NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

Jesus is the "son" of god and my personal savior. Need I say more?

There should be more options...such as: meant well but was sadly mistaken

I cant vote as my belief isn't represented. Personaly, I belive he existed but don't necesarily think he was the prophesised mesiah. that doesnt mean he was a lunatic though..

Well who do you think he is/was then... there are no more options

There should be more options...such as: meant well but was sadly mistaken

Mistaken by whom? his disciples? the Bible is an accurate account of what Jesus said. (if you need me to go into it i will)

Jesus probably existed, but I don't care one way or another. I'm pagan, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Well given that there is no empirical evidence outside the bible to suggest that he existed I would vote that he didn't. However, just to avoid the baggage that would come with such a debate I'll just say that he started the religion but wasn't the Son of God and wasn't resurrected.

Where is the "tasty cheese flavored snack" option?

Well given that there is no empirical evidence outside the bible to suggest that he existed I would vote that he didn't. However, just to avoid the baggage that would come with such a debate I'll just say that he started the religion but wasn't the Son of God and wasn't resurrected.

Let me guess... you think that he was a great moral teacher and nothing more... he can't be. If he was a great moral teacher then he was also either a liar or lunatic. If he was a liar then he would either have to be a demon from hell or incredibly stupid. He died for a lie that he knew was a lie.

If he didn't know that it was a lie then he must have been a lunatic. To say that you were the son of God in his time was about on the level of saying that you are a poached egg. Also, words from the Bible are some of the most comforting words in all history. It's hard to imagine that they were spoken by a lunatic.

Mistaken by whom? his disciples? the Bible is an accurate account of what Jesus said. (if you need me to go into it i will)

I believe he was sadly mistaken

I believe he was sadly mistaken

Please explain... im interested in knowing the details of this "mistakeness"

I believe he was sadly mistaken


How was he mistaken?

Please explain... im interested in knowing the details of this "mistakeness"

I have a rahter large file on this Jesus of Nazareth....seems in about 28 A.D he went about the Galilean countryside telling its citizen that they should repent right away because the end of the world was coming in thier lifetimes...the world is still here.

Let me guess... you think that he was a great moral teacher and nothing more... he can't be. If he was a great moral teacher then he was also either a liar or lunatic. If he was a liar then he would either have to be a demon from hell or incredibly stupid. He died for a lie that he knew was a lie.

If he didn't know that it was a lie then he must have been a lunatic. To say that you were the son of God in his time was about on the level of saying that you are a poached egg. Also, words from the Bible are some of the most comforting words in all history. It's hard to imagine that they were spoken by a lunatic.

all beings are the sons/daughters of god he just happened to be a very spiritual one oh and BTW please dont quote the bible the only time that jesus would ever get really pissed of s when people would quute scriptures to prove points

There is absolutely no proof that everything written in the Bible is factual, let alone factually based. So, no, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, or a liar or a lunatic for that matter. I don't believe he claimed to be the son of god.

What I do believe is that Jesus was a revolutionary. a politician. a socialist. and i believe he was killed for his political standpoint. end of story.

He was a very charismatic and influential character who gained supporters to his sect, not unlike todays sects. I do not believe in God, however, so I do believe he was either a) a lunatic or b) a liar. Either way, I personally think it's sad to see how easily manipulated the human mind is, and to see how widespread christianity and other religions are. It's just sad, as they bring war, hate and death. Why aren't we humans strong enough to find support and strength in ourselves? :confused:

Why do I say this? Because I believe that even if there is a God, there is NO way we can know. For all we know, the image of God and the very real personal experiences a lot of people have of meeting or feeling the divine can be all in the human mind. Personally I think it's wrong, even for christians, to say that God exists, because they can't know for sure. I can't say God doesn't exist, so I don't.

Mistaken by whom? his disciples? the Bible is an accurate account of what Jesus said. (if you need me to go into it i will)

the bible was written decades after his death by complete "MORTALS" people make mistakes the bible isnt perfect the current bible was edited by a "pagan" leader anyway

He was a very charismatic and influential character who gained supporters to his sect, not unlike todays sects. I do not believe in God, however, so I do believe he was either a) a lunatic or b) a liar. Either way, I personally think it's sad to see how easily manipulated the human mind is, and to see how widespread christianity (and other religions) are. It's just sad.

Why do I say this? Because I believe that even if there is a God, there is NO way we can know. For all we know, the image of God and the very real personal experiences a lot of people have of meeting or feeling the divine can be all in the human mind. Personally I think it's wrong, even for christians, to say that God exists, because even they can't know for sure. I can't say God doesn't exist, so I don't.

What Veanovia is saying and I agree with wholeheartedly is...that it is all in your head

all beings are the sons/daughters of god he just happened to be a very spiritual one oh and BTW please dont quote the bible the only time that jesus would ever get really pissed of s when people would quute scriptures to prove points

Nope not the only time Jesus gets pissed off... he trashed a temple when he was on earth and I didn't quote scripture (and where is the evidence of Jesus getting pissed off @ that anyway seeing as i'm arguing his existence)... and what do you actually believe because if you do believe the Bible then he is actually part of the Trinity and is actually not just "more spiritual" than us...

Also, words from the Bible are some of the most comforting words in all history. It's hard to imagine that they were spoken by a lunatic.

Well, it's not hard at all to imagine words being spoken by a lunatic. However, The words attributed to Jesus aren't the entire bible, and most of the bible is far from comforting (damnation and hellfire, ad nauseum...)

My personal opinion is that there was a Jesus (maybe not his actual name, and like any legendary figure the detils have been fudged a lot...) who lived during the time-frame. He started a cult which the religious leaders of his time didn't like and they appealed to the Roman governor to kill him. He was crucified, as per common Roman practice. And Paul (or whomever the analouge was) actually started the nonsense about his having been the messiah.

There's quite a few parells with the beginnings of the Mormon church, actually. Which has now crossed over from cult status to being a legitimate (if young) religion. And you only have to look at the history of it to see how funny it really is... I think that in a millenia or so, Joseph Smith will probably be semi-deified to stand beside Jesus as a brother, or something to that effect. It's all a matter of perspective, and everything gets fuzzier the further away in time you are.

Nope not the only time Jesus gets pissed off... he trashed a temple when he was on earth and I didn't quote scripture (and where is the evidence of Jesus getting pissed off @ that anyway seeing as i'm arguing his existence)... and what do you actually believe because if you do believe the Bible then he is actually part of the Trinity and is actually not just "more spiritual" than us...

pissed off was slightly exagerated and no i do not believe that the bible is the word of god i think that he was an enlightened being but not gods one and only son

He was not the Son of God, he wasn't a liar, and he wasn't a lunatic ... he was, however, a Prophet of God. Why isn't that an option?

pissed off was slightly exagerated and no i do not believe that the bible is the word of god i think that he was an enlightened being but not gods one and only son

We are all enlightened beings...some are jsut more enlightened than others currently but we will all get to the same "place" eventually.

We are all enlightened beings...some are jsut more enlightened than others currently but we will all get to the same "place" eventually.

Detroit?

We are all enlightened beings...some are jsut more enlightened than others currently but we will all get to the same "place" eventually.

more enlightened than most

Detroit?
I hope not.

He was not the Son of God, he wasn't a liar, and he wasn't a lunatic ... he was, however, a Prophet of God. Why isn't that an option?
Because that would still give the religion grounds to exist.

none of the above. he was just a regular man who happened to be very charismatic.

more enlightened than most

aware...like lets say two guys Mike and Ike are walking down the street in Detriot...Cliff decides to go on a drive by, Mike sees Cliff coming and ducks, meanwhile Ike is trying to hook up with Latrina and doesn't notice Cliff and gets a cap popped in his ass....who would you say is more aware?

I don't think he was God, or Gods son. I think he was trying to change things he found offensive in the dominant religion of his culture. If he was alive today in a western country he would be nothing more than an activist, and everyone would think he was a freak.

The gospels record his closest friends repeatedly getting his message wrong and being told off by him for missing the point. I don't believe they magically got it right as soon as he died. One of the main writers of the new testament never met him at all. So I think it's quite possible that what the bible has to say about him is wrong.

I think that if Jesus was as described in the bible he would be disgusted. He wanted to get rid of all the hypocrisy and corruption within his religion, and all he did was start another with exactly the same problems. Except maybe worse.

aware...like lets say two guys Mike and Ike are walking down the street in Detriot...Cliff decides to go on a drive by, Mike sees Cliff coming and ducks, meanwhile Ike is trying to hook up with Latrina and doesn't notice Cliff and gets a cap popped in his ass....who would you say is more aware?

i would say they both are equally unaware ike missed the driveby and mike mike wasnt aware that ike didnt see it coming

i would say they both are equally unaware ike missed the driveby and mike mike wasnt aware that ike didnt see it coming

You would have been a great apostle for Jesus

Because that would still give the religion grounds to exist.

Nah ... they don't need his life ... they need his death/resurrection.

Like all Muslims, I don't believe he was ever crucified.

You would have been a great apostle for Jesus

thanks ill be sure to catch the next "son of god" comin though

Well given that there is no empirical evidence outside the bible to suggest that he existed I would vote that he didn't. However, just to avoid the baggage that would come with such a debate I'll just say that he started the religion but wasn't the Son of God and wasn't resurrected.
Actually there is more evidence for the ressurection than for the battle of Hastings

Jesus is the real deal, the son of God.

I see some of you commenting on the point that the Bible hasn't been factually proven, and therefore, shouldn't be believed.
There is a major difference between Truth and Fact. Fact is what science is based off of. Truth is what faith is based off of.

Jesus is the real deal, the son of God.

I see some of you commenting on the point that the Bible hasn't been factually proven, and therefore, shouldn't be believed.
There is a major difference between Truth and Fact. Fact is what science is based off of. Truth is what faith is based off of.

truth is hard to convince others as it has no evidence

Jesus is the real deal, the son of God.

I see some of you commenting on the point that the Bible hasn't been factually proven, and therefore, shouldn't be believed.
There is a major difference between Truth and Fact. Fact is what science is based off of. Truth is what faith is based off of.

Truth is that which conforms with reality...not what you imagine reality to be, but what it is. Truth has nothing to do with faith which according to the Christian religion consenting to accept as true those things that are unproven.

truth is hard to convince others as it has no evidence

That's exactly my point. There is no scientific, factual proof to support Christianity... or any religion for that matter.

You wouldn't be a Christian if you believed in it because it was factually proven. Chrisitian's believe because of faith.

God doesn't want people to believe in him because it's fact... he wants people to believe in him because it's the truth.

Actually there is more evidence for the ressurection than for the battle of Hastings
Thats all in your head

[QUOTE=Karitopia]That's exactly my point. There is no scientific, factual proof to support Christianity... or any religion for that matter.
QUOTE]

that is exactly why i think it is so funny people try to convice others there religion is right over the internet

Thats all in your head

Just like the Bush campaign... you've told me so many times now that it's in my head, therefore, it must be true!

God doesn't want people to believe in him because it's fact... he wants people to believe in him because it's the truth.

Then why is the bible crammed full of miracles and prophecies?

Or has God decided that people today aren't as important as those in biblical times?

[QUOTE=Karitopia]That's exactly my point. There is no scientific, factual proof to support Christianity... or any religion for that matter.
QUOTE]

that is exactly why i think it is so funny people try to convice others there religion is right over the internet

I can understand why it seems ridiculous, I agree with you there. But basically, whenever you disprove one thing, you're essentially proving something else. Or when you prove one thing, you're disproving something else. But if someone believes in something strongly, I definitely think they should stand up for it and defend it if need be.

I can understand why it seems ridiculous, I agree with you there. But basically, whenever you disprove one thing, you're essentially proving something else. Or when you prove one thing, you're disproving something else. But if someone believes in something strongly, I definitely think they should stand up for it and defend it if need be.

i agree people should defend what they believe with words of course not violence but should never push any belief on anyone

Then why is the bible crammed full of miracles and prophecies?

Or has God decided that people today aren't as important as those in biblical times?

The Bible was written by humans. I think he loves us all.

i agree people should defend what they believe with words of course not violence but should never push any belief on anyone

I agree. There is a major difference between defending your beliefs and pushing them.

He was not the Son of God, he wasn't a liar, and he wasn't a lunatic ... he was, however, a Prophet of God. Why isn't that an option?

If he was a prophet of God then he was lying about being his son... thats why it's not an option

And i have 2 get off the net now... no im not dodging your questions its my computer and before i go i want to quote Reggie Dabbs

"Jesus loves you and died for you, and if you don't believe in him he still loves and still died for you just incase you change your mind"

I can understand why it seems ridiculous, I agree with you there. But basically, whenever you disprove one thing, you're essentially proving something else. Or when you prove one thing, you're disproving something else. But if someone believes in something strongly, I definitely think they should stand up for it and defend it if need be.
Every statement creates its own denail...test it out.

Truth is that which conforms with reality...not what you imagine reality to be, but what it is. Truth has nothing to do with faith which according to the Christian religion consenting to accept as true those things that are unproven.

Truth is an internal perception.

Every statement creates its own denail...test it out.

Just to clarify... are we saying the same thing?

Just to clarify... are we saying the same thing?

yup

Truth is an internal perception.

Thats an unskillful assessment of what the truth is.

Fundie Wackadoodles make baby Jesus cry.

Thats an unskillful assessment of what the truth is.

How so?

in a world based on our own persepition in an ever shifting reality how can we ever state that anything is "truth" or "fact"

("our" is refering not only to our personal view but that of humankind")

in a world based on our own persepition in an ever shifting reality how can we ever state that anything is "truth" or "fact"

("our" is refering not only to our personal view but that of humankind")

or "real"

in a world based on our own persepition in an ever shifting reality how can we ever state that anything is "truth" or "fact"

("our" is refering not only to our personal view but that of humankind")

The more people in white lab coats with doctorate degrees get to decide what is fact.

Thats an unskillful assessment of what the truth is.

Soo... correct me if I'm wrong... but what you believe to be the truth is a much more skillful assessment, than mine, even though both of those assessments might not be "real?"

The more people in white lab coats with doctorate degrees get to decide what is fact.

that is simply their idea of fact

50 years ago it was fact that the atom was the smallest particle

1000 years ago scientists determined that it was a fact that the earth was flat

Jesus is the real deal, the son of God.

I see some of you commenting on the point that the Bible hasn't been factually proven, and therefore, shouldn't be believed.
There is a major difference between Truth and Fact. Fact is what science is based off of. Truth is what faith is based off of.


That, my friend, is assinine.

Beleiving in something that has no emperical evidence to support it, which, in fact, has evidence against it...is to shut off one's facuties for rational thought.

If you want the dictionary definitions then facts are "something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality" and truth is "a fact that has been verified".

The bible is not truth, the bible is a historical fiction work, one that isn't very interesting for the most part. It is a book, nothing more. It was written by men, not gods. To base one's life on a book is fine, but one must realize that that is exactly wht one is basing it on.

If you want faith, look to the bible. If you want truth, look to science.

Soo... correct me if I'm wrong... but what you believe to be the truth is a much more skillful assessment, than mine, even though both of those assessments might not be "real?"

You are getting close. How did God create the world according to the Bible?

that is simply their idea of fact

50 years ago it was fact that the atom was the smallest particle

1000 years ago scientists determined that it was a fact that the earth was flat

It was meant to be sarcastic.

You are getting close. How did God create the world according to the Bible?

within the time frame of seven days ...
where are you going with this?

If he was a prophet of God then he was lying about being his son... thats why it's not an option

He never said he was God's son.

within the time frame of seven days ...
where are you going with this?

No, How did He create the world?

It was meant to be sarcastic.

i know i am saying that your sarcasm hits more at home then you intended

You are getting close. How did God create the world according to the Bible?

I know how God created the world according to the Bible. What I don't understand is how you can argue that though both of us may be wrong, you are right.

No, How did He create the world?

He/She/It simply willed it to be and there it was

I know how God created the world according to the Bible. What I don't understand is how you can argue that though both of us may be wrong, you are right.

Okay what did God do to create the world....

That, my friend, is assinine.

Beleiving in something that has no emperical evidence to support it, which, in fact, has evidence against it...is to shut off one's facuties for rational thought.

If you want the dictionary definitions then facts are "something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality" and truth is "a fact that has been verified".

The bible is not truth, the bible is a historical fiction work, one that isn't very interesting for the most part. It is a book, nothing more. It was written by men, not gods. To base one's life on a book is fine, but one must realize that that is exactly wht one is basing it on.

If you want faith, look to the bible. If you want truth, look to science.

OK, look at the dumb girl who lives her life according to a book... really, there's alot more to me than that. I'm not the typical Christian that you would associate with being pro-life (although, I don't like that term, it is in essence saying that if you don't believe that way you are pro-death, which is not the case.) Anyway, I still think there's quite a difference between fact and truth. But, good argument.

karitopia you are the expert out of us on the subject please tell us i want to see where this is going

I voted "Son of God" because the other options were just stupid and a little pointless. Why not have "prophet" as an option? Why not have "cunning orator"? I am certain that Jesus lived, and I am certain that he believed himself to the the Son of God. But that doesn't mean he was. I don't believe that God was anything like a human being and therefore couldn't father Jesus in the traditional sense.

My vote goes with "Cunning orator".

well good debate lot of fun but i got work in 2 hours and i gotta go to bed goodnight all

Okay what did God do to create the world....

Talked about it. Although, if you want to get into the mystic side of things, God had this giant wheel that contained the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and used various combinations of the letters to name everything and when it was named, it was created.

It's a bit more complex than that, but that's the nutshell.

But, then, it couldn't have happened unless Kether spun itself a cocoon so that it could be realized (sekhinah). A cocoon called "God". That's how God was created, by the way.

Okay what did God do to create the world....

God spoke: "Light!" And light appeared. God saw that light was good and seperated light from dark. God named the light Day, he named the dark Night. It was evening- it was morning. Day One.

Do you need me to go on?

Talked about it. Although, if you want to get into the mystic side of things, God had this giant wheel that contained the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet and used various combinations of the letters to name everything and when it was named, it was created.

It's a bit more complex than that, but that's the nutshell.

But, then, it couldn't have happened unless Kether spun itself a cocoon so that it could be realized (sekhinah). A cocoon called "God". That's how God was created, by the way.

Qaballa, huh?

So God spoke the truth into being.

Qaballa, huh?

So God spoke the truth into being.

Ohh, so that's where you were going with that. Very clever.

Jesus was a drinking partner of mine... Poseidon too.

Qaballa, huh?

So God spoke the truth into being.

Meh ... somebody had to do it. Personally, I think there was a "Let time begin" before the "Let there be light" thing and it was in that instant that a beloved Angel of God said that he wanted to rip himself apart (so much was his love for God) just so he could experience the journey of bring himself back together to find God once again.

So, time began, the Angel ripped itself into billions of pieces, and God figured out the best way to tend to the problem of the Angel coming back to Him and *poof* "Let there be reality!"

A little piece of that Angel slapped into each of us (call us Legion, for we are many) and now we crawl through this quagmire in an effort to return to the Divine. So ... we are Lucifer, the light (stuff of the Universe) bearer, the "fallen" Angel, the reason for all this reality.

But, I could be wrong. It's 4 in the morning and I haven't slept in a while.

Well kiddies, it's been fun. Thanks for the discourse. I'm off to bed, it is 2:50am my time... and I do have to be up in the morning, early, for me at least. A few parting words to sum up the debate...
One of the things you learn from being a scientist is that you can't explain everything.

My personal opinion is that by the time the Bible was written, Jesus was something of a myth. His story was passed from person to person and got altered that way.
If you think about it, Homer (if he actually existed) wrote the Ilias and the Odyssey, still we don't think greek gods, cyclopses or Skulla and Caryptis (if you don't know what I mean, read the books) ever existed. So why do some people take every word in the Bible as granted?

I'll also take cunning orator.

Oh, and a moralistic man can lie and die for the lie, mister I've Read the Case For Christ. It happens all the time.

Meh ... somebody had to do it. Personally, I think there was a "Let time begin" before the "Let there be light" thing and it was in that instant that a beloved Angel of God said that he wanted to rip himself apart (so much was his love for God) just so he could experience the journey of bring himself back together to find God once again.

So, time began, the Angel ripped itself into billions of pieces, and God figured out the best way to tend to the problem of the Angel coming back to Him and *poof* "Let there be reality!"

A little piece of that Angel slapped into each of us (call us Legion, for we are many) and now we crawl through this quagmire in an effort to return to the Divine. So ... we are Lucifer, the light (stuff of the Universe) bearer, the "fallen" Angel, the reason for all this reality.

But, I could be wrong. It's 4 in the morning and I haven't slept in a while.


Gnosticism huh?
Thats a nice story, but thats just it...its a story.

Religion is weird. Which is why it amuses me.

Gnosticism huh?
Thats a nice story, but thats just it...its a story.
I don't know your belief, Nihilistic Beginners (haven't read the whole thread), but isn't the Bible the same? A story gathered and united by zealous worshippers and made into the ultimate truth?!

Religion is weird. Which is why it amuses me.
Its all in your head

Its all in your head

*Starts banging head*

GAHHH! Get out get out get out! :eek:

I don't know your belief, Nihilistic Beginners (haven't read the whole thread), but isn't the Bible the same? A story gathered and united by zealous worshippers and made into the ultimate truth?!

They are all just stories, aren't they. Some use different sorts of languages...the scientific story of creationis just that too...a story

Gnosticism huh?
Thats a nice story, but thats just it...its a story.

Sort of Gnostic, but I'm Muslim. Yes, it is just a story, not something I find to be Truth®™, but rather something to entertain me when I'm in the shower or on a long car trip.

Sort of Gnostic, but I'm Muslim. Yes, it is just a story, not something I find to be Truth®™, but rather something to entertain me when I'm in the shower or on a long car trip.
Islam is a nice story too

What's a Jesus?

Islam is a nice story too

Lousy plot, but great character development. To be fair, though, Qur'an is not a collection of fables, it is an instruction manual.

Lousy plot, but great character development.

I think the Quran is too derivative of Tarantino if you ask me, going back and forth in the narrative like that.

What's a Jesus?

According to dictionary.com:

Je·sus Called “son of Sirach.” fl. third century B.C.
The author of the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus.

A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.

Take yer pick.

I think the Quran is too derivative of Tarantino if you ask me, going back and forth in the narrative like that.

Lol!

I believe Jesus was the son of God, but if you trust history, theoreticly there is no further way back than to Petrus. So I am glad that you believe what's in the Bible (I don't say the Bible's wrong), but there is no proven evidence of Jesus being alive.

I'd like to start a new topic on this one:
What is believing in God (or Allah or Budha, etc) good for?
a. Making war, because we want to make sure that the one who doesn't believe in my God (or Allah or Budha, etc.), is seriously mistaken.
b. A good reason for killing others, who don't believe in my God, because they're wrong.
c. For living in heaven after I die.
d. Being a good man, living like the ideas of the Bible (or Koran, etc.), so everything I do (beating up my wive, etc) is good, because the Book says I may.

I'm an agnostic and yes i do believe Christ existed. But i dont believe he was divine or godly, but just a man. I'm not saying he was a fake either, non of the voting options were right for my opinion. If Christ (or the holy ghost) were divine, wouldn't that be against the commandments? "I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE strange gods BEFORE ME."

I believe that Jesus existed because...well I suppose I don't have any facts to back it up (there might be some, there might not - I've never bothered to look it up, curse my Gen-X apathy); but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that could be made up, really. I think he's mentioned in documents other than the Bible, and there are so many historical particulars in the New Testament in terms of leaders and locations and things that I reckon at least the basic premise that there was this radical thinker called Jesus is true, regardless of whether all the random rules or agendas are.

I think Jesus was an extraordinarily good charismatic man with a lot of socially progressive ideas, like equality for everyone and social justice and humility and generosity and peace. I don't even know that he had the intention of founding a new religion per se, people just naturally followed him because he was charismatic and compassionate and said things that other people believed in. I don't think he ever wanted to start wars or crusades or amass great fortune or political power or persecute people the way Christianity sometimes can today or in the past: that wasn't his message at all. He wanted us to love our neighbour, and by our neighbour he meant everyone. It's not really his fault if other people who followed him added a whole bunch of other stuff to what he wanted, or misinterpreted what he said, and I think it's really a shame that Christianity has such a poor reputation today: Jesus was not about hate, but love. Even when he met someone who was doing something he considered wrong, like adultery, he still cared about them. He invited them to dinner, instead of celebrating their funeral. No one likes being told what they're doing is wrong or sinful (I was raised Catholic, believe me, I know!) but everyone believes some things are, even if they're not the same things for everyone, and if we're honest we often do judge others for doing things that we think are wrong, in our hearts.

I guess I think a little bit about my husband, who is probably the most Christian person I've ever known. He's not like my parents at all in that his Christianity isn't demonstrative: he never goes to church, has no rosaries or crucifixes or statues, he doesn't attend prayer groups or have nightly Bible readings or anything like that. But he genuinely loves people. He firmly believes that humanity is getting better, even though I generally can't see it. He's a solicitor, and every day he works with people who are drug dealers, smugglers, thieves, junkies, general riff-raff, and he still manages to find some good in them worth defending. He says things like, "Well he has a problem with drinking and when he drinks he sometimes breaks into cars, but he's really a decent chap" - and he honestly believes this. I would dismiss these people without a second thought as dangerous and creepy and he goes out of his way to help them. And in part, he does this because he believes that it's what God wants, what Jesus taught us: love thy neighbour as thyself. He's amazing. And I think Jesus must have been like that, always looking for the good in people and trying to help them, rather than judging them and dissociating with them the way I do, the way I cynically think most people do, whether it be criminals or the mentally ill or the elderly or religious people or foreigners or 'the majority' or any other group into which we put people in order to distance ourselves from them.

But anyway I think that's what Christianity could be, if there were more people like my husband.

God I don't half go on, I'll shut up now!

I believe that Jesus existed because...well I suppose I don't have any facts to back it up (there might be some, there might not - I've never bothered to look it up, curse my Gen-X apathy); but it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that could be made up, really. I think he's mentioned in documents other than the Bible, and there are so many historical particulars in the New Testament in terms of leaders and locations and things that I reckon at least the basic premise that there was this radical thinker called Jesus is true, regardless of whether all the random rules or agendas are.

I think Jesus was an extraordinarily good charismatic man with a lot of socially progressive ideas, like equality for everyone and social justice and humility and generosity and peace. I don't even know that he had the intention of founding a new religion per se, people just naturally followed him because he was charismatic and compassionate and said things that other people believed in. I don't think he ever wanted to start wars or crusades or amass great fortune or political power or persecute people the way Christianity sometimes can today or in the past: that wasn't his message at all. He wanted us to love our neighbour, and by our neighbour he meant everyone. It's not really his fault if other people who followed him added a whole bunch of other stuff to what he wanted, or misinterpreted what he said, and I think it's really a shame that Christianity has such a poor reputation today: Jesus was not about hate, but love. Even when he met someone who was doing something he considered wrong, like adultery, he still cared about them. He invited them to dinner, instead of celebrating their funeral. No one likes being told what they're doing is wrong or sinful (I was raised Catholic, believe me, I know!) but everyone believes some things are, even if they're not the same things for everyone, and if we're honest we often do judge others for doing things that we think are wrong, in our hearts.

I guess I think a little bit about my husband, who is probably the most Christian person I've ever known. He's not like my parents at all in that his Christianity isn't demonstrative: he never goes to church, has no rosaries or crucifixes or statues, he doesn't attend prayer groups or have nightly Bible readings or anything like that. But he genuinely loves people. He firmly believes that humanity is getting better, even though I generally can't see it. He's a solicitor, and every day he works with people who are drug dealers, smugglers, thieves, junkies, general riff-raff, and he still manages to find some good in them worth defending. He says things like, "Well he has a problem with drinking and when he drinks he sometimes breaks into cars, but he's really a decent chap" - and he honestly believes this. I would dismiss these people without a second thought as dangerous and creepy and he goes out of his way to help them. And in part, he does this because he believes that it's what God wants, what Jesus taught us: love thy neighbour as thyself. He's amazing. And I think Jesus must have been like that, always looking for the good in people and trying to help them, rather than judging them and dissociating with them the way I do, the way I cynically think most people do, whether it be criminals or the mentally ill or the elderly or religious people or foreigners or 'the majority' or any other group into which we put people in order to distance ourselves from them.

But anyway I think that's what Christianity could be, if there were more people like my husband.

God I don't half go on, I'll shut up now!

*applause*

I believe Jesus was the son of God, but if you trust history, theoreticly there is no further way back than to Petrus. So I am glad that you believe what's in the Bible (I don't say the Bible's wrong), but there is no proven evidence of Jesus being alive.

I'd like to start a new topic on this one:
What is believing in God (or Allah or Budha, etc) good for?
a. Making war, because we want to make sure that the one who doesn't believe in my God (or Allah or Budha, etc.), is seriously mistaken.
b. A good reason for killing others, who don't believe in my God, because they're wrong.
c. For living in heaven after I die.
d. Being a good man, living like the ideas of the Bible (or Koran, etc.), so everything I do (beating up my wive, etc) is good, because the Book says I may.

how many budhists do you know that march off to war beat there wives believe in heaven or kill?

how many budhists do you know that march off to war beat there wives believe in heaven or kill?

How many Buddhist condemn you to hell for not beleiving like they do?

roxley your husband sounds like the peak of christianity but you must remember there are people like him in every religion and people that are complete asses in every religion

I don't think ANY religion (as they exist today) are completely right. I think Jesus is the son of God. Why, you may ask. Why not, I answer. I have been Christian for all my life, and no one hasn't shown me proofs that I believe in wrong god or something.

How many Buddhist condemn you to hell for not beleiving like they do?

none come to mind

Jesus was God Incarnate who came to earth to save humanity from sin and death through the shedding of his own blood in sacrifice, and who returned from the dead to rejoin his Father in Heaven.

Jesus was God Incarnate who came to earth to save humanity from sin and death through the shedding of his own blood in sacrifice, and who returned from the dead to rejoin his Father in Heaven.

got any proof?

No, and I don't need proof - my own faith is enough for me

Jesus was God Incarnate who came to earth to save humanity from sin and death through the shedding of his own blood in sacrifice, and who returned from the dead to rejoin his Father in Heaven.
You're practically reading that out of the bible my friend, a source that is not necessarily reliable or true. I'm gonna have to agree with what roxley said in that Jesus probably did exist (not proveable, but pretty certain), and that he was a good man who was just looking for the good in people. And I don't think you need to be the son of God to do that. Or, for that matter, a lunatic or a liar (I don't remember him ever calling himself the son of God), which is why this is a bad poll and why there were so many complaints.

No, and I don't need proof - my own faith is enough for me

you made a bold statement there and i thought you would be able to back it up

Jesus was God Incarnate who came to earth to save humanity from sin and death through the shedding of his own blood in sacrifice, and who returned from the dead to rejoin his Father in Heaven.

That's all in your head.

You're practically reading that out of the bible my friend, a source that is not necessarily reliable or true. I'm gonna have to agree with what roxley said in that Jesus probably did exist (not proveable, but pretty certain), and that he was a good man who was just looking for the good in people. And I don't think you need to be the son of God to do that. Or, for that matter, a lunatic or a liar (I don't remember him ever calling himself the son of God), which is why this is a bad poll and why there were so many complaints.

Jesus is the son of God he was born of Mary then died for the sins of man-kind then he rose again. the bible is soild truth and has given hope to many people over many many years. knowing that Jesus is the son of God takes faith but without faith life has no point.

Hey, I'm not saying that I am necessarily right, nor am I stating that everyone should categorically agree with me.

Christian doctrine can be summarized as follows: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" as it says in John 3.16

We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done. For all have sinned; all fall short of God's glorious standard. Yet now God in his gracious kindness declares us not guilty. He has done this through Christ Jesus, who has freed us by taking away our sins. For God sent Jesus to take the punishment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us. We are made right with God when we believe that Jesus shed his blood, sacrificing his life for us (Romans 3:22-25).

God loves each and every one of us so much. He loves us beyond comprehension. He offers us the most beautiful gift. It is a free gift to all who will receive. It is the gift of salvation. He offers us the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son. The gift of salvation is a gift with no strings attached. We only have to believe in Jesus and receive Him.

'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.' (Revelation 21.3)

I myself am a devoted Christian, but I understand that not everyone on these forums is. All I ask is that people are always respectful of others beliefs :-)

Jesus is the son of God he was born of Mary then died for the sins of man-kind then he rose again. the bible is soild truth and has given hope to many people over many many years. knowing that Jesus is the son of God takes faith but without faith life has no point.
Thats a nice story...but its all in your head.

Thats a nice story...but its all in your head.

IN YOUR OPINION

IN YOUR OPINION

Thats what you say.

Yes, in my own humble view, everyone is entitled to their opinions - and Faith is something that can't be proven right or wrong. It comes down to a few simple facts that yes, somebody called Jesus did exist (most scientists do accept this, and the date/time of birth (roughly) - just not the miracles, coming back to life part).

The rest of it is, I admit, a Leap of Faith on our part. However, I am perfectly comfortable taking that leap.

I am not asking anyone else to jump with me - but I do ask that people respect my decision (and others).

Yes, in my own humble view, everyone is entitled to their opinions - and Faith is something that can't be proven right or wrong. It comes down to a few simple facts that yes, somebody called Jesus did exist (most scientists do accept this, and the date/time of birth (roughly) - just not the miracles, coming back to life part).

The rest of it is, I admit, a Leap of Faith on our part. However, I am perfectly comfortable taking that leap.

I am not asking anyone else to jump with me - but I do ask that people respect my decision (and others).

So you admit that it is all in your head...

Jesus was and is the son of God and the savior of humanity.

Mark my words, in 2000 years time, they'll be worshipping david blaine...

Jesus is the "son" of god and my personal savior. Need I say more?

i agree

As is usual with polls on here, not enough options. :(

Mark my words, in 2000 years time, they'll be worshipping david blaine...

no. David Bowie.

roxley your husband sounds like the peak of christianity but you must remember there are people like him in every religion and people that are complete asses in every religion

Oh I know that, I have Jewish and Muslim and Hindu friends and all sorts! I was just using him as an example to show what I think Christianity is meant to be all about, since it has such a bad reputation nowadays for being nothing but hate. I don't know as much about other religions (although I do know that none of them is really about hate!) but it was meant to apply to religion more generally as well, I guess. I know a lot of people hate organised religion and there's no denying it has its faults - I myself am not affiliated with any church - but my point was that this needn't reflect on what Jesus actually wanted. Sorry if I didn't make that clear!

And no offence, Nihilistic Beginners, but ya need to stop with the 'all in your head' thing. You don't like religion, we got it - keeping on banging that drum is just rude to people who are believers and frankly makes you look like a one-trick pony.

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...
Don't you dare call yourself a christian. Your a disgrace. How fucking dare you spread the word of God for the point of arguing. Ya know what, I'm not christian, I beleive in Jesus the teacher, he did not teach for dick heads like you to pose such snobbery. I have many christian friends who would feel sick in your presence, your an insult to your religion.

Give it up, as for your holier-than-thou poll. Ya know what, take it down and someone might respect you, don't tell me your that stupid to preach a bible you clearly haven't read.

all beings are the sons/daughters of god he just happened to be a very spiritual one oh and BTW please dont quote the bible the only time that jesus would ever get really pissed of s when people would quute scriptures to prove points

No he got pissed of when people quoted scriputes to prove points and twisted the scriptures in their favor (sadduces and pharaisees). He also was pissed of by legalistic people (people who knew the bible, could walk the walk, but did it all for show, not becasue they truly believed it) Jesus also quoted scripture to prove his own points. He quoted scripture while in the wilderness when he was tempted by satan....

all beings are the sons/daughters of god he just happened to be a very spiritual one oh and BTW please dont quote the bible the only time that jesus would ever get really pissed of s when people would quute scriptures to prove points

In lessons on religion, we've had to look at a few passages from the Bible, in one of which Jesus (Temptations) was quoting Scripture, and the Devil was quoting Scripture, and Jesus kept on counter-quoting.

HYPOCRITE!

Don't you dare call yourself a christian. Your a disgrace. How fucking dare you spread the word of God for the point of arguing. Ya know what, I'm not christian, I beleive in Jesus the teacher, he did not teach for dick heads like you to pose such snobbery. I have many christian friends who would feel sick in your presence, your an insult to your religion.

Give it up, as for your holier-than-thou poll. Ya know what, take it down and someone might respect you, don't tell me your that stupid to preach a bible you clearly haven't read.

Ya know what, that was a bit harsh.

My opinion isn't represent either.

A great teacher and philosopher but not necesarilly the "Son of God". Sadly a lot of his teachings have been corrupted by his followers. Instead of love thy neigbour it's force yor beliefs on him and constantly remind them that their beliefs are wrong and they are going to hell if they don't convert. Now, I'm not saying all Christians are like that nor even most but a lot of them.

Other:Right ideas for the most part, but I don't think he's the son of god.

The poll doesn't take into account that it could be the people who wrote about Jesus, rather than Jesus himself who lied.

Ya know what, that was a bit harsh.
Why, because I don't like being told I'm stupid I don't follow this persons manipulated version of the bible?

This is a loaded question.

It forces us to assume that the church has been completely truthful in their retelling of the life and teachings of Jesus. I personally believe that Jesus considered himself a prophet and got himself labeled the messiah by overzealous followers and a church that had a keen interest in bringing in believers.

Don't you dare call yourself a christian. Your a disgrace. How fucking dare you spread the word of God for the point of arguing. Ya know what, I'm not christian, I beleive in Jesus the teacher, he did not teach for dick heads like you to pose such snobbery. I have many christian friends who would feel sick in your presence, your an insult to your religion.

Give it up, as for your holier-than-thou poll. Ya know what, take it down and someone might respect you, don't tell me your that stupid to preach a bible you clearly haven't read.

That was a bit harsh, and any way if jesus was as you say jesus the teacher then why did he teach that he was the son of god in those days saying that you were the son of god is like saying your the president of the united states people thought he was crazy if he was a teacher then he was also a liar and a hipocritte because he taught people not to lie, or a lunatic although judging by the depth and intelligence of what he taught he was neither a liar or a lunatic as for me i say jesus jesus was the son of god brought to earth as a man and then crucified an resurrected.

Don't you dare call yourself a christian. Your a disgrace. How fucking dare you spread the word of God for the point of arguing. Ya know what, I'm not christian, I beleive in Jesus the teacher, he did not teach for dick heads like you to pose such snobbery. I have many christian friends who would feel sick in your presence, your an insult to your religion.

Give it up, as for your holier-than-thou poll. Ya know what, take it down and someone might respect you, don't tell me your that stupid to preach a bible you clearly haven't read.

Isn't there such a thing as ettiquite on the forums

Why, because I don't like being told I'm stupid I don't follow this persons manipulated version of the bible?

Yeah, so what? *I* don't like being told I'm stupid as I don't follow this person's maipulated version of the bible, but I don't reckon that was actually what they were going for. And, also, I don't think they were calling you, personally, stupid, if they called anyone stupid at all. And if they *did* call anyone stupid - if - then it wouldn't be just you (it's kind of paranoid/big headed to think so), do you see anyone else saying things like you did?

You'd do better if you actually thought out a logical argument that wasn't just randomly offensive.

I don't regard Jesus as the son of God or my saviour (I'm atheist), but he was a great man with a beautiful message for the world. It's a pity so many Christians (especially in America) these days are going against those messages.

Yeah, I believe Jesus existed, But the rest seems kinda murky. I don't realy argue much with people who say god exists but have no proof and it's taken on faith. You can't make much headway debating someone who says 'I believe just because.' Those who tell me it's all proven because the bible says so get on my last nerve. What? we should believe anything written in a book? Gets kinda confusing with all the different stories. I don't argue with my Christain friends because it won't do any good and I don't want to upset them. If they want to believe that way and it gives them comfort, let them. We just agree to disagree. But if someone tells me that they have some sort of proof god exists, they might have some trouble. There is no proof. There is no proof he doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. I chose to not believe since there isn't anything approaching proof.

Don't you dare call yourself a christian. Your a disgrace. How fucking dare you spread the word of God for the point of arguing. Ya know what, I'm not christian, I beleive in Jesus the teacher, he did not teach for dick heads like you to pose such snobbery. I have many christian friends who would feel sick in your presence, your an insult to your religion.

Give it up, as for your holier-than-thou poll. Ya know what, take it down and someone might respect you, don't tell me your that stupid to preach a bible you clearly haven't read.

You should be glad i don't get pissed off easy. You dont know me for a start so you don't know whether im a disgrace or not. Oh and the reason i started this was for 2 reasons NEITHER of them was for the sake of starting an argumet.

1. There are so many arguments bout Christianity on this site so i did want 2 know what peoples opinions are so that i know who im talking to.

2. I wanted to let people know that these are as many options as there are. If Jesus was a "moral teacher" then he was also a liar. Because he said that he was the son of God.

I wasn't trying to be a snob... sorry if it looks that way but i honestly can't think of anything that i said that is snobby... and even if i was a snobby dickhead Jesus taught indiscriminately ie to everyone in the entire world not just the nice people.

My poll was not "holier than thou" please explain that to me and I have read the Bible. Not every single word in the whole thing, but i have read the Gospels and i was talking about Jesus.

You should be glad i don't get pissed off easy. You dont know me for a start so you don't know whether im a disgrace or not. Oh and the reason i started this was for 2 reasons NEITHER of them was for the sake of starting an argumet.

1. There are so many arguments bout Christianity on this site so i did want 2 know what peoples opinions are so that i know who im talking to.

2. I wanted to let people know that these are as many options as there are. If Jesus was a "moral teacher" then he was also a liar. Because he said that he was the son of God.

I wasn't trying to be a snob... sorry if it looks that way but i honestly can't think of anything that i said that is snobby... and even if i was a snobby dickhead Jesus taught indiscriminately ie to everyone in the entire world not just the nice people.

My poll was not "holier than thou" please explain that to me and I have read the Bible. Not every single word in the whole thing, but i have read the Gospels and i was talking about Jesus.
Lashie...it's all....

Lashie...it's all....

Maybe im just dumb but can you explain what that's meant to mean... i got the name Lashie from people because when i get angry i flutter my eyelashes heaps and i cant help it...

If Jesus was a "moral teacher" then he was also a liar. Because he said that he was the son of God.

I think the way to think of the Son of God is that this is a title. I don't believe Jesus ever wanted anyone to consider him as the physical son of God.

:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is

(King James Bible, 1 John)

I think the way to think of the Son of God is that this is a title. I don't believe Jesus ever wanted anyone to consider him as the physical son of God.

i dont know whether i should say anything back to that any more or whether i'll be "manipulating the Bible" or just generally get sworn at and told i'm stupid...

Basically i dont agree with you because Jesus was killed for saying he was the son of God, if he only meant it as a title i dont think hw would've gone through with it...

Maybe im just dumb but can you explain what that's meant to mean... i got the name Lashie from people because when i get angry i flutter my eyelashes heaps and i cant help it...
it's all... in your head

i dont know whether i should say anything back to that any more or whether i'll be "manipulating the Bible" or just generally get sworn at and told i'm stupid...

Basically i dont agree with you because Jesus was killed for saying he was the son of God, if he only meant it as a title i dont think hw would've gone through with it...

Well, I won't swear at you. But if Jesus was the physical son of God then we have divided God up into pieces. I think the point is that Jesus spoke with the authority of God. He was a Messenger of God. Just as was Moses, Muhammed and today Baha'u'llah.

You're practically reading that out of the bible my friend, a source that is not necessarily reliable or true. I'm gonna have to agree with what roxley said in that Jesus probably did exist (not proveable, but pretty certain), and that he was a good man who was just looking for the good in people. And I don't think you need to be the son of God to do that. Or, for that matter, a lunatic or a liar (I don't remember him ever calling himself the son of God), which is why this is a bad poll and why there were so many complaints.

Actually, the Bible is more reliable than people think...
1.There are more extant manuscripts than any other piece of writing in history... the second runner up is the Iliad

2. These manuscripts are dated batween the times of Christ and the second century

3. In the writings they are writing to critcs as well as everyday people. They had to get their facts straight otherwise their critics would have made a big fuss many verses also say things like "as you yourself saw". They were writing to witnesses...

4. It is not only the Bible that mentions people from the Bible. In some writings found that are dated in the second century there are people talking about the disciples and things that they were doing. Also, the Bible is regarded my many historians and archaeologists as being sound in it's statements of land around and times around it.

Oh and if Jesus was not the Son of God then why not state that fact he wouldn't have had to die...

Well, I won't swear at you. But if Jesus was the physical son of God then we have divided God up into pieces. I think the point is that Jesus spoke with the authority of God. He was a Messenger of God. Just as was Moses, Muhammed and today Baha'u'llah.

Thanx... :) but i do disagree. Jesus was not the physical Son of God, he was one with God just like the Holy Spirit. All three are part of the Trinity and can be seperate yet are still in essence the same... sorry if that doesnt make much sense. This is the part of Christianity that i find the hardest to explain.

And Nhilistic Beginners :rolleyes: cant you come up with an argument for once...

And Nhilistic Beginners :rolleyes: cant you come up with an argument for once...

Lashie how old are you? Because I do believe that faith is important while you are young and when you are adult too - so if you have faith in Jesus (enough to do what he ask his disciples to do - love thy nieghbor), I guess thats a good thing, but when this faith does nothing but alienates you from others not like you or your chosen group or gives you an us vs. them - hate your nieghbor mentality then it becomes a bad thing. It not good to have a dead inert religion of rules and regulations and not an organic growing life-affriming belief that will help you become a better human being.

Lashie how old are you? Because I do believe that faith is important while you are young and when you are adult too - so if you have faith in Jesus (enough to do what he ask his disciples to do - love thy nieghbor), I guess thats a good thing, but when this faith does nothing but alienates you from others not like you or your chosen group or gives you an us vs. them - hate your nieghbor mentality then it becomes a bad thing. It not good to have a dead inert religion of rules and regulations and not an organic growing life-affriming belief that will help you become a better human being.


cool you came up with an argument but i assume you don't know lashie so how do you know that he/she is like that by the way how old are you i am 13.

oh yeah i am also lombas islands

Lashie how old are you? Because I do believe that faith is important while you are young and when you are adult too - so if you have faith in Jesus (enough to do what he ask his disciples to do - love thy nieghbor), I guess thats a good thing, but when this faith does nothing but alienates you from others not like you or your chosen group or gives you an us vs. them - hate your nieghbor mentality then it becomes a bad thing. It not good to have a dead inert religion of rules and regulations and not an organic growing life-affriming belief that will help you become a better human being.

Its all ... in your head

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...
if he existed, and if he was as described in the texts i have read, then i would say Jesus was an unimpressive and probably insane fellow. he appears to have been well-meaning, but his message wasn't worth much; the only bits that are any good were stolen from previous religious and philosophical thinkers, and the rest is just cowardly encouragement aimed at those who want justification for their own weaknesses and failures. Jesus knew how to work the crowd, and he knew how to get people to follow, but that makes him a really good salesman...not a brilliant thinker or ideal leader. personally, i've never really understood why so many people are so eager to buy his spiel.

Its all ... in your head

yes it is. :)

if he existed, and if he was as described in the texts i have read, then i would say Jesus was an unimpressive and probably insane fellow. he appears to have been well-meaning, but his message wasn't worth much; the only bits that are any good were stolen from previous religious and philosophical thinkers, and the rest is just cowardly encouragement aimed at those who want justification for their own weaknesses and failures. Jesus knew how to work the crowd, and he knew how to get people to follow, but that makes him a really good salesman...not a brilliant thinker or ideal leader. personally, i've never really understood why so many people are so eager to buy his spiel.

ok i have a few comments

1. it would take an extremely good salesman to convince so many people

2. it is difficult to be insane and an extremely good salesman at the same time

3. Most of jesuss teachings were incredibly sane, original and valuable

Let me guess... you think that he was a great moral teacher and nothing more... he can't be. If he was a great moral teacher then he was also either a liar or lunatic. If he was a liar then he would either have to be a demon from hell or incredibly stupid. He died for a lie that he knew was a lie.

If he didn't know that it was a lie then he must have been a lunatic. To say that you were the son of God in his time was about on the level of saying that you are a poached egg. Also, words from the Bible are some of the most comforting words in all history. It's hard to imagine that they were spoken by a lunatic.

A lot of Christians, maybe even most, profess that Jesus is the Son of God but also seem to think he was a lunatic, preaching that crazy "love thy neighbor" and "casting the first stone" stuff.

A lot of Christians, maybe even most, profess that Jesus is the Son of God but also seem to think he was a lunatic, preaching that crazy "love thy neighbor" and "casting the first stone" stuff.

I beg to differ in my experiance I have not met a single christian who thought that Jesus was the son of god and also insane although i agree that some who claim to be christian might think some of his teaching were not completely sane.

I beg to differ in my experiance I have not met a single christian who thought that Jesus was the son of god and also insane although i agree that some who claim to be christian might think some of his teaching were not completely sane.

No, they don't actually come out and say he was insane. They just treat his teachings as if he were. ;)

ok i have a few comments

1. it would take an extremely good salesman to convince so many people

not really, especially if you are selling hope to people living in the era Jesus lived; i mean, these people had an average life expectancy of 25, for crying out loud. if you tell them, "hey, you can live forever, and there can be more to your life than poverty, starvation, and disease" then it's a pretty easy sell.


2. it is difficult to be insane and an extremely good salesman at the same time

i don't see any particular reason why that would be true. i suppose it depends on your definition of insane. i believe anybody who truly thinks they are the Son of God is mentally disturbed and probably suffering from some organic brain disease, but such things might actually make them a BETTER salesman, since they might be more convincing and passionate.


3. Most of jesuss teachings were incredibly sane, original and valuable
meh, you're entitled to your opinion. i could challenge you to name one such sane, original, and valuable teaching, and could then respond by showing you how any sane or valuable teachings from Jesus are actually not original...but that would be boring and pointless, since i really don't much care what you think about Jesus :).

There should be more options...such as: meant well but was sadly mistaken

Well an interesting perspective but you don't state your beliefs. I find that most of those who are unwilling to accept that Jesus is the Son of God are those arragent enough that they are unwilling to believe in anyone/thing bigger than themselves. Those with other religious beliefs and actually believe them I can respect but those who are unwilling to believe in anything (like Darwinists-pathetic religion trying to disguise itself as science) are essentially pathetic. Those who are into cults whether "based" off of Christianity or Muslim or other are even worse! The so called holy warriors that are no more than deranged terrorists are the worst.

not really, especially if you are selling hope to people living in the era Jesus lived; i mean, these people had an average life expectancy of 25, for crying out loud. if you tell them, "hey, you can live forever, and there can be more to your life than poverty, starvation, and disease" then it's a pretty easy sell.

i don't see any particular reason why that would be true. i suppose it depends on your definition of insane. i believe anybody who truly thinks they are the Son of God is mentally disturbed and probably suffering from some organic brain disease, but such things might actually make them a BETTER salesman, since they might be more convincing and passionate.

meh, you're entitled to your opinion. i could challenge you to name one such sane, original, and valuable teaching, and could then respond by showing you how any sane or valuable teachings from Jesus are actually not original...but that would be boring and pointless, since i really don't much care what you think about Jesus :).

I really do pity people like you! I suppose that you are a darwinist. It is just funny talking to people like you! I have studied most mainstream religions (including Darwinism) and return time and again to Christianity. It is timless and actually has many truism that transend time and ethnic backgrounds. There are many wealth and healthy people that believe in Him now and those that continue to believe in Him even as it costs them their lives both now and in Rome and points in between. I don't understand how people can continue to deny a part of themselves by refusing to believe in the Spiritual realm all together.

Being a athiest\agnostic myself i believe that although Jesus did exist he wasnt the son of god. I voted for liar but its not quite correct as HE probably believed in his relegion, I however dont.

I really do pity people like you! I suppose that you are a darwinist. It is just funny talking to people like you! I have studied most mainstream religions (including Darwinism) and return time and again to Christianity. It is timless and actually has many truism that transend time and ethnic backgrounds. There are many wealth and healthy people that believe in Him now and those that continue to believe in Him even as it costs them their lives both now and in Rome and points in between. I don't understand how people can continue to deny a part of themselves by refusing to believe in the Spiritual realm all together.
1: Darwinism is science, whether or not people treat it as a religion

2: Umm, where are the truisms?

3: What does this have to do with what Bottle said?

4: Deny a part of ourselves? I would be denying a part of myself by trying to be a Christian.

5: Believing in a spiritual realm has nothing to do with being Christian or being Darwinist.

6: Don't knock Bottle. Bottle rules.
:D

There should be more options. Religious belief aside, he appeared to be an intelligent individual who said some profound and provocative things while he was around, particularly regarding how people ought to treat other human beings.

The strong moral and ethical values he believed in and put forward can't easily be rejected by any sane person

No, they don't actually come out and say he was insane. They just treat his teachings as if he were. ;)

There are those who claim to be Christian but are something else all together. It is no different than those claiming to be Muslim but turn their back on their Faith's teachings by becoming violent so they can strick out at others just because they hate themselves. There are even those who claim to be Christian but then say that they hate all Jews--miss the connection there? If you are Christian they you must accept the whole not just the parts you like.

1: Darwinism is science, whether or not people treat it as a religion
2: Umm, where are the truisms?
3: What does this have to do with what Bottle said?
4: Deny a part of ourselves? I would be denying a part of myself by trying to be a Christian.
5: Believing in a spiritual realm has nothing to do with being Christian or being Darwinist.
6: Don't knock Bottle. Bottle rules.
:D

Saying that Darwinism is science and not a religion is like saying that drinking water straight from the ocean is good for you! The is so much of Darwinism that must be taken on faith that if they were not there there would be no THEORY of evolution. The very basis of Darwinism ignores every Scientific principle in exsistance that it is closer to making fun of science than actually being a part of it. The very precepts of Christianity is true today and needed to help bring peace to our world. You don't have to be a Christian to believe and acknowledge the exsistance of the Spiritual realm but failing to acknowledge it does ignore and deny 1/3 of who you are.

Saying that Darwinism is science and not a religion is like saying that drinking water straight from the ocean is good for you! The is so much of Darwinism that must be taken on faith that if they were not there there would be no THEORY of evolution. The very basis of Darwinism ignores every Scientific principle in exsistance that it is closer to making fun of science than actually being a part of it. The very precepts of Christianity is true today and needed to help bring peace to our world. You don't have to be a Christian to believe and acknowledge the exsistance of the Spiritual realm but failing to acknowledge it does ignore and deny 1/3 of who you are.
With that in mind, what do you believe the basis of Darwinism is?

Its all ... in your head

Nihilistic Beginners is quite correct it is important to have a faith not a religion. A religion may push you away from others not iddentical to you but a faith encourages you to accept others. The point is not to hit people over the head with religion but to show with your behaviour that you have the light of God in your heart. I have friends from most walks of life and belief systems. God does not tell you to reject others for their beliefs in fact both Christianity and Islam teach tollerance of others.

Nihilistic Beginners is quite correct it is important to have a faith not a religion. A religion may push you away from others not iddentical to you but a faith encourages you to accept others. The point is not to hit people over the head with religion but to show with your behaviour that you have the light of God in your heart. I have friends from most walks of life and belief systems. God does not tell you to reject others for their beliefs in fact both Christianity and Islam teach tollerance of others.
Hooray!
Somebody who's not a xenophobe because of what they believe their religion says!

With that in mind, what do you believe the basis of Darwinism is?
Come again? What do you mean by that? Darwin originally started off with his Theory as a doctorate paper and only that. It was not his original idea for it to become the religion that it has. It does however appeal to those who refuse to believe in something larger than themselves. Predominantly those of an overly logical mind. Don't get me wrong I am a very Logic motivated person myself so I am not saying that all logical people are mislead into Darwinism.

I cant vote as my belief isn't represented. Personaly, I belive he existed but don't necesarily think he was the prophesised mesiah. that doesnt mean he was a lunatic though..

This is close. He is mentioned too many places to not exist. He never called himself the Son of God, only the Son of Man. He called to people to be more forgiving and changed the way people perceive religion.

Christianity is about the spirit of the law.

Before that Judiasm taught only the letter of the law.

So many religions other than those two which actually evolved from others.

The Native Americans have some great beliefs and I wished I could learn more.

You should be glad i don't get pissed off easy. You dont know me for a start so you don't know whether im a disgrace or not. Oh and the reason i started this was for 2 reasons NEITHER of them was for the sake of starting an argumet.

1. There are so many arguments bout Christianity on this site so i did want 2 know what peoples opinions are so that i know who im talking to.

2. I wanted to let people know that these are as many options as there are. If Jesus was a "moral teacher" then he was also a liar. Because he said that he was the son of God.

I wasn't trying to be a snob... sorry if it looks that way but i honestly can't think of anything that i said that is snobby... and even if i was a snobby dickhead Jesus taught indiscriminately ie to everyone in the entire world not just the nice people.

My poll was not "holier than thou" please explain that to me and I have read the Bible. Not every single word in the whole thing, but i have read the Gospels and i was talking about Jesus.

BullS it's not holiar than thou. Your last option alone states that. That you beleive people are stupid if they don't beleive in Jesus. What if people don't follow CHristianity does that make them stupid? Your options are so vague and localised barely anyone can vote.

Well an interesting perspective but you don't state your beliefs. I find that most of those who are unwilling to accept that Jesus is the Son of God are those arragent enough that they are unwilling to believe in anyone/thing bigger than themselves.

Is this a good time to come forward and declare I am more than willing to believe in more advanced beings and enlightened than myself ;-) ? I just consider it
A.extremely arrogant to assume that these beings would consider us puny humans significant enough to pay attention to, let alone converse directly with us on a mountain or call us "the chosen ones". Or that we, as puny human beings, could correctly comprehend everything they say based on imperfect and politically tainted translations of books like the Bible.
B. insufficient reason to start worshipping them. Respect them, maybe. Depends if they really are that wrathful if that is just based on ability or also on character. But if they are that worthy I'd rather try to become an equal than to get down on my knees and tremble - and isn't that what most fathers would want their children to do ?

Those with other religious beliefs and actually believe them I can respect but those who are unwilling to believe in anything (like Darwinists-pathetic religion trying to disguise itself as science) are essentially pathetic.

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. This means it finds it roots in observations and makes testable predictions. The word theory here differs from what you seem to assume in one of your followup posts. Some people do act as if it is a faith though - I'll agree to that.
Darwin also intended this to be a demonstration of the Glory of G-d btw - he was a devout Christian.

Those who are into cults whether "based" off of Christianity or Muslim or other are even worse! The so called holy warriors that are no more than deranged terrorists are the worst.
Well.. what *is* the true Christian/Moslim faith then ?

To return to the original question: I believe Jesus was a good man. Nothing more, nothing less. And that makes him very special.

First, evolution is a solid THEORY based upon scientific observation. It is not a scentific LAW. The issue here is not one of faith, it is of scientific logic. The theories in evolution are the best descriptions of what has been seen in observation. SOme of the more simple aspects of evolution may be strong enough to be thought of as law, things like genetic mutations in bacteria or viruses (yes, I know viruses are technically not living) producing evolutionary benefit. However, science is flexible it can change as new information is brought to light. For example, evolution may not be the only way that living beings change or adapt to their environment, its just that evolution is the best notion and the only notion that seems to work that we have. On a side note, I have to say that I do not understand the ridiculousness of allowing creationism to be taught in science classes, considering that there is no scientific evidence at all to back up those claims, meaning that based upon human observation, creationism cannot be proven.

Second, to all those who are religious or, if since I want this to be broader, spiritual, i.e. have a faith in some god or other supreme being(s), I have some questions. How did you come by this faith? Why choose the faith that you did? It seems to me that most people are religious because they grew up in that environment. Doesn't it seem silly to base your religious ideas almost entirely on your upbringing rather than the message? Is that not illogical?

Finally, because of a couple of posts on this site, I have to mention that yes Buddhists do kill people who do not fit in with their beliefs, all you have to do is pick up any good East Asian history book to find an example.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. "
-Eric Hoffer

BullS it's not holiar than thou. Your last option alone states that. That you beleive people are stupid if they don't beleive in Jesus. What if people don't follow CHristianity does that make them stupid? Your options are so vague and localised barely anyone can vote.

Mate, not believing in at least the existance of Jesus is fine, but bear in mind that it leaves you looking uneducated and ignorant. Not believeing in Jesus is just as justified as not believing in the existance of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates or anyone around before the dark ages. There is more literature about Jesus from that time then there is about any one of the above mentioned Philosophers, each of which has made pivital contributions to every important aspect of modern western thought.

First, evolution is a solid THEORY based upon scientific observation. It is not a scentific LAW. The issue here is not one of faith, it is of scientific logic. The theories in evolution are the best descriptions of what has been seen in observation. SOme of the more simple aspects of evolution may be strong enough to be thought of as law, things like genetic mutations in bacteria or viruses (yes, I know viruses are technically not living) producing evolutionary benefit. However, science is flexible it can change as new information is brought to light. For example, evolution may not be the only way that living beings change or adapt to their environment, its just that evolution is the best notion and the only notion that seems to work that we have. On a side note, I have to say that I do not understand the ridiculousness of allowing creationism to be taught in science classes, considering that there is no scientific evidence at all to back up those claims, meaning that based upon human observation, creationism cannot be proven.

Second, to all those who are religious or, if since I want this to be broader, spiritual, i.e. have a faith in some god or other supreme being(s), I have some questions. How did you come by this faith? Why choose the faith that you did? It seems to me that most people are religious because they grew up in that environment. Doesn't it seem silly to base your religious ideas almost entirely on your upbringing rather than the message? Is that not illogical?

Finally, because of a couple of posts on this site, I have to mention that yes Buddhists do kill people who do not fit in with their beliefs, all you have to do is pick up any good East Asian history book to find an example.

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
-Steven Weinberg

"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. "
-Eric Hoffer

If there is one thing I love to hear, its cynical atheists. You people are so funny! Evolution is not contrary to Christianity, but I have pointed this out so many times its irritating.

Secondly, you are right that many so called "religious people" choose their faith because of their upbringing, but this is never enough. I was brought up in a strict Catholic household and I got to the point where I felt my love of science was contrary to my non-existant faith, and I stopped believing in God. However, once you start to really do more in your faith than singin on Sunday, you develop a relationship with God, and my faith is now so important to me that I couldn't go without it.

The reason I find you cynical atheists so funny is that I know God exists, that he loves me, and that I will never fully understand the way God works. Because you atheists do not know this, because you have never tried to know God, you are uninformed, and unfit to discuss this topic.

And that is the bottom line.

Mate, not believing in at least the existance of Jesus is fine, but bear in mind that it leaves you looking uneducated and ignorant. Not believeing in Jesus is just as justified as not believing in the existance of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates or anyone around before the dark ages. There is more literature about Jesus from that time then there is about any one of the above mentioned Philosophers, each of which has made pivital contributions to every important aspect of modern western thought.

Thats great, but why the need for that added comment. Why is "Don't believe in Jesus" not enough and let people come to there own conclusion. The thing is Jesus didn't write anything, people wrote about him. All the others wrote there own words. That is what gives people an option. Would you say the same thing if I replaced it with Moses or Muhamad (s?)?

I doubt you would.

The reason I find you cynical atheists so funny is that I know God exists,

Yup - that's true faith. And debating on wheter or not he/she/it/they exist is, as I pointed out in another topic, pointless since the existence cannot be disproven.

that he loves me
But debating this offers more possibilities - although it has been done many times. How do you know G-d loves you ? Is it a feeling, an absolute certainty, or was there a ' reason' ? In the first case: congrats. I envy you (seriously).
In the second case.. well, lets not talk about tsunami victims, brutal chemical wars amongst insects and suns that carelessly explode. It's depressing.

and that I will never fully understand the way God works
*is even more envious seeing you seem at peace with that*
Though I assume I personally will never understand him/her/it/they fully, I am still hoping my descendants will. And that, in some small way, I can help them. Maybe this also makes me arrogant - but it definately makes me feel small.

Because you atheists do not know this, because you have never tried to know God, you are uninformed, and unfit to discuss this topic.
And that is the bottom line.

How, pray tell, do you know none of the atheists have tried ?
I did. G-d simply didn't measure up.

Where's the proof that, say, Australia exists?

I've never been there. No one I know has been there either.
I've seen faked pictures of it. (Done by the same people who did the moon landings)
I know someone who says he knows someone who's been there, but he's a known liar.

Therefore I do not believe Australia exists. There is no proof.

shh! don't tell anybody but jesus is jewish. It's true!

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are?

Jesus? Hey, I know that dude. Lives down in the projects with his old lady. Drives a '64 cherry-red Impala convertible lowrider with 24 carat gold rims that he bought from my cousin, Carlito.

Where's the proof that, say, Australia exists?
I've never been there. No one I know has been there either.
I've seen faked pictures of it. (Done by the same people who did the moon landings)
I know someone who says he knows someone who's been there, but he's a known liar.
Therefore I do not believe Australia exists. There is no proof.

Aaah - but this is where the scientific method comes in !
Step 1 Hypothesis: Australia does not exist
Step 2 Test to disprove this hypothesis: If Retired Colonels travels to the place where people claim Australia is and he observes it to be there the hypothesis is proved false.
Step 3 based on the results of the experiment Retired Colonels makes a new hypothesis that conforms to the known facts (Return to step 1) or tries to disprove the hypothesis with another experiment (Return to step 2). Repeat ad nauseam.

Unfortunately (or not) you can't devise an experiment to conclusively disprove the existence of G-d. Which makes the analogy invalid.

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

If you're really curious, why is the last option so insulting?

That's exactly my point. There is no scientific, factual proof to support Christianity... or any religion for that matter.

You wouldn't be a Christian if you believed in it because it was factually proven. Chrisitian's believe because of faith.

God doesn't want people to believe in him because it's fact... he wants people to believe in him because it's the truth.
If you are going to play the semantics game …

truth
n. pl. truths (tr thz, tr ths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.




Truth = Conformity to facts :p

Well given that there is no empirical evidence outside the bible to suggest that he existed I would vote that he didn't. However, just to avoid the baggage that would come with such a debate I'll just say that he started the religion but wasn't the Son of God and wasn't resurrected.

Roman documents, Jewish documents etc. And the fact that Christianity became the offical religion of the Roman Empire later on...

Jesus existed as a person, that much is known. Whether or not her was the son of God is another matter.

Most, <----- Not all, MOST religions beleive he was:
Messiah, Prophet, or just a regular person.

Yeshua was first mentioned in accounts written nearly 20 years after his supposed death. For a man who did even a fraction of what he claimed to have done, there would be plenty of contemporaneous documents mentioning him. There are not. There aren't even any contemporaneous documents that mention the crucifiction of a man named Yeshua. In the case of history, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There was not a revolutionary named Yeshua during the reign of Augustus Caesar. He was invented much later to lend credibility to an anti-Roman mystery cult that managed to survive over the years and diversify into what we see today.

Anyone else read Crace's "Quarantine"? Interesting little novel on the "lunatic/liar" question, though probably not one that's on the Left Behind Book Club list.

Yeshua was first mentioned in accounts written nearly 20 years after his supposed death. For a man who did even a fraction of what he claimed to have done, there would be plenty of contemporaneous documents mentioning him. There are not. There aren't even any contemporaneous documents that mention the crucifiction of a man named Yeshua. In the case of history, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There was not a revolutionary named Yeshua during the reign of Augustus Caesar. He was invented much later to lend credibility to an anti-Roman mystery cult that managed to survive over the years and diversify into what we see today.

Actually, I don't think that Christ claimed to do anything much at the time. He offered the promise of something much better in the world after this one and advised the people of that day to leave unto Rome was Roman. That fact that contemporary history seems to have missed the action really only proves that, if the bible is to be believed (as i stated in a early post), Jesus was a rather unremarkable guy for those who did not have ears to hear and eyes to see.

[

Actually, I don't think that Christ claimed to do anything much at the time. He offered the promise of something much better in the world after this one and advised the people of that day to leave unto Rome was Roman. That fact that contemporary history seems to have missed the action really only proves that, if the bible is to be believed (as i stated in a early post), Jesus was a rather unremarkable guy for those who did not have ears to hear and eyes to see.[/QUOTE]

*sighs* why is it that people feel they can comment about Jesus without having read the Bible?

Actually, I don't think that Christ claimed to do anything much at the time. He offered the promise of something much better in the world after this one and advised the people of that day to leave unto Rome was Roman. That fact that contemporary history seems to have missed the action really only proves that, if the bible is to be believed (as i stated in a early post), Jesus was a rather unremarkable guy for those who did not have ears to hear and eyes to see.

*sighs* why is it that people feel they can comment about Jesus without having read the Bible?[/QUOTE]

Dear Friend,
I have read the Bible, so I am not sure what you mean by your comment. Please explain!

People, you seem to miss one of the greatest points ever made by Jesus' disciples and past and current theologans. If God conclusively proves his exisitence...then their can be no true belief, just acceptance of a fact of "life". Faith comes from believing in something, that, while being one of the most documented and researched subjects of History, is still unknown. The core of belief is just believing and not having to have the belief proven.

And for everyone out their who will reply to my reply, let me just say...
I am not a super-conservative right-wing American, as the above statement shows I accept new-age thinking into my believes
I am, in fact, a very liberal, patriotic America who is Christian.

Why do people believe the Bible isn't sufficient evidence?

1) Most of history's evidence is based on manuscripts or things we have found that were written down.

2) The Bible, in the way it exists today, may have been COMPILED years after his death, but the manuscripts and documents have existed long before the compilation.

Does it really matter who you believe Jesus to be. You're an atheist. You're obviously going to believe he was either a lunatic or a liar. You're a Christian. Of course you're going to believe he was the Son of God or else you wouldn't be a Christian.

And of course there's going to be people in between.

We've been through the fact that you can't prove or disprove any of this. That's what makes it religion, not science.

Why can't we just let people believe what they believe?

In a Christian view, like myself, it is who God wants them to be. If they don't believe it, it is part of God's will and you can't change that.

I really do pity people like you! I suppose that you are a darwinist. It is just funny talking to people like you! I have studied most mainstream religions (including Darwinism) and return time and again to Christianity. It is timless and actually has many truism that transend time and ethnic backgrounds. There are many wealth and healthy people that believe in Him now and those that continue to believe in Him even as it costs them their lives both now and in Rome and points in between. I don't understand how people can continue to deny a part of themselves by refusing to believe in the Spiritual realm all together.

No you haven't. It's abundantly evident from your posts. The fact that you even think 'Darwinism' is a religion suggests that much.

Has everyone here seen Monty Python's Life of Brian?
It's reputed to be _the_ most accurate portrayal of the social goings on of the time. Every man and his dog was claiming to be some kind of messiah.

As for the existence of Jesus/Yeshua, yup, he existed. Jewish fella, did motivational tours of the countryside. Yup, he was crucified. The Romans recorded that.
Did he rise again? Consider this... There are sufficient cases of people being sentenced to crucifixion, and being cut down before they were dead, that a set of property laws had to be written for the "widows" of people who were legally "dead", yet still actually alive.
Sorry, I haven't got any references handy, I'm just quoting my Religious Studies Prof.
Google for "Search for the Historical Jesus" and you'll turn up a whole raft of stuff.

Jesus is awesome.
Christians are not so awesome. They're fucked up. Like most of us.
But Jesus rocks. He's John Lennon without the immaturity. He's Ghandi without the polotics. He's Martin Luther King without the infidelity and Timothy Leary without the drugs. He's JFK without the lying and Malcom X without the Bitterness. He's abraham lincoln without the ulterior motives and Jimmi Hendrix without an overdose.

Where's the proof that, say, Australia exists?

I've never been there. No one I know has been there either.
I've seen faked pictures of it. (Done by the same people who did the moon landings)
I know someone who says he knows someone who's been there, but he's a known liar.

Therefore I do not believe Australia exists. There is no proof.

Exactly, that is my point, if someone wants to make that stand point they can, the prick who made this board is saying this person is stupid for thinking taht.

I believe that Jesus was a mortal prohpet, not the Son of God. I don't disagree with many of the messages he got across, but his divinity is a facimily of man's hope.

If you are Christian they you must accept the whole not just the parts you like.

So my reaction to this is strong enough that I've actually decided to delurk in order to respond. I'm only barely keeping a cap on the rain of poisonous effluvea that this quote evokes in me, so please excuse any bile that slips out. I'm trying hard to contain it. It should be noted as well that I'm not going to bother defining "Christian". It has many many meanings and interpretations; any one of them will do, and I make use of more than one in the following rant.

That said, why? Why in god's name would you want to take on all the baggage that Christianity brings, just because parts of the message make sense to you? Say I'm big on the Gospels, but not so keen on, say Revelations, or St. Augustine. Say I'm into loving my neighbour, but don't really like the idea of exclusive salvation. Are you honestly saying that as a good Christian I should pony up and start hating homosexuals?

(or rather, should I start condemning homosexuality and doing my best to marginalize its practioners, while loudly declaring that I still maintain a sort of abstract love for the alleged sinner?)

Religion, as has been pointed out and agreed upon many times by many sides of the argument in this thread alone, exists largely in your head. The leap of faith is yours to make, and it is your decision where you leap to; there's no objective "best choice". You need to accept an unprovable given before any one faith becomes logical (e.g. given that the bible contains God's message to humanity, Christianity becomes logically defensible). All religions are internally consistent once you get past this initial leap, and thus there is no reason not to have faith in something which aligns with your own, in-built moral compass.

I guess all I'm alleging is that it is asinine to commit oneself to ideals which violate one's own (divinely granted?) moral intuition, simply because they come bundled with ideas which one likes. It seems like the height of stupidity to shrug off moral transgressions that happen to be included in the greater code one has decided, on no evidence, to adopt.

(to put your quote in context, yes, severely intolerant people who claim to be Christian are in many ways missing the point, but I'd claim that this is because they're bad people, not necessarily bad Christians. Their Christian-ness is rather beside the point)

I have a friend that supports the type of message you are trying to send, her name is The Whit Dove. That is her nation's name.

Thank you for your cause!
God Bless!

Servantia
:fluffle:

Jewish fella, did motivational tours of the countryside. Yup, he was crucified. The Romans recorded that.

Funny, then why is there no record of them mentioning it? Ask any mainstream historian, and they'll tell you they the entirity of the evidence for the existence of Yeshua is in the Gospels, which are not reliable at all, and the earliest one was written around 60 or so C.E.

There is more literature about Jesus from that time then there is about any one of the above mentioned Philosophers, each of which has made pivital contributions to every important aspect of modern western thought.

Keeping in mind that I'm in no way qualified to prove or disprove the historical existence of Jesus, I'm not sure if this proves anything, in and of itself. I'll take an example from my own field, being pre-modern Chinese fiction, to try and show what I mean.

There was this Tang Dynasty (maybe 8th or 9th century, I'd have to look up exact dates), there was a brief little fable written by Li Gong, a prominent magistrate, about a woman called Xie Xiao'e. The details aren't particularily pertinent, except insofar as they portray a very admirable womam doing very difficult things (avenging the murder of her husband and her father, maintaining various confucian virtues, etc.) The story is almost undoubtedly fiction.

A few hundred years later, an historian (one of the Ouyangs, can't remember which) compiling historical biographies of the lives of virtuous women happened upon the tale, edited it slightly, and included it in his collection.

In traditional literati China, an individual in an official biography is real, and for the most part Xie Xiao'e has been treated as such. Studying the story in a seminar I was taking a while ago, I looked her up in a biographical encyclopedia, and found her listed as a real person: checking references invariably led back to the Ouyang biography.

Just because someone's been written about extensively, doesn't mean they're necessarily real, is the point. I've no doubt that the vast majority of literature on the historical Jesus brings us back to rather dubious sources (such as, sadly, the Bible). But that's not an argument I'm particularily qualified to get involved in ;)

Funny, then why is there no record of them mentioning it? Ask any mainstream historian, and they'll tell you they the entirity of the evidence for the existence of Yeshua is in the Gospels, which are not reliable at all, and the earliest one was written around 60 or so C.E.

Ever wondered why they are mainstream historians?

Because they stay away from controversial points in history.

Here, just for common knowledge I will place it in BIG BOLD LETTERS. I AM CHRISTIAN. That is what I believe. You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to. I think everyone on here would do well to have a little bit more respect for eachother's beliefs. I'm so sick of people picking on the entire Christian fellowship for "pushing" their religion, when several of you who aren't Christian get onto those who are for not having proof. There isn't proof. Christians and non-Christians all know this. Who cares if they still choose to believe in Jesus? You might think it's dumb, ok, but why try and change them? Isn't that what you dislike about it?

Here, just for common knowledge I will place it in BIG BOLD LETTERS. I AM CHRISTIAN. That is what I believe. You don't have to believe it. I'm not asking you to. I think everyone on here would do well to have a little bit more respect for eachother's beliefs. I'm so sick of people picking on the entire Christian fellowship for "pushing" their religion, when several of you who aren't Christian get onto those who are for not having proof. There isn't proof. Christians and non-Christians all know this. Who cares if they still choose to believe in Jesus? You might think it's dumb, ok, but why try and change them? Isn't that what you dislike about it?

People do not hate Christians for following Jesus of Nazareth (he was a nice fellow after all), because most Christian don't follow Jesus of Nazareth. People hate Christians for trying to push their bigotry on others, Christian act like the very people whom Jesus opposed, and I don't know about you but most people have a dislike for hypocrites.

I don't much care for hypocrites either. I don't agree with all Christians. But why try and change someone, anyone, to believe any way?

People do not hate Christians for following Jesus of Nazareth (he was a nice fellow after all), because most Christian don't follow Jesus of Nazareth. People hate Christians for trying to push their bigotry on others, Christian act like the very people whom Jesus opposed, and I don't know about you but most people have a dislike for hypocrites.

Then aren't those people who hate Christians for pushing their beliefs, and not having substantiated evidence for their belief, just as much of a hypocrite, for disliking them to the point that they are trying to show them they are wrong?

Then aren't those people who hate Christians for pushing their beliefs, and not having substantiated evidence for their belief, just as much of a hypocrite, for disliking them to the point that they are trying to show them they are wrong?

Well two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't much care for hypocrites either. I don't agree with all Christians. But why try and change someone, anyone, to believe any way?

You need to ask yourself and your religion that...why try and change anyone?

Then aren't those people who hate Christians for pushing their beliefs, and not having substantiated evidence for their belief, just as much of a hypocrite, for disliking them to the point that they are trying to show them they are wrong?

to a degree yes but most people like that just want to break the other persons argument so they can be left alone

to a degree yes but most people like that just want to break the other persons argument so they can be left alone

Well that sums it up. I guess we're all just too afraid of being wrong, even under an alias name.

Well that sums it up. I guess we're all just too afraid of being wrong, even under an alias name.

i like to be wrong if i was never wrong then life would be boring

Because there are a large amount of pages I have only read the first page so here is my opinion. Jesus most likely existed. He also most likely said he was the son of god, but that doesn't mean that he was the child of god. It was more of a way that kings would say they were the sons of god. Or that many people proclaim were are the children of god. Therefore he is neither the son of god in the fashion you use, a liar, a lunatic, nor am I saying he didn't exist.

sorry i guess i squashed the life outa this thread

sorry i guess i squashed the life outa this thread

Jesus forgives you. I'm sorry, I had to say that, I couldn't restrain myself. Hope that at least gave a little bit of laughter in such a serious thread.

Jesus forgives you. I'm sorry, I had to say that, I couldn't restrain myself. Hope that at least gave a little bit of laughter in such a serious thread.
Two Hail Marys and an Our Father, son, as penance for squashing the life of an guiltless thread. :p

I believe in the right to be left alone.
I believe in the right to turn off the television or radio when a religious programme comes on, if I am offended by it.
I believe in the right to say "No, I'm sorry, I don't have time to listen to a message from your God, but thank you..." and close the door.
However, I do not believe that I have the right to try to convert people to my religion. That's your decision, not mine.

I always find it interesting that any conversation about Jesus seems to come round to converting/evangelising. This seems to be the only thing that some christians do. Was that the only thing of interst Jesus was supposed to have encouraged people to think about?

No, but unfortunately it seems to have encouraged a large number of people to irritate others. A large number of people seriously believe that my soul is in mortal danger, and they're obliged to save me. Ta for the concern, folks, but if I thought I were in danger wouldn't I try to save myself?

Two Hail Marys and an Our Father, son, as penance for squashing the life of an guiltless thread. :p

I believe in the right to be left alone.
I believe in the right to turn off the television or radio when a religious programme comes on, if I am offended by it.
I believe in the right to say "No, I'm sorry, I don't have time to listen to a message from your God, but thank you..." and close the door.
However, I do not believe that I have the right to try to convert people to my religion. That's your decision, not mine.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. The problem I have with "pushing" well, really, a few problems. First of all, I think its pointless. The biggest lesson I've learned from life that if you're going to do anything at all, it should come out of your own willingness to do it. Secondly, sometimes all I have to do is just simply admit to being Christian, and suddenly, I'm pushing my beliefs. People are waaay too sensitive.

Sorry, but I can't vote if the option "extraordinary guy with revolutionary ideas" doesn't exist.
My personal opinion: "Son of God" is overdoing it. "A lunatic"? I don't think so. He might have overestimated his own importance and some things he said are clearly out of date, but a lot of the stuff sounds reasonable. The core of the whole message is "Why don't we be nice to each other for a change? Why don't we stop nursing our grudges all the time?" and that's basically what I'm trying to do, only I believe you don't have to be a Christian for it. "A liar"? Isn't everyone? I mean, once in a while? Then again, some lies may do their part to make life easier. I wouldn't tell my obesed girlfriend just how huge I think she is, now, would you? Finally: "Didn't exist"... I heard that historians proved he did. But really, I guess he was just an extraordinary guy. The Gandhi or Marx of his time, nothing less but also nothing more.

Righto. The problem with this thread is, yet AGAIN, it has fallen into a debate about what is proof. The Atheists on one side are saying that there is not substantial proof yadda yadda yadda.

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: YOUR MISSING THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!!!

These people still think that the debate about Jesus is whether or not he is real or not. But I know, and True Christians know That Jesus exists, and that he loved us beyond human comprehension. WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROOVE TO YOU ATHEISTS!

Righto. The problem with this thread is, yet AGAIN, it has fallen into a debate about what is proof. The Atheists on one side are saying that there is not substantial proof yadda yadda yadda.

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: YOUR MISSING THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!!!

These people still think that the debate about Jesus is whether or not he is real or not. But I know, and True Christians know That Jesus exists, and that he loved us beyond human comprehension. WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROOVE TO YOU ATHEISTS!

That is your belief.
I am sorry but...its all in your head.

That is your belief.
I am sorry but...its all in your head.

*sighs* I pity you, and I hope that someday you will find Jesus, but remeber, he loves you all the same.

Mistaken by whom? his disciples? the Bible is an accurate account of what Jesus said. (if you need me to go into it i will)


yes, please go into your claim of "accuracate"

yes, please go into your claim of "accuracate"

I'll answer any questions you have: fire away.

You need to ask yourself and your religion that...why try and change anyone?

But why should Karitopia, or anyone else, be responsible for everyone who nominally follows the same religion? Are you responsible for the actions of all atheists? Am I responsible for the actions of all the religiously befuddled?

Christianity does have a tradition of evangelism, but a lot of philosophies do, I reckon. If you genuinely believe something is true, and you feel it has helped you greatly and brought you peace and happiness, you're naturally going to want to share it with other people, just as you might, say, recommend a fantastic restaurant to your friends. Of course it hasn't always been like this, and some Christians have literally forced their beliefs on people (the Native Americans, for example) on pain of death but that doesn't inherently invalidate the beliefs - it just means the individuals performing those actions are kind of jerks. Nowhere in the Bible, to my knowledge, does it say anything about "Go make everyone in the world be Christian, and if they resist chop off their heads." I can't speak for all denominations but I know that Catholicism, at least, doesn't even advocate exclusive salvation - people who haven't been baptised or exposed to Christianity, or are members of other religions, are still eligible to get to heaven by leading good moral lives, following their consciences and their beliefs, if I remember rightly.

Anyway, I don't think the desire for others to believe what we believe and 'see the light', in our eyes, is limited to only Christians. It's just a human thing.

These people still think that the debate about Jesus is whether or not he is real or not. But I know, and True Christians know That Jesus exists, and that he loved us beyond human comprehension. WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROOVE TO YOU ATHEISTS!

And you are missing the other point. You - and a few million others with you- know Jesus existed/still exists and was humanities saviour. But an even greater number of humans - being muslems, Jews, Hindu's etc. - knows you are wrong with just as much certainty. Within Christianity itself the different 'flavours' like Catholicism and Protestantism cannot agree on what the truth is, yet they all claim to know it. Several extremists know G-d or Allah or the great burning shrubbery wants them to kill infidels with a passion. Everybody seems to know things, but what they know contradicts what others know.

Can you really blaim atheists for not wishing to be a part of those arrogant bickerings ? And that they instead turn to science, which publicly admits it doesn't explain everything and can be wrong ? That they ask for proof or at least for theories that can be tested and disproven instead of just randomly picking one of the many sides that claim they know the truth ?

Note to my fellow Christians:

"Love thy enemies as you would love they friends."

Do not attack but answer.

There is a difference.

God has a purpose. There is a reason why some people's heart are so cold. There is a reason why some people's hearts are so hard. There is also a reason why some people open their hearts and embrace the word. It is all part of God's plan. We can't change that.

As for the converting and evangelicalness of Christianity, it is part of being a Christian. Or as Jesus told his disciples to go all over the world and spread the good news.

Yes it does get annoying doesn't it? And I'm greatly sorry for people who find this annoying. I'm also greatly sorry for people who "force" it upon other people.

But please don't hate us for spreading what we believe as good news.

Think of it this way. Something good happens to you. Don't you want to tell people of the good news? Don't you want people to be happy with you?

That's how it is.

With the whole Jesus thing. There is proof outside of the Bible of Jesus. There's actually a book about a writer who went to Israel to disprove the existence of Jesus. He was so overwhelmed with evidence that his book turned around completely and became a book to prove it. I don't remember the name of the book at this moment but the moment I find out I shall share it with you.

And you are missing the other point. You - and a few million others with you- know Jesus existed/still exists and was humanities saviour. But an even greater number of humans - being muslems, Jews, Hindu's etc. - knows you are wrong with just as much certainty. Within Christianity itself the different 'flavours' like Catholicism and Protestantism cannot agree on what the truth is, yet they all claim to know it. Several extremists know G-d or Allah or the great burning shrubbery wants them to kill infidels with a passion. Everybody seems to know things, but what they know contradicts what others know.

Can you really blaim atheists for not wishing to be a part of those arrogant bickerings ? And that they instead turn to science, which publicly admits it doesn't explain everything and can be wrong ? That they ask for proof or at least for theories that can be tested and disproven instead of just randomly picking one of the many sides that claim they know the truth ?


Well. I wouldn't call it arrogant bickerings. However don't you find it ironic that atheists always find themselves in the middle of them?

I am in no way bashing or saying anything against atheists. I believe that many atheists have very great ideas and ideologies and I very much enjoy listening to them. ^_^

Well. I wouldn't call it arrogant bickerings.

Why not ;-) ? Everyone there is after all convinced that their religion is right and that they therefor are 'better' than those others...

However don't you find it ironic that atheists always find themselves in the middle of them?

Yes - but understandable. As I said earlier there are many atheists that de facto consider science a religion. Not desireable of course - but a sad fact.
Some atheists get annoyed by others that agressively try to convert or save them. Some are very compassionate humans that can't stand the thought that those endless religious disputes are actively taking lives or wasting resources that could be used to save others...

Some are very compassionate humans that can't stand the thought that those endless religious disputes are actively taking lives or wasting resources that could be used to save others...

But don't they see that they might be starting something that may very well lead to that some day?

Disputing the disputing ones.

It's really just a vicious cycle. Which I'm trying to stop. I just wish people could live in peace together. Haha. I sound like such a flower child.

But I'm mostly focused towards Christians. Because I know there are many Christians to blame, including myself, but there are also other people to blame.

Saying that Darwinism is science and not a religion is like saying that drinking water straight from the ocean is good for you! The is so much of Darwinism that must be taken on faith that if they were not there there would be no THEORY of evolution. The very basis of Darwinism ignores every Scientific principle in exsistance that it is closer to making fun of science than actually being a part of it. The very precepts of Christianity is true today and needed to help bring peace to our world. You don't have to be a Christian to believe and acknowledge the exsistance of the Spiritual realm but failing to acknowledge it does ignore and deny 1/3 of who you are.

Ok, ARE you kidding?

There is (a hell of a lot) more evidence to support evolution than there is to support the existence of any God, or Jesus/Yeshua etc.

For example, my knowledge of this is sketchy (Just newspaper and web reports, Natural History museums and the word of my Science teachers, I'm afraid), but there was the case of Homo floresiensis (the 'hobbit'). The skeletal remains of floresiensis were discovered in 2003 in Liang Bua cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. I could be mistaken (My science teachers are stupid, and this would be a good excuse if I fail my GCSEs) but this discovery alone was supposed to be, like, THE most important evidence for evolution.

As far as I can remember, it proved that either Homo erectus or Homo Georgicus (As I understand it, it doesn't matter which) made a journey to Flores (showing off their use of tools, and their ability to cross the SEA), and evolved into Homo Floresiensis (A 1 meter high human). I'm not explaining this very well, I see... Huh. Ok, well I suppose you could look at the 'Turkana Boy', which is more self explanatory. ANYWAY.

The thing is, Omega the Black, that you seem to HATE the idea of evolution. And many people who dislike the idea of human evolution have been able to discount much of the work done by Darwin and co. on the basis that it's built on fragmentary evidence. HOWEVER, get with the times, the discovery of the skeletons of Homo Floreseinsis and Turkana Boy changed all that. To confront people like you with a complete skeleton (I don't quite remember if the H floresiensis was complete, but turkana boy was) that is human and so clearly related to us in a context where it is definately one and a half million years - at least - is fairly convincing evidence.

So, proof of evolution (however much you dislike it) -> Darwin correct -> Darwinism NOT SO MUCH A RELIGION (In fact, not AT ALL a religion, and I don't know where you got that idea... Maybe you have Science or RS teachers as bad as mine, but ones who tell you that God created the world in six days and had a day off or something?).

*sighs* I pity you, and I hope that someday you will find Jesus, but remeber, he loves you all the same.

No thank you, I don't need a relgion to tell me how to live. I already know how to live.

But don't they see that they might be starting something that may very well lead to that some day?

Disputing the disputing ones.

It's really just a vicious cycle. Which I'm trying to stop. I just wish people could live in peace together. Haha. I sound like such a flower child.

But I'm mostly focused towards Christians. Because I know there are many Christians to blame, including myself, but there are also other people to blame.

I tend to agree with you on this Sarandra. I'm not sure that it is as bad as it sounds. Discussions on there topics tend to get a little heated and it is important to remember that everyone has a right to express an opinion. These are important topics that need to be discussed.


Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

Would it shake your faith if, for the Second Coming, Jesus returned as a Black one-legged lesbian midget?

Or do just automatically assume it will be some version of James Caviezel/Jeffrey Hunter?

Would it shake your faith if, for the Second Coming, Jesus returned as a Black one-legged lesbian midget?

Or do just automatically assume it will be some version of James Caviezel/Jeffrey Hunter?

It probably would. Not the Black part though. There are fairly dark skin Jews living today so I wouldn't be surprised. The one-legged lesbian midget would because Jesus is suppose to be the pure lamb in the flock. And God has specifically said that a man should be with a woman not anyway else.

I have nothing against the homosexual community mind you. This is in no way bashing lesbians or gays.

I tend to agree with you on this Sarandra. I'm not sure that it is as bad as it sounds. Discussions on there topics tend to get a little heated and it is important to remember that everyone has a right to express an opinion. These are important topics that need to be discussed.


Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

I agree that these things need to be discussed. But maybe in more polite company and less bashing of each other? The one thing I've learned from bashing and name calling and pointing fingers is that it doesn't help, but also very likely hurts your argument.

Little children know this. Why can't we realize this?

Why can't we just be like children again? Kids don't see race, or colour, or religion. Kids see people as people.

I think there was a South Park episode or something where the town was disputing the town flag(one of two white men hanging a black man) and all the children see are two men hanging another man. They don't see that they are of different race and colour.

Why can't we be like children?

Righto. The problem with this thread is, yet AGAIN, it has fallen into a debate about what is proof. The Atheists on one side are saying that there is not substantial proof yadda yadda yadda.

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen: YOUR MISSING THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT!!!

These people still think that the debate about Jesus is whether or not he is real or not. But I know, and True Christians know That Jesus exists, and that he loved us beyond human comprehension. WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROOVE TO YOU ATHEISTS!

I am not an Atheist. I just don't think anyone was fully right yet. God may exist, but then God is fully beyond human comprehension.

But don't they see that they might be starting something that may very well lead to that some day?

I assume you mean them not being saved and accepted into heaven or something equivalent ?
If so: They do. But as I pointed out there are many different religions that contradict eachother. Assuming one really is the "true" religion the followers of all the others would be left out anyway. This is quite a significant amount of people - far more than those that actually would be saved.

So my personal reasoning is: since it is impossible to know for certain which religion would be best for humanity lets do everything we can to make *this* world as pleasently as possible, instead of worrying about the next. Use objective reasoning, tested, adaptable if proved wrong instead of the subjective absolute 'knowing' religion offers.

If that's not what you meant: explain please ?

And food for thought: according to the bible Adam and Eve choose knowledge over obedience. Perhaps we should respect that. But we're straying from the whole Jesus topic now ;-)

It's really just a vicious cycle. Which I'm trying to stop. I just wish people could live in peace together. Haha. I sound like such a flower child.
So do I. Here, have a flower :-)

I assume you mean them not being saved and accepted into heaven or something equivalent ?
If so: They do. But as I pointed out there are many different religions that contradict eachother. Assuming one really is the "true" religion the followers of all the others would be left out anyway. This is quite a significant amount of people - far more than those that actually would be saved.

So my personal reasoning is: since it is impossible to know for certain which religion would be best for humanity lets do everything we can to make *this* world as pleasently as possible, instead of worrying about the next. Use objective reasoning, tested, adaptable if proved wrong instead of the subjective absolute 'knowing' religion offers.

If that's not what you meant: explain please ?

And food for thought: according to the bible Adam and Eve choose knowledge over obedience. Perhaps we should respect that. But we're straying from the whole Jesus topic now ;-)


So do I. Here, have a flower :-)


Yay. I like you. Actually that first quote was a direct answer to someone who said that atheists just want people to stop all the bickering that leads to war and death and what not...

And I was just noting that maybe that some of the ways some atheist and Christian talk to each other about religion may very well lead to that.

Well. It wasn't really that Adam and Ever chose knowledge. It was they chose to want to be like God. Because they wanted the same power God had.

This was the reason why Lucifer fell. Because he believe he was as powerfull as God.

I've mostly just browsed these forums. I agree with most people. The options in this poll are limited. That being said, I did submit my vote for liar. What ever your opinion of the guy may be (for me it is mostly positive: he promoted love and peace and we believe he died for something he believed in, admirable enough) But as far as we can scientifically prove he was a liar. Last time I checked the Old Testament (which Jesus followed as a devout Jew) has a number of scientific problems. I don't know many people that follow it to a T (i.e. think the world was created in 7 days etc etc) Jesus professed such things as true. This whether you like it or not makes him a liar. I think a very respectable and admirable liar but a liar still.

I have a rahter large file on this Jesus of Nazareth....seems in about 28 A.D he went about the Galilean countryside telling its citizen that they should repent right away because the end of the world was coming in thier lifetimes...the world is still here

where did you get that info? It's wrong you just made it up.

He was none of those things.

Maybe a liar, but probably people just lied about what he did.

I don't know many people that follow it to a T (i.e. think the world was created in 7 days etc etc)

Creation can't be disproven becuase the scientific acount of the world can't be proven either. Your trying to disprove something you think didn't happen with something never proven

I agree that these things need to be discussed. But maybe in more polite company and less bashing of each other? The one thing I've learned from bashing and name calling and pointing fingers is that it doesn't help, but also very likely hurts your argument.

Little children know this. Why can't we realize this?

Why can't we just be like children again? Kids don't see race, or colour, or religion. Kids see people as people.

I think there was a South Park episode or something where the town was disputing the town flag(one of two white men hanging a black man) and all the children see are two men hanging another man. They don't see that they are of different race and colour.

Why can't we be like children?

Yes, I agree that the mean, viciousness is not helpful; and a little more understanding and less judgementalness would be most welcome. If one is truly confident in one's beliefs there is no need to resort to attacking the person or to use such inflammatory statemets.

where did you get that info? It's wrong you just made it up.

In answer to your question has to where I obtained this information: The New Testament, and I am sorry but I am not responsible for its authorship, one or three persons (depending on who you ask) who goes by the name of JHVH is responsible for said document.

In answer to your question has to where I obtained this information: The New Testament, and I am sorry but I am not responsible for its authorship, one or three persons (depending on who you ask) who goes by the name of JHVH is responsible for said document.

If I read the passage right I believe Jesus never actually said this but his followers incorrectly inferred it.

If I read the passage right I believe Jesus never actually said this but his followers incorrectly inferred it.
And he never corrected them until an interpolation was added by one of the editors in 300 AD. That was an awfully long time for Jesus to correct a mistake.

And he never corrected them until an interpolation was added by one of the editors in 300 AD. That was an awfully long time for Jesus to correct a mistake.

Whatever happens/happened. It is/was part of God's plan.