hand, the servers performance dictates whether or not they receive a tip, and on the other, the price of the food ordered dictates how much tip they should receive.Overall, the social stigma of not tipping and the reliance on tips to make a livable income essentially force restaurant patrons to tip and leave them with the choice of "How much to tip" rather than "Whether or not to tip".

If this type of system were placed into other jobs, it would be more obvious. Imagine be forced to tip the car mechanic, the computer technician, the cashier, the janitor, or any of the thousands of service based jobs that don't have the same payment type.

Then there is the fact that many restaurants have their servers do the cleaning and preparation of the restaurant while only making $2.13/hour. When are they making tips during the 2-3 hours of opening and closing time? How about the down time when the restaurant is slow or dead? There are only a few busy times of the day when a server actually makes decent money from tips, otherwise they are making an unlivable income.If tipping is the customer providing payment based on service satisfaction, why would that tip be shared with the likes of bussers and hosts? They have little to no interaction with the customer. Or how about the managers? There are many restaurants that mandate that the managers (who get paid fine) to have a share in the tips just because they were involved in the customer interaction.

Reason , they are bored. They fully understand what other people talk about, but just don’t care about it, and know that no one around them will understand anything they are interested in talking about.

To paraphrase, stupid people talk about people, average people talk about events, smart people talk about ideas.

I run into this all the time in social situations, people want to talk about someone and I just don’t care, its a waste of my time. Events ill talk some, but I get bored there too. Ideas, theories, science etc… that’s where I will start talking and stay talking. To me, conversation is an exchange of knowledge and ideas, if you have nothing I’m interested in hearing, and cant understand anything I want to talk about… Why would I want to talk to you.

So really, its not so much that smart people have poor social skills, its that we have nothing in common with the majority of people, and therefore nothing to talk about.

You are informative. You are logical. You know what you are talking about. You can easily spot fallacies in debates and counter them effectively. Be it with your content or with your oratory, you hold the conversation or win the debate. That’s great!

Except, people don’t like it.

They don’t like their beliefs to be questioned, their reasoning to be invalidated, and their choices to be proven wrong. Sure, you might be focusing on the content and enjoy intellectual stimulation, but you’d be amazed to know how quickly people get personal. To their ears, you are just an arrogant brat trying to prove everyone stupid.


“No one likes a know-it-all,” as the saying goes. So, we generally have to hide our intelligence or develop charm and humor so we don’t seem as threatening.


The "worst part" of being smart for me is getting bored when I'm around other people. I like people, and I enjoy being with them...But......especially when you get a bunch of people together, it seems like everyone gets dumber. The possible conversation topics drop in numbers until there's only two types of conversation to have, because those are the only things the group has in common. It wouldn't be so bad if I hadn't heard the same conversation a million times.

In fact outside of the Bible’s stories there is no record anywhere in history of this enslavement. No archaeological evidence was ever found. Thousands of people wandering through the desert for 40 years? You’re going to leave something behind. They didn't because it never happened. 

The Egyptians left no record of it and the fact that most of the construction in Egypt was done by free Egyptians is a matter of archaeological fact.

The fact that not a single artifact has been found that could be definitely linked to the biblical Exodus.  If the parting sea, the burning bush, the plaques did happen they appear to have left no traces.  There is NO way to confirm even, that the Israelites WERE slaves in Egypt.  There is only one source for the story of enslavement or the Exodus: The Bible.
For many scholars, the silence of the Egyptians sources is telling.  I personally would want two or three separate sources before I will believe what any ONE source says.  And frankly, there is NO Egyptian written texts saying anything about the Exodus.  

 The pyramids were not even built in the right time period, being 800 to 2,000 years older than the supposed exodus.It wasn't until almost 2,000 years after the Great Pyramid received its capstone that the earliest known record shows evidence of Jews in Egypt I have deciphered many egyptian hieroglyphics. The pyramids were in fact built by egyptian workers. They were highly paid and treated very well. Pyramid work was considered by many to be a tradition followed by next generations. Often pyramid foremen would offer bonuses for speedy work and excellent craftsmanship and groups of workers would hold friendly competitions over who could complete more by the end of the work day and receive extra pay or gifts upon winning. There is EVIDENCE of such things. There is NO ANTHROPOLOGICAL EVIDENCE supporting jewish slavery or even the presence of Jewish or anyone other than egyptians working on pyramids. Such a massive number of people, material goods and livestock would have left a large amount of evidence, and yet over a century of modern archaeology has turned up nothing indicating an exodus of this size, or even of a much smaller size. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a true statement in many cases, but not something of this scale. Here, absence of evidence really does indicate that the story, interesting as it is, is a fiction. The argument about what we consider to be a jewish person noe or then is semantics and irrelevant. For thousands of years egypt primarily kept its boarders closed to outsiders. They painted the faces of bordering rivals (the nubians and thr greeks for example) on the bottom of their shoes as a sign of superiority. The idea that they would allow foreigners to work on something so sacred is preposterous. Also it was rare for egyptians to have slaves in general. Some criminals were used for undesirable work until their debt or sentence was paid but even that was uncommon. The fact is that the Egyptians NEVER owned any slaves. No one worked of the pyamids but the Egypitans. The stories are allegory and medifore. Of course the Egyptians, Ethiopians and Cannanite did actually live, and their DNA are readily available. So if there were Israelites you would expect them to have the same DNA as the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and the Cannanites. They would have been first cousins of each other. Ashkazim and Sefardim do not test positive for the the DNA of the Egyptians , Ethiopians or the Cannanites who did actually live. In fact, these sets of people never knew each other! The point of the story is the birth of freedom.The bible was written by group of regular men as a TOOL for control and a way to govern people. During a time of famine, drought, crime and ignorance the need for conformity was crucial to civilization. The promise of paradise was incredibly enticing when the world around you is plagued with disease and starvation. Being told that if you follow the rules of an invisible, all powerful, omniscient being will guarantee you a place in heaven, you're going to choose to believe in the fairytale. And the notion of burning in hell for all eternity if you dont follow the "teachings of christ" is a great deterrent for those that would appose the bible. Fear is a powerful tool. The bible and christianity is a myth. It's just a fairytale that has caused pain and suffering and war.The pseudohistory of ancient Egypt is disrespectful to both Jews and Egyptians. It depicts the Jews as helpless slaves whose only contribution was sweat and broken backs, when in fact the earliest Jewish immigrants were respected allies to the Pharaoh and provided Egypt with a valuable service of both trade and defense. The pseudohistory also takes away from the Egyptians their due credit for construction of humanity's greatest architectural achievement, and portrays them as evil, bloodthirsty slavemasters. Pretty much every culture in the world at that period in history included slavery and conflict, and the Egyptians probably weren't any better or worse than most peoples.

last post
1 month ago
can view
can comment


CRUELLA xTonicx Shy♫ I take as much as I can get I don't take any regret ...
Dat Gumby Doe Stepped awayIt's a new year. Same as the old one, just fewer miles
XxEvil DeedsxX NinjaHere to annoy you with my presence. No fucks given.

other blogs by this author

blogroll (list of blogs that the blogger recommends)
official fubar blogs
 3 months ago
fubar news by babyjesus 
 13 hrs ago
e by e 
 5 years ago
fubar.com ideas! by babyjesus 
 2 years ago
Word of Esix by esixfiddy 

discover blogs on fubar

blog.php' rendered in 0.3893 seconds on machine '198'.