NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

NB call me an idiot if you will but what exactly is the reference in the NT?
Please.

Other

Jesus was a Jewish teacher who did a few things and got crucified. Then, after his death, some people took stories of Mithra and then wrote a biography of Jesus in the gospels based on Mithra.

NB call me an idiot if you will but what exactly is the reference in the NT?
Please.

I usually don't give references because iIbelieve that those who defend the Scriptures should know the Scritures, but there are many reference in the NT and I will start you off with one:

Mark 1:15

`Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'

Notice he say that the time is fulfilled, meaning that it is now.

I usually don't give references because iIbelieve that those who defend the Scriptures should know the Scritures, but there are many reference in the NT and I will start you off with one:

Mark 1:15

`Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'

Notice he say that the time is fulfilled, meaning that it is now.

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were referring and I was on the same page as you. But I wonder if there aren't other ways to understand what Christ was saying? Could this be a reference to the promise that Moses made about returning and that Christ fulfilled that. Christ speaking for God could mean that the reign of God hath come nigh.

Rabbi Joshua was a rogue and a schizophrenic. The Romans should have been much speedier in their execution of him.

Rabbi Joshua was a rogue and a schizophrenic. The Romans should have been much speedier in their execution of him.

And perhaps a less direct plagarization of Mithra's life would have been good too.

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were referring and I was on the same page as you. But I wonder if there aren't other ways to understand what Christ was saying? Could this be a reference to the promise that Moses made about returning and that Christ fulfilled that. Christ speaking for God could mean that the reign of God hath come nigh.

That interpetation would be both recuuperative and retrospective and it would be wrong, it would not have been how his contemporaries would interpeted or understood it, there is an inevitable bias when use your 21st century mind and understanding to interpet 3rd century text and thought. There is a vast chasm between our world and theirs...its called time.

On the evangelism issue, bundle it with exclusive salvation (a tenet dear to many fundamentalists, and pervasive elsewhere in the morass that is modern Christianity) and you run into a few problems.

(the following argument taken from an essay written a few years ago by one David Edelstein)

Consider exclusive salvation: everyone who does not follow a specific faith, goes to Hell. Simple as that. Hell is a very bad place to be, and going there to suffer for all eternity is worse than anything else that could conceivably happen to anybody.

If you believe in exclusive salvation, it becomes your moral duty to try and save people from this fate. Do fail to do so is heinous; if you can possibly do something to prevent someone from suffering this fate, far worse than death, you absolutely need to do so. You become the worst sort of hypocrite if you don't try, at every opportunity, to ensure that people don't go to Hell.

It must be noted that most Christians don't think this way: this is more by way of an atheist/non-Christian argument as to why it's not a lot of fun to hang around fundamentalist Christians: either they're constantly trying to convert you, or sitting passively by while believing that you yourself will suffer endlessly and horribly after your death, and doing nothing about it.

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

Word.

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 ?

I do generally agree with what you're saying, but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that being an atheist requires a leap of faith similiar to what is needed to believe in any given religion. There's no proof that god/s (Christian or otherwise) exist, but it's even harder to prove a lack of something, and science certainly ain't there yet. Belief that there's nothing is still belief, is what I'm getting at.

(this is differentiating what's often called hard atheism from simply not being religious)

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.

Jesus did exist... there is as much proof of Jesus existing as there is of say the fact that you exist. You can't prove to me that you exist. And i didn't say that people who aren't Christians are stupid. i know many of intelligent people (many on these forums) who aren't Christian. The options are the ONLY ones that there are. If you read my spiel bout why the Bible is reliable (page 11 i think) Then Jesus was either lying or not. Ie he was the Son of God or he was not. If he was lying then it was either deliberate (liar) or not (lunatic). I honestly do not think that you are a stupid person (u might be but i cant judge that seeing as i have never met you) you are probably very intelligent you just havent ever given Christianity a chance in your mind

I usually don't give references because iIbelieve that those who defend the Scriptures should know the Scritures, but there are many reference in the NT and I will start you off with one:

Mark 1:15

`Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'

Notice he say that the time is fulfilled, meaning that it is now.

Jesus was refering to the break of the wall between God and man. Jesus fulfilled that when he was nailed to the cross. That was what he was refering to. They would have known this because the prophet Isaiah(i cant spell) prophesied his coming. Jesus's pure blood washed away the sins of man so that he can now be with God.

Jesus did exist... there is as much proof of Jesus existing as there is of say the fact that you exist. You can't prove to me that you exist. And i didn't say that people who aren't Christians are stupid. i know many of intelligent people (many on these forums) who aren't Christian. The options are the ONLY ones that there are. If you read my spiel bout why the Bible is reliable (page 11 i think) ...

Alright, let's take a look at it:
(from page 10 of the topic, at 15 posts per page)

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

Means nothing. No doubt every episode of Friends went through dozens of drafts; doesn't make them any more factual. The Iliad is at best a highly fictionalized historical account.

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

Source? Runs contrary to what others have said in this thread (although to be fair, they weren't quoting sources either). Also, 200 years is quite an amount of time, especially given lack of reliable historical documentation.

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...

Who were these alleged witnesses? And what do you mean by critics? And how do you explain existing contradictions withing the Gospels?

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.

Writings 200 years later are secondary sources, reliant on other written sources rather than eye-witness accounts. Much closer to the source than we are, but two centuries is still an awfully long time. Also, it is expected that any constructed work would fall comfortably into the historical framework it takes place in, whether or not its specific contents were factual. Just because a book's authors did their groundwork and some research doesn't mean everything in the book is true (most historical fiction is similarily plausible, and most historical fiction never happened).

I suppose the final thing I'd have to say on the Bible's reliability (in an historical sense) is that even if it was written at the time, it's far from reliable today. People can be misquoted in the first place. Plus, it's been translated numerous times. Ever played Telephone? Messages get jumbled, and even if the gospels were originally a perfectly accurate account of the life of Jesus, they're far from reliable today.

Jesus is awesome.
Christians are not so awesome.

Disco

Yeah im back, hi Sarandra... nice to know there is some defence for Christianity while im gone... :)

i agree with pretty much everything you said. im not actually trying to force my christianity on any one i just want to let you all know what i believe, to find out what you believe and tell you all that this is as many options as there are...

if you dont believe i will pray for you but i wont try to force you to do anything... apologies to anyone ive pissed off...

I suppose the final thing I'd have to say on the Bible's reliability (in an historical sense) is that even if it was written at the time, it's far from reliable today. People can be misquoted in the first place. Plus, it's been translated numerous times. Ever played Telephone? Messages get jumbled, and even if the gospels were originally a perfectly accurate account of the life of Jesus, they're far from reliable today.

Good point, and, just to aid to your argument: this is also mentioned in the Bible in the preface of Sirach.

Jesus was refering to the break of the wall between God and man. Jesus fulfilled that when he was nailed to the cross. That was what he was refering to. They would have known this because the prophet Isaiah(i cant spell) prophesied his coming. Jesus's pure blood washed away the sins of man so that he can now be with God.

You cannot interpet 1st century thought through the tinted lenses of a 21st century perspective and 19th century theology to do so would be dishonest or insane. Jeuss of Nazareth's contemporaries would have interpeted it through thier own cultural perspective as declaring that the earthly Kingdom of God has been established by his earthly representative the mesisah. thats what they meant when they talked about "The Kingdom of God" back then.

Alright, let's take a look at it:
(from page 10 of the topic, at 15 posts per page)



Means nothing. No doubt every episode of Friends went through dozens of drafts; doesn't make them any more factual. The Iliad is at best a highly fictionalized historical account.


I didn't say it made them more factual, but what this does say is that the modern Bible we have today is very similar to the early manuscripts as people read them and then translate the Bible


Source? Runs contrary to what others have said in this thread (although to be fair, they weren't quoting sources either). Also, 200 years is quite an amount of time, especially given lack of reliable historical documentation.


A book i have called "More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell. It's references are too many to be bothered listing but you can find the references on the net i guess if u really want them.


Who were these alleged witnesses? And what do you mean by critics? And how do you explain existing contradictions withing the Gospels?

Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know..."

i could add more if you want...


Writings 200 years later are secondary sources, reliant on other written sources rather than eye-witness accounts. Much closer to the source than we are, but two centuries is still an awfully long time. Also, it is expected that any constructed work would fall comfortably into the historical framework it takes place in, whether or not its specific contents were factual. Just because a book's authors did their groundwork and some research doesn't mean everything in the book is true (most historical fiction is similarily plausible, and most historical fiction never happened).

BETWEEN the times of Christ and the second century.... Although i will agree with you that judging ONlLY by it's correct archaeology and historicity it could be HIstorical fiction

The Bible is not the only source of proof for the faithful: you people are completely ignoring prayer! What about that?

Anyhow, im going...im hungry and its lunchtime

Glinde Nessroe, Nhilistic Beginners and anyone else reading this Jesus loves you! Have a good day!

You cannot interpet 1st century thought through the tinted lenses of a 21st century perspective and 19th century theology to do so would be dishonest or insane. Jeuss of Nazareth's contemporaries would have interpeted it through thier own cultural perspective as declaring that the earthly Kingdom of God has been established by his earthly representative the mesisah. thats what they meant when they talked about "The Kingdom of God" back then.

If you read back Jesus clearly explained that what he said was "the kingdom of God" was in fact heaven. He corrected his followers many times. They just didn't listen. I'm not using 21st century perspective. I'm using the perspective of Isaiah. I'm using the prophesy Isaiah made and what Jesus told his followers.

That interpetation would be both recuuperative and retrospective and it would be wrong, it would not have been how his contemporaries would interpeted or understood it, there is an inevitable bias when use your 21st century mind and understanding to interpet 3rd century text and thought. There is a vast chasm between our world and theirs...its called time.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that the only correct interpetation of what we know as Christ's words would have to come from the people who were there at the time? If this is true it is a little puzzling to me.

Early your complaint seemed to be that Christ told people their world was going to end therefor they should repent. When Christ spoke of the kingdom and they wanted the physical kingdom, he told them he was speaking of a spiritual kingdom. The world he was talking about is not dependent upon the the hearers interpetation of what the words meant. Certainly, the world of the people who listened to His words did end. After Christ's coming Isreal was never again the home for Jewish people until recent times.

The following comes from the Baha'i Faith, you may find it interesting.

In the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6, verse 26, it is written: "Ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled."

It is evident that the bread of which the disciples ate and were filled was the heavenly bounty; for in verse 33 of the same chapter it is said: "For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world." It is clear that the body of Christ did not descend from heaven, but it came from the womb of Mary; and that which descended from the heaven of God was the spirit of Christ. As the Jews thought that Christ spoke of His body, they made objections, for it is said in the 42nd verse of the same chapter: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we *98* know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?"

Reflect how clear it is that what Christ meant by the heavenly bread was His spirit, His bounties, His perfections and His teachings; for it is said in the 63rd verse: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."

Therefore, it is evident that the spirit of Christ is a heavenly grace which descends from heaven; whosoever receives light from that spirit in abundance -- that is to say, the heavenly teachings -- finds everlasting life. That is why it is said in the 35th verse: "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 97)

Oh you people should have not mentiioned the Evangel of John, it just reminded of a passage where the author callign himself "the beloved disciple" does imply that he himself beleived that the earthly Kingdom of God would be established in the lifetime of his contemporaries. I'll get back to you on it.

Oh you people should have not mentiioned the Evangel of John, it just reminded of a passage where the author callign himself "the beloved disciple" does imply that he himself beleived that the earthly Kingdom of God would be established in the lifetime of his contemporaries. I'll get back to you on it.

Which passage is this?

Which passage is this?
You don't know your scriptures? I have most of the Bible memorized. And I said I will get back to you on it.

Well, I don't fit into any the option on the poll. As an ex-Jew (now a proud atheist/agnostic) I'd say he exists, but he's not nearly as special as he is made out to be. I can't help looking at things through sociology....

You all do realize Jesus was mentioned in Josephus who lived at the same time as Jesus right?

I didn't say it made them more factual, but what this does say is that the modern Bible we have today is very similar to the early manuscripts as people read them and then translate the Bible

Alright, that makes a bit more sense :) Other than a note the ancient Hebrew is incredibly dense and ambiguous, I don't have much to add to that. It doesn't have much to say about the accuracy of the original manuscripts, mind you, and there're always issues of copying errors, but it does reduce the "Telephone" problem I mentioned.

Do you have any idea if modern translations of the Bible tend to make extensive use of multiple originals? This is an area I'm woefully uneducated in.

A book i have called "More than a carpenter" by Josh McDowell. It's references are too many to be bothered listing but you can find the references on the net i guess if u really want them.

I'm dubious, being generally distrustful of a book written by a born-again Christian, especially one that has passages such as, "The former hypothesis [that Jesus was a liar] cannot stand a moment before the moral purity and dignity of Jesus, revealed in his every word and work, and acknowledged by universal consent." I'm also not having any luck finding any sort of academic evaluation of the book, although I've only done cursory google searches.

(one gem I did turn up, although not sourced or anything and quite obvious in its bias, is this: http://members.aol.com/bbu85/josh.htm)

Acts 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus of Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know..." i could add more if you want...

Unfortunately, quoting scripture to back up the reliability of scripture isn't particularily sound... Any work of fiction that wants to be taken as fact will set itself firmly in its historical backdrop, and probably employ other devices to further convince readers of its truth, such as appeals to authority (as in the quote you've provided: crowds of witnesses are seen as reliable :)), or placing the author within the story as a witness to the events.

You all do realize Jesus was mentioned in Josephus who lived at the same time as Jesus right?

Josephus was born around 40 CE and wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" in 93 CE.

Hardly at the same time, but very close.

The debated quote:

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about A.D. 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form. Most scholars consider this strong evidence that this passage existed in manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews at that time, though skeptics have suggested that Eusebius himself might be the author of the passage.

Oh you people should have not mentiioned the Evangel of John, it just reminded of a passage where the author callign himself "the beloved disciple" does imply that he himself beleived that the earthly Kingdom of God would be established in the lifetime of his contemporaries. I'll get back to you on it.

I am sure you will get back to "you people" smile, smile, just so you don't misuderstand, I am not a Christian. I am a member of the Baha'i Faith. But even if 'the beloved disciple' did say that he expected the Kingdom of God to be established in his lifetime, and I believe he did that, doesn't mean his interpetation was correct. Certainly, if God created the world and is all powerful, etc to hold God to our concept of time will always lead to disappointment for the creatures.

Just ask those who people who sold their homes, quit their jobs, bought Ascension robes and waited for Christs return in the 1840's. They hac the time right, wrong place. That should stir a few things up!!!!

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?

We can all probably agree, that the odds of the looks of the second coming of Jesus one-legged and a midget, (by the way, the pc term is "little person,") are fairly slim.

The first coming of Christ, did not look anything like James Caviezel, and I have no idea who Jeffrey Hunter is, but it sounds rather European/English/Whitish to me. Jesus, in all actuality, looked more like Osama Bin Laden than Brad Pitt. The Bible times took part in the Middle East, people in the Middle East, look like Middle Eastern people. It states in the Bible that Jesus would've blended in among his peers. He wouldn't have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Well, I think he was a great man (just a man mind you) that did many positive things. He might have been slightly nutty, he could have been a liar. At the end of the day whether he was a loon or a liar he changed the world and how many people can say that?

i don't see how it's stupid to think that he may not have existed.

seeing as there's nothing written about him within lifetimes of when he's supposed to have existed and his life parallels the lives of so many pagan deities...

if he did exist, chances are he was just a normal guy, perhaps a little more reasonable and wise than most, who shared a message of love with others... who then corrupted it into a "hey, worship this guy" thing.

You all do realize Jesus was mentioned in Josephus who lived at the same time as Jesus right?
you do realise that the passage mentioning jesus was proven to be a more recent (circa 300ce) forgery, right?

Jesus did exist... there is as much proof of Jesus existing as there is of say the fact that you exist. You can't prove to me that you exist. And i didn't say that people who aren't Christians are stupid. i know many of intelligent people (many on these forums) who aren't Christian. The options are the ONLY ones that there are. If you read my spiel bout why the Bible is reliable (page 11 i think) Then Jesus was either lying or not. Ie he was the Son of God or he was not. If he was lying then it was either deliberate (liar) or not (lunatic). I honestly do not think that you are a stupid person (u might be but i cant judge that seeing as i have never met you) you are probably very intelligent you just havent ever given Christianity a chance in your mind

I was catholic for 9 years. Don't assume.

Anyhow, im going...im hungry and its lunchtime

Glinde Nessroe, Nhilistic Beginners and anyone else reading this Jesus loves you! Have a good day!

Whats the reverse of necrophelia? WHen a dead person makes love to a living person...

Where is the "tasty cheese flavored snack" option?

Sadfully, the "Jeezit" option doesn't appear to be available.

What is so appealing about Christianity? Seems like a thing that mindless drones use to feel apart of a world that they don't fit into. Intellectualism is on the decline in America due to the beliefs of an inherently backward and decrepit religion. No one has guts to stand up and find a way to create a peaceful way to live. Isn't that what religion is suppose to teach? Someone grow some strength. The world is in dire need.

With all of the debating on history, there seems to be a lack of detail on the effect that Christianity has had on the world. It has taken peaceful, moral and honorable beliefs and tainted them with blood. Christianity was only accepted by western rulers as a tool to gain power within the countries they lived. Kings incorporated pagan beliefs into the religion to bring in outsiders and used the "spread the good news" as a reason to destroy enemies of the throne.

The only way that humanity will prosper is a move away from religion and into an age of intellectualism. Religion is outdated. Surely society has reached a point where the scientific method, individualism and intelligence have surpassed conformity, security and dependence. Religous people either refuse to grow up, deny their individuality or refuse to accept intellectualism.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

Whats the reverse of necrophelia? WHen a dead person makes love to a living person...

You idiot.

The only way that humanity will prosper is a move away from religion and into an age of intellectualism. Religion is outdated. Surely society has reached a point where the scientific method, individualism and intelligence have surpassed conformity, security and dependence. Religous people either refuse to grow up, deny their individuality or refuse to accept intellectualism.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

Why do you, no for that matter, why do so many people think that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive? Tell me please.

What is so appealing about Christianity? Seems like a thing that mindless drones use to feel apart of a world that they don't fit into. Intellectualism is on the decline in America due to the beliefs of an inherently backward and decrepit religion. No one has guts to stand up and find a way to create a peaceful way to live. Isn't that what religion is suppose to teach? Someone grow some strength. The world is in dire need.

With all of the debating on history, there seems to be a lack of detail on the effect that Christianity has had on the world. It has taken peaceful, moral and honorable beliefs and tainted them with blood. Christianity was only accepted by western rulers as a tool to gain power within the countries they lived. Kings incorporated pagan beliefs into the religion to bring in outsiders and used the "spread the good news" as a reason to destroy enemies of the throne.

The only way that humanity will prosper is a move away from religion and into an age of intellectualism. Religion is outdated. Surely society has reached a point where the scientific method, individualism and intelligence have surpassed conformity, security and dependence. Religous people either refuse to grow up, deny their individuality or refuse to accept intellectualism.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.
Some of what you wrote certainly has some merit, but I think you're mistaken on a couple of points. First of all, intellectualism has never been important in America. Yes, the Founding Fathers were all intellectuals, and they spent a lot of time patting each other on the back and engaging in mental masturbation. But they are not revered for what they thought, they are revered for what they did. Doesn't matter what thoughts sprung those actions, only the actions count.

"Christianity" did not do anything to the world. "Christianity" is a set of beliefs. "Christians" did a lot of bad things to the world. They just used Christianity as their justification. If Christianity never came around, they would have found another reason to kill each other. People have been doing this all over the world since the beginning of the human race. To blame Christianity, and only Christianity, is foolish.

Your argument of religion as "a crutch of the weak" is poor. Religions have become outdated. Religion has not. Some people do need religion, to give them a sense of purpose, or to help them overcome obstacles. Maybe you don't. Congratulations. But other people do, and I have a feeling that, even if we move more towards intellectualism, religion will still play an important role in society.

Why do you, no for that matter, why do so many people think that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive? Tell me please.
I would also like to know. Who started this belief and why did it become so popular?

You idiot.

Your so...normal. And regular.

Your so...normal. And regular.

Sorry, but what you said has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Sorry, but what you said has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

Actually I was just making light of this pathetic thread :0

Sorry, but what you said has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year at college.

If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year at college.

I dont get it.

I dont get it.
According to Lewis Black, that is the stupidest statement he ever heard.

What is so appealing about Christianity? Seems like a thing that mindless drones use to feel apart of a world that they don't fit into. Intellectualism is on the decline in America due to the beliefs of an inherently backward and decrepit religion. No one has guts to stand up and find a way to create a peaceful way to live. Isn't that what religion is suppose to teach? Someone grow some strength. The world is in dire need.

With all of the debating on history, there seems to be a lack of detail on the effect that Christianity has had on the world. It has taken peaceful, moral and honorable beliefs and tainted them with blood. Christianity was only accepted by western rulers as a tool to gain power within the countries they lived. Kings incorporated pagan beliefs into the religion to bring in outsiders and used the "spread the good news" as a reason to destroy enemies of the throne.

The only way that humanity will prosper is a move away from religion and into an age of intellectualism. Religion is outdated. Surely society has reached a point where the scientific method, individualism and intelligence have surpassed conformity, security and dependence. Religous people either refuse to grow up, deny their individuality or refuse to accept intellectualism.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.


Have you looked into what Christianity ACTUALLY is instead of what a few so called followers have made of it?

If you look back many of the "Christians" mentioned in history were not true Christians. They used Christianity as an excuse to do horrible and terrible things which by the word of God was evil and sinful.

Why can't we look past the past?

Look to Christians today. Not the past.

If you continue to look at the past would you call every Democrat alive a slave owner? They owned slaves in the past. Oh no. The Democrats must be horrible people. No. Not at all.

Who said religion and science are completely seperate? They aren't.

Whats the reverse of necrophelia? WHen a dead person makes love to a living person...
:D
That caught me totally off-guard.

Do you really want me to bring up some example of the most prominent and sterling christians in the world today? is that what you really want? If you want to understadn why people hate christians you better look at the public face christians present...it ain't nice.

According to Lewis Black, that is the stupidest statement he ever heard.
and thats when blood starts shooting out your nose ...

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..

Yes. Historical evidence suggests that the man probably lived... but doesn't necessarily support all the 'miraculous' claims.

Whats the reverse of necrophelia? WHen a dead person makes love to a living person...
That would be any episode of Buffy, season 6.

Why do you, no for that matter, why do so many people think that Religion and Science are mutually exclusive? Tell me please.
Religion deals with spiritual matters, science with the physical universe.

That would be any episode of Buffy, season 6.

Points scored for gratuitous Buffy mention. :)

Gotta say, jesus did exist, but come on, if you say someone saying that he was the son of god walking down the street today, you'd run a mile! same thing applies with jesus. He was just smoking too much ganja. plus he soooooooooo married mary magdeline.

Gotta say, jesus did exist, but come on, if you say someone saying that he was the son of god walking down the street today, you'd run a mile! same thing applies with jesus. He was just smoking too much ganja. plus he soooooooooo married mary magdeline.

there isn't ANY proof he married Mary. That's all a bunch of lies.

Where is the "tasty cheese flavored snack" option?

OMG that is so great. im personaly agnostic, i really dont give a shit, so i voted liar cuz i dont believe he was true, but that he existed. hell, i've seen people named jesus, so there's a jesus, just not the son of god.

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.

sorry for the double post, but, THERE IS NO PROOF THE BIBLE IS TRUE. I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF ITS COMFORTING, NO PROOF OF TRUTH, YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET IN AN ARGUMENT WITH ME ABOUT THIS, I WENT TO A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOR 4 YEARS, TURNED ME AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY.

there, now that i've gone on ym tirade, ill stop 4 now.

Jesus was the son of God. This is my religion and the reason why europe is the supreme world power

If not the son of God (Damn you heretics) then he must have been a prophet as the people of Islam believe.

Whatever the case, he was the most important figure in history.

sorry for the double post, but, THERE IS NO PROOF THE BIBLE IS TRUE. I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF ITS COMFORTING, NO PROOF OF TRUTH, YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET IN AN ARGUMENT WITH ME ABOUT THIS, I WENT TO A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOR 4 YEARS, TURNED ME AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY.

there, now that i've gone on ym tirade, ill stop 4 now.

There is prove, Jeruselum, Jericho ruins, Jews, things that explain the human body, the genes, the Earth. The Bible has all the answers, all that you have to do is look for it. "Knock and the door will be opened".


P.S. Would any Christians plz contact me. Thx.

Jesus was the son of God. This is my religion and the reason why europe is the supreme world power

If not the son of God (Damn you heretics) then he must have been a prophet as the people of Islam believe.

Whatever the case, he was the most important figure in history.

I agree. Not only that Europe is a super power but explain things that have happened to the Jews. Hitler, the Jews being hated, want of destroying them, that's actual all Biblical. Take what has happened. I heard that one time the Isrealis were close to Egypt in a war and they had to stop b/c of the Passover. The Egyptians attacked with a force larger than the Isrealis and had the suprise too but yet they were all captured. The Egyptians were defeated. Egypt beign a desert. The plagues of Moses and the 7 yrs of famine. Need I go on?

Religion deals with spiritual matters, science with the physical universe.

But so does religion. Science I believe should be anything that doesn't contradict religion. Atoms don't contradict religion as far as I know, electricity, etc. Evolution however I am firmly against as well as the "Big Bang theory". Just what I think.

What is so appealing about Christianity? Seems like a thing that mindless drones use to feel apart of a world that they don't fit into. Intellectualism is on the decline in America due to the beliefs of an inherently backward and decrepit religion. No one has guts to stand up and find a way to create a peaceful way to live. Isn't that what religion is suppose to teach? Someone grow some strength. The world is in dire need.

With all of the debating on history, there seems to be a lack of detail on the effect that Christianity has had on the world. It has taken peaceful, moral and honorable beliefs and tainted them with blood. Christianity was only accepted by western rulers as a tool to gain power within the countries they lived. Kings incorporated pagan beliefs into the religion to bring in outsiders and used the "spread the good news" as a reason to destroy enemies of the throne.

The only way that humanity will prosper is a move away from religion and into an age of intellectualism. Religion is outdated. Surely society has reached a point where the scientific method, individualism and intelligence have surpassed conformity, security and dependence. Religous people either refuse to grow up, deny their individuality or refuse to accept intellectualism.

Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans.

But religion offers an explaination of why we are here, where we come from and where we are go. Intellectualism and religion can coexist it's just that it doesn't happen often. Not all religions are bad, not all are good, some just are out there, but I can say this, Atheism is the worst. No proof of existance, no future after death, no reason to help others, no nothing. That is how I feel.

Do you really want me to bring up some example of the most prominent and sterling christians in the world today? is that what you really want? If you want to understadn why people hate christians you better look at the public face christians present...it ain't nice.

Yes. I would.

And then I want you to show me people of other religions. Show me that they are pure. Show me that they have no fault.

Then show me you have no fault. Show me that you are pure of thought, and of actions.

Then show me something else that was meant to be used for good. Meant for good and for the benefit of everyone. And show me how it is still pure. Show me how it hasn't been perversed.

Christians are humans. Humans are sinful. Humans are evil and sinful. Maybe not in action in most cases, but in every case they are sinful in mind.

Well, the evidence behind the scientific theories of the Big Bang and evolution are logical and have ties to actual observation, not to old and dead myths concocted 2000 years ago. There's no proof that there is a God, in fact, it is just as likely that the Greek gods are running around as there was a Messiah. People tend to exaggerate the character of people they like, especially when they trust them as leaders.

Some of what you wrote certainly has some merit, but I think you're mistaken on a couple of points. First of all, intellectualism has never been important in America. Yes, the Founding Fathers were all intellectuals, and they spent a lot of time patting each other on the back and engaging in mental masturbation. But they are not revered for what they thought, they are revered for what they did. Doesn't matter what thoughts sprung those actions, only the actions count.

"Christianity" did not do anything to the world. "Christianity" is a set of beliefs. "Christians" did a lot of bad things to the world. They just used Christianity as their justification. If Christianity never came around, they would have found another reason to kill each other. People have been doing this all over the world since the beginning of the human race. To blame Christianity, and only Christianity, is foolish.

Your argument of religion as "a crutch of the weak" is poor. Religions have become outdated. Religion has not. Some people do need religion, to give them a sense of purpose, or to help them overcome obstacles. Maybe you don't. Congratulations. But other people do, and I have a feeling that, even if we move more towards intellectualism, religion will still play an important role in society.

I agree that Christianity is not to blame, it's unfortunately people who are to blame. (Note: Biblical definition as I know it of Christian: Follower of Christ. Basically, if you believe he was the Son of God, the only way to Heaven, he died for your sins and rose again.) Religion however is everywhere. Even if you say that you don't beleive in religion you have joined one. The religion that you believe in no religion because you've palced your faith in your beleif that you believe in no religion.

There is prove, Jeruselum, Jericho ruins, Jews, things that explain the human body, the genes, the Earth. The Bible has all the answers, all that you have to do is look for it. "Knock and the door will be opened".


P.S. Would any Christians plz contact me. Thx.


::contacted:: Well. Sorta. This is the only way I know how.

Well, the evidence behind the scientific theories of the Big Bang and evolution are logical and have ties to actual observation, not to old and dead myths concocted 2000 years ago. There's no proof that there is a God, in fact, it is just as likely that the Greek gods are running around as there was a Messiah. People tend to exaggerate the character of people they like, especially when they trust them as leaders.

Evolution and the Big Bang has less proof than God. God is like magnestism, you cna't actually see it but you can see the effects of it. And what observations also are there that the Earth is billions of years old? None. Anyways we'll know when we die who was right so rest it already. I've had nearly enough of the public school system claiming to be "non-secular" belief wise but yet teaching evolution and Atheism.

Well, the evidence behind the scientific theories of the Big Bang and evolution are logical and have ties to actual observation, not to old and dead myths concocted 2000 years ago. There's no proof that there is a God, in fact, it is just as likely that the Greek gods are running around as there was a Messiah. People tend to exaggerate the character of people they like, especially when they trust them as leaders.


You should read "The Elegant Universe"

Most of this "logical" and "actual observation" are just things people make up to fit what they believe to be true.

It's fascinating stuff. You should go out and read scientific journals. I mean real ones. Not something you read from a newspaper article because honestly, they don't know half the stories they report.

A lot of "scientific theory" comes from someone coming up with something that makes sense. If something doesn't seem right, they make up something else that supports their original theory.

It's quite interesting.

This however DOES NOT in any way illegitimize anything the scientific community has done. Science is a wonderful thing and I think that's what many religious scholars, or religious followers need to understand.

We're not at war against science. For Christians out there(NOTE I'M SAYING FOR CHRISTIANS) ,we're here to understand it and realize that science is ALSO part of God's creation. He made the moon and the stars and orbitals and the cells and everything. Don't fight against what He has made. Embrace it. Learn from it.

::contacted:: Well. Sorta. This is the only way I know how.

Use the Add to Buddy List option when you left click on my name. Then search nationstates for a nation by that name.

Only trusting the science that fits your religion makes a person weak and oblivious. If something has more merit or more proof then why are people stuck with old and insignificant beliefs? And there is no proof of an afterlife or of a supernatural power, so why waste time on planning for it and pleasing the supernatural. Belief in God is as silly as belief in UFO's and aliens. At the Greek myths were an interesting bunch of morals; the bible is just dry...

he did not exist. would an all-powerful being allow this BS to occur? more people have killed in the name of religion than any other cause. show me some proof. when was the last miracle YOU saw. I was in the WTC on 9/11. there was no god or jesus that day!!

You should read "The Elegant Universe"

Most of this "logical" and "actual observation" are just things people make up to fit what they believe to be true.

It's fascinating stuff. You should go out and read scientific journals. I mean real ones. Not something you read from a newspaper article because honestly, they don't know half the stories they report.

A lot of "scientific theory" comes from someone coming up with something that makes sense. If something doesn't seem right, they make up something else that supports their original theory.

It's quite interesting.

This however DOES NOT in any way illegitimize anything the scientific community has done. Science is a wonderful thing and I think that's what many religious scholars, or religious followers need to understand.

We're not at war against science. For Christians out there(NOTE I'M SAYING FOR CHRISTIANS) ,we're here to understand it and realize that science is ALSO part of God's creation. He made the moon and the stars and orbitals and the cells and everything. Don't fight against what He has made. Embrace it. Learn from it.

Amen. It's Atheism I'm after.

The poll is missing one option. A really religious guy who never claimed to be the son of god. That's my vote.

he did not exist. would an all-powerful being allow this BS to occur? more people have killed in the name of religion than any other cause. show me some proof. when was the last miracle YOU saw. I was in the WTC on 9/11. there was no god or jesus that day!!

How do you know? Anyways we brought this upon ourselves you fool. (Sorry bout insult) By not following we said God we don't want you. Besides God is more worried about our spirits than the body. The body may die but the spirit is eternal and where would you rather spend eternity? Hell or Heaven? With an additude like that I'd say Hell. You're choice. We'll know when we die who is right.

Only trusting the science that fits your religion makes a person weak and oblivious. If something has more merit or more proof then why are people stuck with old and insignificant beliefs? And there is no proof of an afterlife or of a supernatural power, so why waste time on planning for it and pleasing the supernatural. Belief in God is as silly as belief in UFO's and aliens. At the Greek myths were an interesting bunch of morals; the bible is just dry...

But without a supernatural being you can't prove you exist. Besides, better safe than sorry.

Sorry...don't know how to use the quote function. To Teckor...if you were truly sorry bout the insult you would not have used it. jesus would not approve. I saw people jump from 100 stories up. I repeat...no "being" with a heart who could have prevented that would have allowed it. As to the afterlife...don't extend your magazine subscriptions for too long.

So where's the son of a carpenter option?(weather they were geneticly related is beside the point)

Amen. It's Atheism I'm after.


I honestly have no idea what you mean by that last comment.

But without a supernatural being you can't prove you exist. Besides, better safe than sorry.
:confused:
What?
By my perceptions, proving I exist is the simplest thing to prove. It's proving anybody else exists that's tricky.

And where does the supernatural being come in? And I don't believe you mean just any supernatural being...

Amen. It's Atheism I'm after.

Now that's a great line. Amen and atheism in the same quote. I may get that tattoo!

Sorry...don't know how to use the quote function. To Teckor...if you were truly sorry bout the insult you would not have used it. jesus would not approve. I saw people jump from 100 stories up. I repeat...no "being" with a heart who could have prevented that would have allowed it. As to the afterlife...don't extend your magazine subscriptions for too long.

You know what your right. I'm not really sorry b/c there are ppl out there like you who are lost and hopeless and stuck in beleifs they don't understand one bit. Firstly, the spirit is eternal so which would you be more concerned about saving? The body or the spirit from eternal pain? Tell me, if you saw someone in quicksand who refused to let you help him, would you continue again and again to help him? No, eventual you would stop but not God, God uses everything to try to save you, it's your choice. Let him help you, or continue to ignore him.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by that last comment.

I'm complementing you. And I hate Atheism, not Atheists, Atheism.

:confused:
What?
By my perceptions, proving I exist is the simplest thing to prove. It's proving anybody else exists that's tricky.

And where does the supernatural being come in? And I don't believe you mean just any supernatural being...

You can't prove that you physically exist to me without a supernatural being b/c matter cannot be created nor destroyed by any of our or natures means. So unless there is something above-nature then there is nothing.

You know what your right. I'm not really sorry b/c there are ppl out there like you who are lost and hopeless and stuck in beleifs they don't understand one bit. Firstly, the spirit is eternal so which would you be more concerned about saving? The body or the spirit from eternal pain? Tell me, if you saw someone in quicksand who refused to let you help him, would you continue again and again to help him? No, eventual you would stop but not God, God uses everything to try to save you, it's your choice. Let him help you, or continue to ignore him.

But if he is all they tell us he is, my ignoring him would not matter. He would save me in spite of it. But alas, where IS my salvation? Not here.

Now that's a great line. Amen and atheism in the same quote. I may get that tattoo!

How is that a great line? And why get a tatto?

I'm complementing you. And I hate Atheism, not Atheists, Atheism.


Are you a Christian? Because if you are God teaches us not to hate.

"love thy enemies as you would love thy friend."

You can say that you hate Atheism and not Atheists and show it on the outside, but in your heart you know the truth.

How can you hate the root and not hate the flower at the same time? They are like one.

I'm sorry If I sound like preaching.

I'm just ready to start defending rather than attacking.

How can we as the Christian community expect those who don't believe as we do when all we do is give them fuel?

Are you a Christian? Because if you are God teaches us not to hate.

"love thy enemies as you would love thy friend."

You can say that you hate Atheism and not Atheists and show it on the outside, but in your heart you know the truth.

How can you hate the root and not hate the flower at the same time? They are like one.

Unfortunately no one is perfect and thank you for generously pointing that out to me. I'll try to remember that more often. Ideas and ppl are separate however (ya I know i'm trying to justify my dislike of an idea)

I'm sorry If I sound like preaching.

I'm just ready to start defending rather than attacking.

How can we as the Christian community expect those who don't believe as we do when all we do is give them fuel?

By using their own ideas against them and by using more sense rather than information on them. But ya fuel to the fire. However, who is simply listening? The one is debating the might not change but the silent listener might.

Unfortunately no one is perfect and thank you for generously pointing that out to me. I'll try to remember that more often. Ideas and ppl are separate however (ya I know i'm trying to justify my dislike of an idea)


Believe me when I say I know no one is perfect. I for one am not perfect. I'm no where CLOSE to being perfect.

I just like to serve as a gentle reminder to fellow Christians that we need to set an example of ourselves.

You know what I mean?

How is that a great line? And why get a tatto?

Because all that we are is a string of great lines. It's all eyewash. You (not you personally...I would not insult you) are a fluke of nature. You survived because of natural selection...survival of the fittest. Opposable thumbs and all (feel your coxyx {lost tail}). Once you "toss off the mortal coil" you are barely remembered history. Don't you think someone would have made contact by now? Loaves and fishes and we can't make one very long distance phone call??

But if he is all they tell us he is, my ignoring him would not matter. He would save me in spite of it. But alas, where IS my salvation? Not here.

But that is why he gave us choice. We are worth more than the universe to him b/c we have choice to truely love him. True love is a choice, not programed.

And Sandra ya, we all need reminders once in a while.

Because all that we are is a string of great lines. It's all eyewash. You (not you personally...I would not insult you) are a fluke of nature. You survived because of natural selection...survival of the fittest. Opposable thumbs and all (feel your coxyx {lost tail}). Once you "toss off the mortal coil" you are barely remembered history. Don't you think someone would have made contact by now? Loaves and fishes and we can't make one very long distance phone call??

But we can communicate to him by praying or simply praising him. And he contacts us by affecting us in a special way. Not the same for everyone.

And oh ya, fluke eh? Then life doesn't mean anything. And 9/11 did nothing b/c they were simply mistakes. That is Atheism. Sorry. Now back to our program.

But we can communicate to him by praying or simply praising him. And he contacts us by affecting us in a special way. Not the same for everyone.
Well I'm not going to continue to try and rile you up. We don't agree. And I am somewhat jealous that I don't have the faith you do. There are times when it might have been a help. I do respect your opinion. Peace to you...I hope you are right.

There is prove, Jeruselum, Jericho ruins, Jews, things that explain the human body, the genes, the Earth. The Bible has all the answers, all that you have to do is look for it. "Knock and the door will be opened".


P.S. Would any Christians plz contact me. Thx.

okay now, damn ruins do not equal proof that someone lived or that the bible is true. the entire bible is based on faith. how do jews equal proof? and if all this stuff was true, you should hate jews since jews supposedly killed jesus if i remember the story right. how do our genes and the earth prove the bible? other places have all the answers too, ya know. like, maybe SCIENCE for example? the vast majoirty of scince has been proved, none of the bible has been proven. and, if it is true, will you explain to me some of the stuff in there? like how the earth was created in 6 days (dont say seven to me; the seventh day was supposed rest), and how the jews could mistake their supposed savior, and kill him on a cross? and how you can jesus feed the 5000 with a few loaves of bread? dont tell me science is all wrong either, if you remember, Luke was a doctor, and the supposed death of jesus was proven by science, poking a spear in his side. and how can we trust the bible? neihter jesus nor god are supposed to have written the bible. the majority of the new testament is letters. jesus and god didnt write theses, the bible is basically a bunch of letters thrown togheter. and you expect me to trust this? hell no.

Well I'm not going to continue to try and rile you up. We don't agree. And I am somewhat jealous that I don't have the faith you do. There are times when it might have been a help. I do respect your opinion. Peace to you...I hope you are right.

And I hope you are saved. Well, I g2g anyways. C ya all later.

You're missing a very important choice in the poll. While I am an atheist and do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, I do think that he was a very insightful man who had good ideas. Executing him was one of humanity's biggest mistakes. Along come someone with this great idea that we could all be nice to each other for a change and instead we nail him to a tree. Were his ideas good? Damn right they were, but I still don't believe he was divine.

You're missing a very important choice in the poll. While I am an atheist and do not believe that Jesus is the son of God, I do think that he was a very insightful man who had good ideas. Executing him was one of humanity's biggest mistakes. Along come someone with this great idea that we could all be nice to each other for a change and instead we nail him to a tree. Were his ideas good? Damn right they were, but I still don't believe he was divine.
Wow...look at that that! A really insightful comment! Who woulda thought? I could not have said it better.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus was a sending of the Devil. Think about it - Christianity has been the exact source of millions upon millions of deaths. Perhaps it was something spawned by Satan himself, knowing that us humans would screw it up and kill each other over it. Personally, I'm an atheist and believe that Jesus was a man who preached a loving and cooperative existance, along with massive political change. That wasn't liked back then, so he was killed, just like the Romans had killed thousands before him. Just think about this before you yell and scream about Jesus being our savior: The number of deaths in the name of "God". Makes you wonder...

Wow...look at that that! A really insightful comment! Who woulda thought? I could not have said it better.

Indeed, I myself am a Catholic, but that was a very well thought out comment, and I won't argue with you.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus was a sending of the Devil. Think about it - Christianity has been the exact source of millions upon millions of deaths. Perhaps it was something spawned by Satan himself, knowing that us humans would screw it up and kill each other over it. Personally, I'm an atheist and believe that Jesus was a man who preached a loving and cooperative existance, along with massive political change. That wasn't liked back then, so he was killed, just like the Romans had killed thousands before him. Just think about this before you yell and scream about Jesus being our savior: The number of deaths in the name of "God". Makes you wonder...

What about Muslims? What about Hindu's? What about every other religion in the world?

What about people who don't believe in religion?

One time or another, something has been the reason for millions of deaths.

If people started killing people in the name of children would you think children were the sending of the devil?

Once again all I'm asking is to stop looking at Christians for who some people did in the past.

And oh ya, fluke eh? Then life doesn't mean anything. And 9/11 did nothing b/c they were simply mistakes. That is Atheism. Sorry. Now back to our program.
Not having a God/Gods doesn't mean that life doesn't mean anything. I bet if you asked most atheists, they would certainly rather be alive than dead. And where did 9/11 come in?

Where's the "Jesus was a cool dude" option? I picked arbitrary answer 4, because I thought it was the most likely of an unlikely set of choices. Though I don't personally buy into the "worship Jesus as God" thing, I do believe he had the whole "enlightened Buddha" thing going on. If I were to be a Christian, though, I'd be a Gnostic, because they had some cool mythology going on before the Catholics killed them off.

And to the people making up words for scientific theories earlier:

I've never heard of "Darwinism" before, though I have heard of what you are probably talking about, the theory of evolution. I suggest you do some research into it, as it's a pretty common sense theory once you get past the dogma holding you back. It's certainly not as obscure as, say, atomic theory, the theories of relativity (general and special), and the king of confusing theories, string theory/M-theory. For that matter, scientists haven't even completely puzzled out how gravity works yet (gravitons, space-time curvation... who knows?), so are you going to say that gravity doesn't exist as you're poking holes into a theory that's been around for 150 years and explains the data pretty freakin' good?

For more evolutionary discussion and enlightenment: http://www.talkorigins.org/

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?


What about penicillian, was that not called the wonder drug. Didn't it kill most baterica based diseases? Is it not a miracle that something could be created that kills a lot of sicknesses that plague humanity?

If you decide that there are no more miracles before you look for them, you will never see them.

What about penicillian, was that not called the wonder drug. Didn't it kill most baterica based diseases? Is it not a miracle that something could be created that kills a lot of sicknesses that plague humanity?
Define "miracle".

Yes. I would.

And then I want you to show me people of other religions. Show me that they are pure. Show me that they have no fault.

Then show me you have no fault. Show me that you are pure of thought, and of actions.

Then show me something else that was meant to be used for good. Meant for good and for the benefit of everyone. And show me how it is still pure. Show me how it hasn't been perversed.

Christians are humans. Humans are sinful. Humans are evil and sinful. Maybe not in action in most cases, but in every case they are sinful in mind.
Nice image you nice Christians present http://home.earthlink.net/~cgerena/patjerry.gif
So how many wiccan ACLU card-carrying lesbian abortion doctors were piloting those plane on 9/11?

Has for being imperfect (i.e sinful) , imperfection is a choice you make, you are not imperfect because you are human. You are not born imperfect (sinful), you decide to be even if that decision is made on a subconscious level, who and what you are is ultimately your responsibilty.

Well, the evidence behind the scientific theories of the Big Bang and evolution are logical and have ties to actual observation, not to old and dead myths concocted 2000 years ago. There's no proof that there is a God, in fact, it is just as likely that the Greek gods are running around as there was a Messiah. People tend to exaggerate the character of people they like, especially when they trust them as leaders.

Evolution and the Big Bang has less proof than God. God is like magnestism, you cna't actually see it but you can see the effects of it. And what observations also are there that the Earth is billions of years old? None. Anyways we'll know when we die who was right so rest it already. I've had nearly enough of the public school system claiming to be "non-secular" belief wise but yet teaching evolution and Atheism.


There are far too many Proddies in this debate.

Let me give you some more information on this debate between Creationism and Big Bang/Evolution Theories. There are just under 2 billion Christians in the world, over half (thats over 1 billion) of those are Catholics. Since the end of the second Vatican Council in 1966, The Roman Catholic Church has supported both the Evolution and Big Bang Theories, because neither of them disproove the existance of God.

What is more, Science has still not provided explanations for the three most important transitions in the Creation Process: Nothing to Matter, Matter to Life and Life to Conscienceness, all of which are explained by the presence of God.

Science and Religion should be seen as a partnership, and not opposite sides of a debate with no middle ground.

"Science without Religion is deaf, Religion without Science is blind"
-My personal mentor, one Albert Einstein.

"Science without Religion is deaf, Religion without Science is blind"
-My personal mentor, one Albert Einstein.
I love that quote!

I love that quote!

People would do well to remeber it.

is the son of God and messiah

is the son of God and messiah

Congratulations, best debeu post ever.

There are far too many Proddies in this debate.

Let me give you some more information on this debate between Creationism and Big Bang/Evolution Theories. There are just under 2 billion Christians in the world, over half (thats over 1 billion) of those are Catholics. Since the end of the second Vatican Council in 1966, The Roman Catholic Church has supported both the Evolution and Big Bang Theories, because neither of them disproove the existance of God.

What is more, Science has still not provided explanations for the three most important transitions in the Creation Process: Nothing to Matter, Matter to Life and Life to Conscienceness, all of which are explained by the presence of God.

Science and Religion should be seen as a partnership, and not opposite sides of a debate with no middle ground.

"Science without Religion is deaf, Religion without Science is blind"
-My personal mentor, one Albert Einstein.

Baha'u'llah said this over one hundred years before Einstein.

Bahá'u'lláh taught, that Religion is the chief foundation of Love and Unity and the cause of Oneness. If a religion become the cause of hatred and disharmony, it would be better that it should not exist. To be without such a religion is better than to be with it.

Fourthly: Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. *29* One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

Baha'u'llah said this over one hundred years before Einstein.

Bahá'u'lláh taught, that Religion is the chief foundation of Love and Unity and the cause of Oneness. If a religion become the cause of hatred and disharmony, it would be better that it should not exist. To be without such a religion is better than to be with it.

Fourthly: Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. *29* One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

Sorry, I thought that line was accredited to Einstein.

Anyho, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

Sorry, I thought that line was accredited to Einstein.

Anyho, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

As far as I know it is Einsteins. And I completely agree with you as far as the need for science and religion work in unity. The history of humankind has few examples of that i'm afraid.

However, is it possible for science to cooperate with religion? Religion does so many things to limit discovery. The religious system is so worried about the way things should be that they're to blind to acknowledge fact.

And Christians today are as bad (if not worse) than Christians of the past. George W. Bush, for example uses evangelical doctrine in his politics. According to "Frontline," he's used his beliefs time and time again to make important decisions, and has set up faith based commisions where the American tax payer is directly funding Evangelical organizations.

Science is only slowed down by religion. If it hadn't been for the Thirty Years War and the Reformation, the scientific revolutions of the Renaissance would never have been delayed. The Enlightenment would have began earlier. I do believe that in science you must have some sort of faith and that everyone should be spiritual, but Christianity is definently not sciences best bedfellow.

However, is it possible for science to cooperate with religion? Religion does so many things to limit discovery. The religious system is so worried about the way things should be that they're to blind to acknowledge fact.

And Christians today are as bad (if not worse) than Christians of the past. George W. Bush, for example uses evangelical doctrine in his politics. According to "Frontline," he's used his beliefs time and time again to make important decisions, and has set up faith based commisions where the American tax payer is directly funding Evangelical organizations.

Science is only slowed down by religion. If it hadn't been for the Thirty Years War and the Reformation, the scientific revolutions of the Renaissance would never have been delayed. The Enlightenment would have began earlier. I do believe that in science you must have some sort of faith and that everyone should be spiritual, but Christianity is definently not sciences best bedfellow.

true christians dont slow down science at all it is just the boneheads like bush that slow it down

the truly enlightened ones are open to new ideas

Congratulations, best debeu post ever.
It's "debut", or "début" if you want to be more etymologically correct.

sorry for the double post, but, THERE IS NO PROOF THE BIBLE IS TRUE. I DONT GIVE A SHIT IF ITS COMFORTING, NO PROOF OF TRUTH, YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET IN AN ARGUMENT WITH ME ABOUT THIS, I WENT TO A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL FOR 4 YEARS, TURNED ME AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY.

there, now that i've gone on ym tirade, ill stop 4 now.

Im Christian but i agree with you on the whole Christian school thing... they can be very... hmm... what word should i use there...

It's "debut", or "début" if you want to be more etymologically correct.
Ooh, I'm supposed to be the grammar-Nazi!
:D

Im Christian but i agree with you on the whole Christian school thing... they can be very... hmm... what word should i use there...

Bullshit is the appropriate term.

However, is it possible for science to cooperate with religion? Religion does so many things to limit discovery. The religious system is so worried about the way things should be that they're to blind to acknowledge fact.

And Christians today are as bad (if not worse) than Christians of the past. George W. Bush, for example uses evangelical doctrine in his politics. According to "Frontline," he's used his beliefs time and time again to make important decisions, and has set up faith based commisions where the American tax payer is directly funding Evangelical organizations.

Science is only slowed down by religion. If it hadn't been for the Thirty Years War and the Reformation, the scientific revolutions of the Renaissance would never have been delayed. The Enlightenment would have began earlier. I do believe that in science you must have some sort of faith and that everyone should be spiritual, but Christianity is definently not sciences best bedfellow.

Not historically, but I am satisfied that if any Christians are now in the way of Science, its not me and its not my denomination. And besides, I could claim that, seeing as the majority of Christians are Catholics, you are using your steriotype of the minority to decide your opinion of the whole.

Bullshit is the appropriate term.

Thats exactly what I think of evolution. Christian schools have good points and bad but I think public schools have more lies however.

Not historically, but I am satisfied that if any Christians are now in the way of Science, its not me and its not my denomination. And besides, I could claim that, seeing as the majority of Christians are Catholics, you are using your steriotype of the minority to decide your opinion of the whole.

You just used a steriotype. By the Biblical (or at least what I believe to be the Biblical definition) definition a Christian is anyone who beleives Jesus was the Son of God, the only way to heaven, and he died and rose again for our sins. So quite honestly Catholics are not Christians, by the "worlds" standards maybe but not by the Bible's.

However, is it possible for science to cooperate with religion? Religion does so many things to limit discovery. The religious system is so worried about the way things should be that they're to blind to acknowledge fact.

And Christians today are as bad (if not worse) than Christians of the past. George W. Bush, for example uses evangelical doctrine in his politics. According to "Frontline," he's used his beliefs time and time again to make important decisions, and has set up faith based commisions where the American tax payer is directly funding Evangelical organizations.

Science is only slowed down by religion. If it hadn't been for the Thirty Years War and the Reformation, the scientific revolutions of the Renaissance would never have been delayed. The Enlightenment would have began earlier. I do believe that in science you must have some sort of faith and that everyone should be spiritual, but Christianity is definently not sciences best bedfellow.

Science and religion don't contradict each other. Only other beliefs contradict each other. Science and religion gives a clear view of what happens in live and how things work. Besides, you cannot have one without the other.

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...
I'm Jewish and I say none of the above.

Who knows? Maybe Jesus was a sending of the Devil. Think about it - Christianity has been the exact source of millions upon millions of deaths. Perhaps it was something spawned by Satan himself, knowing that us humans would screw it up and kill each other over it. Personally, I'm an atheist and believe that Jesus was a man who preached a loving and cooperative existance, along with massive political change. That wasn't liked back then, so he was killed, just like the Romans had killed thousands before him. Just think about this before you yell and scream about Jesus being our savior: The number of deaths in the name of "God". Makes you wonder...

Then why would Jesus cast out demons? He even had a conversation similar to the Pharisees and Saducces about that. "A country divided cannot stand". So if anything The Anti-Christ would do the opposite. Also, Jesus was meant to die. The Lamb of God. That was for something called sin which we all have. And the deaths in the name of "God". Were they really in the name of "God"? And who were they commited by. Also the Old Testament even says (pretty sure about this) that he would be nailed to a tree, that his clothes would be given out by lots, a crown of thorns would be placed upon his head, all of which happened according to the New Testament.

okay now, damn ruins do not equal proof that someone lived or that the bible is true. the entire bible is based on faith. how do jews equal proof? and if all this stuff was true, you should hate jews since jews supposedly killed jesus if i remember the story right. how do our genes and the earth prove the bible? other places have all the answers too, ya know. like, maybe SCIENCE for example? the vast majoirty of scince has been proved, none of the bible has been proven. and, if it is true, will you explain to me some of the stuff in there? like how the earth was created in 6 days (dont say seven to me; the seventh day was supposed rest), and how the jews could mistake their supposed savior, and kill him on a cross? and how you can jesus feed the 5000 with a few loaves of bread? dont tell me science is all wrong either, if you remember, Luke was a doctor, and the supposed death of jesus was proven by science, poking a spear in his side. and how can we trust the bible? neihter jesus nor god are supposed to have written the bible. the majority of the new testament is letters. jesus and god didnt write theses, the bible is basically a bunch of letters thrown togheter. and you expect me to trust this? hell no.

Yet you believe that what a bunch of Scientists say is true, or a pile of bones which might simply have been someone with malnutrition. Since God is above nature and laws then he could create things out of nothing, heck he could have created the entire Earth in less than a second but he wanted something called simbolism. No they didn't write it but they told ppl what to write. Also, the Jews didn't mistake him. They were meant to kill him. The Old Testament actually discribes how they would kill him so it had a purpose. Science isn't wrong, only that which isn't science such as evolution and the Big bnag theory. As before, God has total control so he can do anything, from feeding 5000 people with a couple loaves of bread and still have leaft overs for tommorrow to creating the world in 6 days (even less time if he had wanted). That's all I can think of against your comment at the momment.

2005-01-13

I'm Jewish and I say none of the above.

Just wondering but what excatly does the Jewish religion call thier Holy Book (or however you wish to refer to it).

Just wondering but what excatly does the Jewish religion call thier Holy Book (or however you wish to refer to it).

It's generally called the Torah, AFAIK, and I think it's fairly similar to the first five or so books of the Old Testament in the Bible (or did I hallucinate that? I never know.) An actual Jewish person could probably tell you more about it, though, I only know what bits I remember from religious ed classes and what I picked up from Jewish friends!

Im Christian but i agree with you on the whole Christian school thing... they can be very... hmm... what word should i use there...

hypocritical?

Yet you believe that what a bunch of Scientists say is true, or a pile of bones which might simply have been someone with malnutrition. Since God is above nature and laws then he could create things out of nothing, heck he could have created the entire Earth in less than a second but he wanted something called simbolism. No they didn't write it but they told ppl what to write. Also, the Jews didn't mistake him. They were meant to kill him. The Old Testament actually discribes how they would kill him so it had a purpose. Science isn't wrong, only that which isn't science such as evolution and the Big bnag theory. As before, God has total control so he can do anything, from feeding 5000 people with a couple loaves of bread and still have leaft overs for tommorrow to creating the world in 6 days (even less time if he had wanted). That's all I can think of against your comment at the momment.

2005-01-13

everything that you said is faith. i respect faith, but i trust proven facts more. and yes, i knew that the jews were supposed to kill jesus. its just that i dont really believe everything the bible says.

Son of God simple

everything that you said is faith. i respect faith, but i trust proven facts more. and yes, i knew that the jews were supposed to kill jesus. its just that i dont really believe everything the bible says.

but y not believe what the Bible says? Is there any reason not to? I don't see any but still, my opinion.

Son of God simple

Nice to hear the support.

It's generally called the Torah, AFAIK, and I think it's fairly similar to the first five or so books of the Old Testament in the Bible (or did I hallucinate that? I never know.) An actual Jewish person could probably tell you more about it, though, I only know what bits I remember from religious ed classes and what I picked up from Jewish friends!

From what I've heard about the Torah it literally is the Old Testament of the Bible. But ya, I'm no expert on it.

thanks i thought most people were Anti-Jesus

From what I've heard about the Torah it literally is the Old Testament of the Bible. But ya, I'm no expert on it.

It's been awhile, but as I recall, the Torah is basically the first five books of the Old Testament, and forms about a third of the Tanakh, sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible.

There's also the Talmud, a more recent work (compilied from earlier books in the 7th century, maybe?), which is one of the cornerstones of rabbinical law.

but y not believe what the Bible says? Is there any reason not to? I don't see any but still, my opinion.

Because it's one choice of many, and not one that's suited for everybody? Because it describes a world that is in many ways unpleasant and unfair? (although I tend to believe that modern Christian thought tends to excerbate the issue beyond what is actually written in the bible)
Because some of it is just plain wacky, and seems ridiculous to believe as literal truth?
Because there's mounds of cultural baggage behind codified along with the essential religious message?

You just used a steriotype. By the Biblical (or at least what I believe to be the Biblical definition) definition a Christian is anyone who beleives Jesus was the Son of God, the only way to heaven, and he died and rose again for our sins. So quite honestly Catholics are not Christians, by the "worlds" standards maybe but not by the Bible's.

What the hell are you talking about? That is what Catholics believe you tool! If Catholics aren't Christians then no-one is! The Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian denomination, and every other Christian Denomination is somehow a decendant of the Catholic Church!

P.S. Why are you fighting with me? I'm Christian, your Christian, where's the problem?

This is a cool poem on this topic that I kinda like, though its a bit blasphemous:

Sometime During Eternity


Sometime during eternity
some guys show up
and one of them
who shows up real late
is a kind of carpenter
from some square-type place
like Galilee
and he starts wailing
and claiming he is hip
to who made heaven
and earth
and that the cat
who really laid it on us
is his Dad

And moreover
he adds
It's all writ down
on some scroll-type parchments
which some henchmen
leave lying around the Dead Sea somewheres
a long time ago
and which you won't even find
for a coupla thousand years or so
or at least for
ninteen hundred and fortyseven
of them
to be exact
and even then
nobody really believes them
or me
for that matter

You're hot
they tell him

And they cool him

They stretch him on the Tree to cool
And everybody after that
is always making models
of this Tree
with Him hung up
and always crooning His name
and calling Him to come down
and sit in
on their combo
as if he is THE king cat
who's got to blow
or they can't quite make it

Only he don't come down
from His Tree

Him just hang there
on His Tree
looking real Petered out
and real cool
and also
according to a roundup
of late world news
from the usual unreliable sources
real dead

Lawrence Ferlinghetti

[poem]

I like it too.

It's been awhile, but as I recall, the Torah is basically the first five books of the Old Testament, and forms about a third of the Tanakh, sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible.

There's also the Talmud, a more recent work (compilied from earlier books in the 7th century, maybe?), which is one of the cornerstones of rabbinical law.

Ah ok...so I was partly right, but not all the way. :)

And Catholics are Christians...they believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, rose on the third day, etc. It's recited every Sunday in the Nicene Creed for heaven's sake.

What the hell are you talking about? That is what Catholics believe you tool! If Catholics aren't Christians then no-one is! The Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian denomination, and every other Christian Denomination is somehow a decendant of the Catholic Church!

P.S. Why are you fighting with me? I'm Christian, your Christian, where's the problem?
Actually the Orthodox Church is the original from which the Roman Catholic split in the eleventh century over the issue of whether the Bishop of Rome was the infallible representative of God on Earth. He said he was, the rest of the Patriarchs said he wasn't.

jesus is dead,who he was is meaningless.who you are has meaning.
would you rather be you,or would you rather be a slave?

those who deny the truth can only be enslaved.
the truth is evolution is the ONLY viable theory about how life worked its way up currently.creationism has exactly 0.000000 evidence,evolution is so basiclly proven its funny people can deny it.
to deny the fact that evolution most likely happened is to deny god,he made the world,evolution was his tool.or he really did make the world in 6 days and did a damn good job makeing evolution look accurate.either way,science deals with evidence and the physical,religion needs to accept the here and now and not fight it.science needs to leave everything except the here and now to religion.

I believe that Christ was the Son of God and the prophecized Messiah. What I don't get is the fact that 58 people actually voted that he didn't exist... Are you just joking around, or do you actually think that...

I believe that Christ was the Son of God and the prophecized Messiah. What I don't get is the fact that 58 people actually voted that he didn't exist... Are you just joking around, or do you actually think that...


what's wrong with thinking that? maybe they mean that he didn't exist as you perceive him to exisht - i.e as the son of god, the messiah or whatever. or maybe they just don't believe the man ever existed. this is ok too - it has been know for people to hold beliefs that others consider wacky and are flying in the face of commonly held proofs. hmmm like creationism, or belief in god for example

Nice image you nice Christians present http://home.earthlink.net/~cgerena/patjerry.gif
So how many wiccan ACLU card-carrying lesbian abortion doctors were piloting those plane on 9/11?

Has for being imperfect (i.e sinful) , imperfection is a choice you make, you are not imperfect because you are human. You are not born imperfect (sinful), you decide to be even if that decision is made on a subconscious level, who and what you are is ultimately your responsibilty.


Have you ever had a bad thought that you just couldn't get out of your head no matter how hard you try?

What baby is not stubborn and selfish?

what's wrong with thinking that? maybe they mean that he didn't exist as you perceive him to exisht - i.e as the son of god, the messiah or whatever. or maybe they just don't believe the man ever existed. this is ok too - it has been know for people to hold beliefs that others consider wacky and are flying in the face of commonly held proofs. hmmm like creationism, or belief in god for example


What if someone told you that Newton never existed?

Would you call them crazy?

Nice image you nice Christians present http://home.earthlink.net/~cgerena/patjerry.gif
So how many wiccan ACLU card-carrying lesbian abortion doctors were piloting those plane on 9/11?

Has for being imperfect (i.e sinful) , imperfection is a choice you make, you are not imperfect because you are human. You are not born imperfect (sinful), you decide to be even if that decision is made on a subconscious level, who and what you are is ultimately your responsibilty.

I don't undersatnd what that first sentence is refering to.

I never once said that all Christians are saints. In fact most aren't. There are plenty of Christians who are horrible human beings.

In fact there are plenty of people from all religions and people who have a lack of religion who are horrible human beings.

That isn't what we are defending. We aren't defending our face as human beings. We are defending our religion. Our religions doesn't call for war. Our religion doesn't call for the massive massecre of thousands of people. Our religions doesn't call for hate.

Only people do this. People who uses the name of God as an excuse.

Every gift that God has given man, man has corrupted or perverted.

Jesus was the Son of God. It is that simple. He died, was buried, and rose again. Then later He ascended into Heaven. There is physical proof that He existed, and there is biblical proof that He is the Son of God.

To everybody who believes in evolution:
How do you explain love? Do you really think it's a chemical reaction in the brain that leads to...blahblahblah? NO. God created feelings and science did not. God created science, and he created everything else.
Check out Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." That is all you need. Sure I believe in adaptation, but not evolution. Monkeys simply do NOT have a complex enough brain to evolve into civilized beings.

Love is a hormonal and chemical attraction. The only thing that makes humans perceive it to be more than that is because our advanced brains put too much thought into our chemical emotions.

What the hell are you talking about? That is what Catholics believe you tool! If Catholics aren't Christians then no-one is! The Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian denomination, and every other Christian Denomination is somehow a decendant of the Catholic Church!

P.S. Why are you fighting with me? I'm Christian, your Christian, where's the problem?

Quite honestly Catholics aren't Christians. The Roman Catholic Church wasn't the starting point of Christianity. They don't believe in salvation throught grace.

P.S. I was unaware of the fact that you see yourself as a Christian. Sorry but sometimes other Christians don't agree on the same things.

Because it's one choice of many, and not one that's suited for everybody? Because it describes a world that is in many ways unpleasant and unfair? (although I tend to believe that modern Christian thought tends to excerbate the issue beyond what is actually written in the bible)
Because some of it is just plain wacky, and seems ridiculous to believe as literal truth?
Because there's mounds of cultural baggage behind codified along with the essential religious message?

Firstly, how is does iot discribe a world that is unfair? It is supportive, circular. Unless you prove that the Bible is false then y not? Anyhow you think what you think.

thanks i thought most people were Anti-Jesus

I simply thought most ppl online were Anti-Jesus.

So if Catholic aren't Christians, does that mean (assuming you don't count the orthodox church) christianity only began in the 16th century?

So if Catholic aren't Christians, does that mean (assuming you don't count the orthodox church) christianity only began in the 16th century?

Please. Can we not get into the Catholic versus Protestant argument?

It's so childish and totally unnecessary.

Stop being so self-righteous and open your eyes.

Being Christian is a personal relationship with God. You can't just say "this sect" isn't really Christianity.

Sects were only created because people differed in the interpretation of the Bible.

They mean nothing. God doesn't look at what sect you belong to. God looks at your faith.

So if Catholic aren't Christians, does that mean (assuming you don't count the orthodox church) christianity only began in the 16th century?
let my correct you Christianity started after Jesus died bi his disciples they were Christian so Christianity was started then and during Jesus times

I'm most strongly inclined to say that Christ was a simple charlatan who got in over his head and wound up nailed to something, with his disciples then trying to work the same scam in other towns using a new "Jesus".

That said, if I'm completely honest with myself, I have to acknowledge that, with the existing evidence (or lack thereof), it's impossible to reasonably exclude the possibilities that he was a either a lunatic or a fabricated figurehead.

Whatever he may have been, I'm pretty sure he wasn't the son of some god.

Peter, as in the rock that Jesus was to build his church upon, was the first Pope. When Christianity was codified at Nice, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) the Catholic church became the only church. Anyone who did not believe in Catholic dogma was tortured and/or killed (the Inquisition was more about heretics than Jews, Musslims, and Witches). During the Protestant Revolution, all non-orthodox sects came about. The Eastern Orthodox was around earlier, but it is essentially the same as the Catholic sect, the only difference is that Eastern Orthodoxies don't believe that God talks through the Pope.

"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." -- Lashie

This is obviously not true. In no way is it necessary for someone to be a liar/lunatic if they are a moral teacher. Someone can simply be a moral teacher. Doing so in no way entails being a liar or lunatic.

Jesus Christ was a great moral teacher and a brilliant man. There is no evidence, however, that he was more than a man. One can only hope. Anything more than hope should be respected, but is still wrong.

Have you ever had a bad thought that you just couldn't get out of your head no matter how hard you try?



No, I can control my thoughts, in fact anyone can.

I do not believe Jesus didn't exist, nor do I believe he was the Son of God. I certainly don't think he was a liar, and he probably wasn't a lunatic.

I also surmise that if he encountered your "poll," he might think you were a lunatic, or at the very least a manipulative idiot.

Your poll is not an honest inquiry into people's perspectives, but rather a game of semantics geared to present your bias to a captive audience.

Your game is flawed because it requires a leap of faith, not actual proveable fact, to support your argument. To give just one example, there is no known proof whatsoever which indicates that the words of Jesus Christ are accurately represented in the Holy Bible. I, for one, believe that his words are probably dramatically misrepresented in that text, which has been written by scores of (fallible) people and translated countless times into many languages over thousands of years. But if you know for certain that your God would never allow for his son to be misquoted in His favorite book, then that's your deal.

No, I can control my thoughts, in fact anyone can.

Right. You can lie to me. But don't lie to yourself.

I'm sorry, but to think that an individual has direct contact with God is ludacris. It takes years of faith and practice to become worthy enought to gain God's influence. A person can't just say, "Oh today I'm a Christian, God create miracles for me." Catholics have been around a lot longer. Saying they're not Christian goes against not only history but against logic. It's like saying that the Beatles weren't a rock band because they didn't wear black make-up and bite dogs's heads off. People changing their beliefs is fine, but to not call the original Christians anything but is BS.

The freaks who believe they are saved just because they joined an evangelical movement are as bad as the Muslims who radically interperate the Quran and attack America.

Right. You can lie to me. But don't lie to yourself.

I am not lying, there are millions of people capable of self-control...its really no big deal.

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..

I agree. However, lunatic was the closest option, so that's what I voted. How like a christian, to only give options that either agree or are hostile, without any middle ground.

You're not a christian!? You anti-american commie terrorist!

I am not lying, there are millions of people capable of self-control...its really no big deal.
Seconded.
All people have at least some self-control.
If one couldnt control one's thoughts at all, that would be some sort of disorder I would think.

I am not lying, there are millions of people capable of self-control...its really no big deal.

I didn't say you don't have self-control. You probably do to. I have it too.

But there's always sometimes where you think bad thoughts.

I didn't say you don't have self-control. You probably do to. I have it too.

But there's always sometimes where you think bad thoughts.
Then stop thinking bad thoughts.

Jesus was the Son of God. It is that simple. He died, was buried, and rose again. Then later He ascended into Heaven. There is physical proof that He existed, and there is biblical proof that He is the Son of God.

im not saying he dosent exist. BIBLICAL PROOF. you may trust in the bible, but i dont give a shit what it says.

Then stop thinking bad thoughts.

That's not the point. Though you just turned a perfectly good debate into something completely different. Congradulations. How mature of you.

The point is, people are not inherently good. No one is completely good. Everyone sins.

The point is, people are not inherently good. No one is completely good. Everyone sins.

That's a very cynical point of view, and one I do not accept. Are you saying people are inherently bad?

well, apparently thats what the bilbe says, that you have to accpet jesus into your heart, and he'll teke your sins and nail them to the cross, and that it is human nature to sin against god since eve and the serpent in the garden of eden. but i say screw that shit.

That's a very cynical point of view, and one I do not accept. Are you saying people are inherently bad?

I'm saying people are inherently sinful, not necessarily bad in the eyes of man(there's always the argument that this makes us bad enough in the eyes of God because he can not be where sin is). If you've notice I've only been arguing the area of thoughts not action.

I agree. However, lunatic was the closest option, so that's what I voted. How like a christian, to only give options that either agree or are hostile, without any middle ground.

You're not a christian!? You anti-american commie terrorist!

Nah isn't it more like: you ARE Christian?! You homophobic, bible bashing, goody 2 shoes with no life... Sorry i have just realised that i should have made the point "If you trust the Bible's account of what happened" part of my original post... how many pages did that take me...? ;)

there isn't ANY proof he married Mary. That's all a bunch of lies.
there isnt' any proof that he existed. period.

No, I can control my thoughts, in fact anyone can.

Anyone can control your thoughts? Sweet!

You want to make me a sandwich ... you want to make me a sandwich ... you want to make me a sandwich ...

Anyone can control your thoughts? Sweet!

You want to make me a sandwich ... you want to make me a sandwich ... you want to make me a sandwich ...
Sure...how about some ham?

Sure...how about some ham?

D'oh! I knew I should have been more specific ...

I GOT ALL THE HAM YOU NEED RIGHT HERE!!!

*pats port-a-fridge with an arrogant grin*

I GOT ALL THE HAM YOU NEED RIGHT HERE!!!

*pats port-a-fridge with an arrogant grin*

Well you just enjoy all that ham you want. I'll stick with roast beef with horseradish and swiss and portabello mushrooms ... toasted so the cheese gets all melty ...

damn ... now I'm hungry ...

Oh man that sounds good.

Now I'm hungry too. Damn you!

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)


Eh heh, ha, ha ha ha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Accurate account my ass!
The bible has been edited and translated so many times that its accuracy is about the same as saying that I am an accurate copy of Adam of Eden. Need I point out Lilith, or the famous anti-masutrbation passage where God actually smited someone for NOT sleeping with his dead brother's widdow?
That and anything new testment was written by someone with an agenda and were specifically designed to recruit new memebers into what was then a radical political-religious momement against the Roman empire.

I believe that Jesus was a good honest man, what strongly believed in his people, but that saddly his messages were corrupted by others and today are actually the cause of much pain and suffering. (Not all that different from the teaching of Mohammed)

or the famous anti-masutrbation passage where God actually smited someone for NOT sleeping with his dead brother's widdow?


From, ah, Leviticus right? That book is the cause of so much trouble.

I reacon he was probly a luntic, he existed, and he may have been a great public speaker, but I don't reascon he's the son of god. Indeed as far as i know one of the other gospals (Apparently there where more than 4 but constine had them destroyed) says that he wasn't.

Anywho, I don't balive in god, so how can he be the son of god?

All major religions are based on one man so you should look so much into it.

Actually there was a historian who lived that time a wrote about a guy called jesus but anyway

Im a cristian but i dont believe in god.

BTW how do you know that god exist other than the bible.

Actually there is more evidence for the ressurection than for the battle of Hastings

Please give ONE piece of evidence for the christian resurrection. If you can do that, then you will have done with no other bible scholar, historian or archeologist has been able to do.

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.

If you put an option like this into your poll, "Didn't exist (please don't tell me you're this stupid)", then you're going to come across as "holier than thou".

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...

The first gospel, Mark, was written after Jesus' alleged death and resurrection. The others were written 50-100 years later. It is riddled with contradictions that appologists have been desperately and unsuccessfully trying to explain. For example, why does the geneology for Luke and Matthew differ? It doesn't differ by just a little bit, but they differ HUGELY. Also, why do the 4 gospels give 4 conflicting accounts for what happened on Easter morning?

This is just a couple of examples, entire publications are dedicated to ferritting out biblical contradictions and inconsistencies.

I think that if the bible is the word of god and Jesus died for our sins, then God ought to make it much easier for us to know him. As it is, there are something like 85,000 different kinds of christianity and they all read the same book. What's up with that?

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

Nothing Jesus said was original. Everything he said can be traced back to different texts and teachings that already existed, the Jesus myth just happened to become more popular then the zoastrian myth, or the mythrian myth, or the appalonian myth, etc.

Jesus is the son of God. I am a christian by the ways.

Jesus: seems like a nice, straight-to-the-point kind of guy, though I doubt the authenticity of his claims (if he did indeed claim them).

All major religions are based on one man so you should look so much into it.

Eh? Back this up.

Actually there was a historian who lived that time a wrote about a guy called jesus but anyway

Josephus. I've heard now and again that the mention of Jesus was an interpolation, but I haven't actually read Josephus (though I have a copy of one of his histories somewhere around here...) so I can't say what I think of that myself.

Im a cristian but i dont believe in god.

How's that work out?

BTW how do you know that god exist other than the bible.

Please clarify wtf you're saying.

Jesus: seems like a nice, straight-to-the-point kind of guy, though I doubt the authenticity of his claims (if he did indeed claim them).

Totally. Jesus seems like a nice bloke and the point of Christianity: 'be nice' seems like a good idea.

However, the rest of the Bible seems to cloud this bit. And as most of the Bible was written many years after Jesus' death and like someone else said there are entire books devoted to picking holes in it, i'd rather just go with the 'Jesus was a nice bloke so lets all be nice' idea , rather than that he was the son of God who died for our sins.

I think he was a deranged prophet, not the bloody Messiah. The Jews had loads of prospects for the job of Messiah and most ended up dead. You don't see people running about proclaiming the resurrection and love of John the Baptist, do you? ;)

I think he was a deranged prophet, not the bloody Messiah. The Jews had loads of prospects for the job of Messiah and most ended up dead. You don't see people running about proclaiming the resurrection and love of John the Baptist, do you? ;)

But John the Baptist didn't satisfy the propheses of the Messiah. Besides, john himslef said that he was to prepare the way for the Messiah. Secondly, there are alot of propheses which don't happen naturally so either Jesus was or he is still to come. I beleive he was who he said he was and who all of his followers said he was.

Totally. Jesus seems like a nice bloke and the point of Christianity: 'be nice' seems like a good idea.

However, the rest of the Bible seems to cloud this bit. And as most of the Bible was written many years after Jesus' death and like someone else said there are entire books devoted to picking holes in it, i'd rather just go with the 'Jesus was a nice bloke so lets all be nice' idea , rather than that he was the son of God who died for our sins.

Holes? In the Bible? What a joke. Parts have been proven and some parts simply haven't been proven yet. But I'm positive none of it has been disproven.

Eh heh, ha, ha ha ha, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Accurate account my ass!
The bible has been edited and translated so many times that its accuracy is about the same as saying that I am an accurate copy of Adam of Eden. Need I point out Lilith, or the famous anti-masutrbation passage where God actually smited someone for NOT sleeping with his dead brother's widdow?
That and anything new testment was written by someone with an agenda and were specifically designed to recruit new memebers into what was then a radical political-religious momement against the Roman empire.

I believe that Jesus was a good honest man, what strongly believed in his people, but that saddly his messages were corrupted by others and today are actually the cause of much pain and suffering. (Not all that different from the teaching of Mohammed)

Not all versions are bad. The King James Translation I beleive is the best English acount of it because the ppl who translated it checked with other translations to make sure they had it right. Secondly, Jesus's messages haven't caused pain, it's other ppl who alter what he said or the word of God that cause pain. If everyone was to follow the Bible, the world would be a much better place but since that won't happen until the end of the world then oh well. Thirdly, the Roman Empire hated the Christians. I've heard that there were massive executions of Christians b/c of what they believed.

That's a very cynical point of view, and one I do not accept. Are you saying people are inherently bad?

Well they are. Sin is what makes us inherently bad. Refusal to obey someone because we what to do what we want. Refusal to obey the creator.

But John the Baptist didn't satisfy the propheses of the Messiah.

Neither did Jesus.

Jesus's messages haven't caused pain

No ... but Paul's sure has.

well, apparently thats what the bilbe says, that you have to accpet jesus into your heart, and he'll teke your sins and nail them to the cross, and that it is human nature to sin against god since eve and the serpent in the garden of eden. but i say screw that shit.

Firstly, Jesus doesn't nail it to the cross. He simply died for your sins. The wages of sin is death. So something has to die for it. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

there isnt' any proof that he existed. period.

The letters of Paul, Timothy and John seem to be proof. Anyways there isnt proof that he didn't exist so you can't say he didn't.

Holes? In the Bible? What a joke. Parts have been proven and some parts simply haven't been proven yet. But I'm positive none of it has been disproven.

Some parts diasgree with science though (e.g.: the order of creation in Genesis. Not the day part, but the actual order). Not that that is conclusive disproof of course - science could be wrong or G-d could have 'cheated' and installed science later.

There are a few parts where the text of the bible looks a little odd though, and scholars use odd twists to maintain the claim there are no errors. The value of pi being 3 e.g. Or noahs ark being nowhere near big enough to carry all the animals. The volume of heaven being less than that of earths moon (though that is still big enough for everyone). There are explanations, but they are not really convincing IMO. But then again: science has the same problem - though the nature of science allows errors, while religion does not.

And some claim the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly - open a random topic on this forum for examples.

The letters of Paul, Timothy and John seem to be proof. Anyways there isnt proof that he didn't exist so you can't say he didn't.
There is no evidence to disproof Jesus was the son of Satan either. So can you say he wasn't ?

So if Catholic aren't Christians, does that mean (assuming you don't count the orthodox church) christianity only began in the 16th century?

No. They began and continued from the time of Jesus. Christian means literally "follower of Christ" or "one of Christ".

Ah ok...so I was partly right, but not all the way. :)

And Catholics are Christians...they believe that Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, rose on the third day, etc. It's recited every Sunday in the Nicene Creed for heaven's sake.

But they still beleive that you have to confess your sins to a priest who tells God. I've heard to that the Catholic Church tends to actually incorporate pagan believes into their's to get more Catholics. Also, they beleive in purgatory and that there is much more that you have to do to go to heaven. When Jesus himself said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes unto the Father but by me." Note: the way, not part ofthe way or one of the ways, THE way.

nothing in the bible has been disproven, but many parts have been proven time and time again, and also, japanese archaelogists have found a dinosaur inside the stomach of some sort of mammal yesterday, proving that mammals existed in the time of dinosaurs, a theory that has been thrown out by scientists. Science has been disproven so many times, how could you make that an accurate argument for creation or anything in general

Some parts diasgree with science though (e.g.: the order of creation in Genesis. Not the day part, but the actual order). Not that that is conclusive disproof of course - science could be wrong or G-d could have 'cheated' and installed science later.

There are a few parts where the text of the bible looks a little odd though, and scholars use odd twists to maintain the claim there are no errors. The value of pi being 3 e.g. Or noahs ark being nowhere near big enough to carry all the animals. The volume of heaven being less than that of earths moon (though that is still big enough for everyone). There are explanations, but they are not really convincing IMO. But then again: science has the same problem - though the nature of science allows errors, while religion does not.

And some claim the Bible contradicts itself repeatedly - open a random topic on this forum for examples.


There is no evidence to disproof Jesus was the son of Satan either. So can you say he wasn't ?

Yes there is evidence against that Jesus was from Satan. He cast out demons, "a country divided cannot stand". And where did you hear pi being 3? or heaven having mass? or the arc not being able to carry all the animals? Noahs arc is supposed I think the size of a aircraft carrier. 2 of every animal at a young stage would fit in there. Also, the order makes sense.
Day 1 creation of the earth.
Day 2 creation of heaven.
Day 3 creation of dry land and plants.
Day 4 the creation of the sun and moon, stars, etc
Day 5 creation of birds.
Day 6 creation of animals.
Day 7 rest.

Note: Sun comes after plants. Plants can live without sunlight for a short period of time.

Where does the Bible contradict itself anyways? I havent read any place yet.

Peter, as in the rock that Jesus was to build his church upon, was the first Pope. When Christianity was codified at Nice, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea) the Catholic church became the only church. Anyone who did not believe in Catholic dogma was tortured and/or killed (the Inquisition was more about heretics than Jews, Musslims, and Witches). During the Protestant Revolution, all non-orthodox sects came about. The Eastern Orthodox was around earlier, but it is essentially the same as the Catholic sect, the only difference is that Eastern Orthodoxies don't believe that God talks through the Pope.

Neither do I. There were other churches during the Roman Catholic ruling.

"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." -- Lashie

This is obviously not true. In no way is it necessary for someone to be a liar/lunatic if they are a moral teacher. Someone can simply be a moral teacher. Doing so in no way entails being a liar or lunatic.

Jesus Christ was a great moral teacher and a brilliant man. There is no evidence, however, that he was more than a man. One can only hope. Anything more than hope should be respected, but is still wrong.

No evidence? What about the letters of paul, Timothy, and john and probably others to? That counts as evidence.

I do not believe Jesus didn't exist, nor do I believe he was the Son of God. I certainly don't think he was a liar, and he probably wasn't a lunatic.

I also surmise that if he encountered your "poll," he might think you were a lunatic, or at the very least a manipulative idiot.

Your poll is not an honest inquiry into people's perspectives, but rather a game of semantics geared to present your bias to a captive audience.

Your game is flawed because it requires a leap of faith, not actual proveable fact, to support your argument. To give just one example, there is no known proof whatsoever which indicates that the words of Jesus Christ are accurately represented in the Holy Bible. I, for one, believe that his words are probably dramatically misrepresented in that text, which has been written by scores of (fallible) people and translated countless times into many languages over thousands of years. But if you know for certain that your God would never allow for his son to be misquoted in His favorite book, then that's your deal.

Firstly, the ppl who translated the Bible checked with hundreds of other scholars and translations to make sure they had it write. Secondly, when writing the scores before Jesus and during his time and after they would be very meticulous about it (they would count word for word, sentance by sentance and if it didn't match the original script to the fireplace it went and they would start that page all over again).

nothing in the bible has been disproven, but many parts have been proven time and time again, and also, japanese archaelogists have found a dinosaur inside the stomach of some sort of mammal yesterday, proving that mammals existed in the time of dinosaurs, a theory that has been thrown out by scientists. Science has been disproven so many times, how could you make that an accurate argument for creation or anything in general

Yes. To true. I read about that animal actually to.

I'm sorry, but to think that an individual has direct contact with God is ludacris. It takes years of faith and practice to become worthy enought to gain God's influence. A person can't just say, "Oh today I'm a Christian, God create miracles for me." Catholics have been around a lot longer. Saying they're not Christian goes against not only history but against logic. It's like saying that the Beatles weren't a rock band because they didn't wear black make-up and bite dogs's heads off. People changing their beliefs is fine, but to not call the original Christians anything but is BS.

The freaks who believe they are saved just because they joined an evangelical movement are as bad as the Muslims who radically interperate the Quran and attack America.

Christian: anyone who believes Jesus to be the son of God, the only way to heaven, the Lamb for our sins, him resurecting himself. Original Christians were the followers of Christ and they certainly didn't have to confess sins to a priest or go through other things to get to heaven as is with the Roman Catholic belief. Also, God creates miracles for anyone if it will benefit the general purpose to get others to be in heaven ith him. Baby found alive after tsunami lying of a matress. Boy lives by clinging to tree for 3 days. Those are miracles and there are probably many more.

I agree. However, lunatic was the closest option, so that's what I voted. How like a christian, to only give options that either agree or are hostile, without any middle ground.

You're not a christian!? You anti-american commie terrorist!

No, thats what other ppl think how we think. Just like how (probably many) Christians think that all atheists think that everything that scientists must be true unless it's from a provable religious source like the Bible.

didn't have to confess sins to a priest or go through other things to get to heaven

Ermmmm ... they had (and still believe they have) to go through Jesus ... so they did (and do) have to go through something (a soft fleshy something) to obtain Paradise.

But, then, the first commandment never seems to concern Christians much.

Where does the Bible contradict itself anyways? I havent read any place yet.

ahem.... a few bible contradictions (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-biblecontradictions.shtml)

Ermmmm ... they had (and still believe they have) to go through Jesus ... so they did (and do) have to go through something (a soft fleshy something) to obtain Paradise.

But, then, the first commandment never seems to concern Christians much.

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul" is the 1st commandment. That Christians do.

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul" is the 1st commandment. That Christians do.

Those are Jesus's words, not God's. God gave the commandments to Moses. Jesus rearranging them proves him to be a human and fallible and a sinner and, thus, not worthy of worship.

However, working with that, I guarantee you that you cannot love God with all your heart and soul if you believe you need a mediator to get to Him. Abraham, the most beloved of God, needed no mediator. He spoke to God directly.

Consider you the lillies in the field ...

ahem.... a few bible contradictions (http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/ash-biblecontradictions.shtml)

Firstly, Joseph isn't really Jesus's father. As a matter of fact, Joseph was worried when Mary was pregnant b/c he didn't know whose baby it was until an angle told him. Secondly, the evening and the morning were considered the actual days (so from like after 1 pm to 11 or so am was one day). All that that means is that he had a system already started for when the sun is to come. Bondmen, servants, they were all paid. Slaves are taken by force and given no pay. Also those verses which that site has provided only give single verses, not entire chapters which would make life much easier to understand since cercumstances or places change throughout chapterfs.

Those are Jesus's words, not God's. God gave the commandments to Moses. Jesus rearranging them proves him to be a human and fallible and a sinner and, thus, not worthy of worship.

However, working with that, I guarantee you that you cannot love God with all your heart and soul if you believe you need a mediator to get to Him. Abraham, the most beloved of God, needed no mediator. He spoke to God directly.

Consider you the lillies in the field ...

I do not beleive I need a mediator to talk to him. I need someone however to be able to take the punishment of my sins to go to heaven. Jesus didn't rearange the words of the Commandment. As a matter of fact he reemphasises the first and most important one. If Jesus was a sinner then how do you explain his impossible by nature birth.

I need someone however to be able to take the punishment of my sins to go to heaven.

No you don't.

Jesus didn't rearange the words of the Commandment. If Jesus was a sinner then how do you explain his impossible by nature birth.

With God, all things are possible. All of God's prophets are marked by miraculous births/lives. Jesus is no exception. He was, however, just a man and, thus, not worthy of worship.

No you don't.



With God, all things are possible. All of God's prophets are marked by miraculous births/lives. Jesus is no exception. He was, however, just a man and, thus, not worthy of worship.

Jesus was born from a vrigin which is by all means impossible (except by God). Since the wages of sin is death both physically and spiritually by going to Hell then yes I need someone to take my punishment. Before Christ it was a lamb for each person. For each sin actually. Aslo, Jesus fullfilled every prophesy. Oh ya, and since he completed all the prophesies then he is the Son of God and therefore worthy of praise b/c he was the ultimate sacrifice.

<snip> If Jesus was a sinner then how do you explain his impossible by nature birth.
Don't dare take this wrong Tecker, I am a believer in Christ and I believe he is the Son of God... but your last statement, is a sad, pathetic argument that can be easily shoved aside... if you're going to argue a point, do your homework, and think before you speak.

Jame

Don't dare take this wrong Tecker, I am a believer in Christ and I believe he is the Son of God... but your last statement, is a sad, pathetic argument that can be easily shoved aside... if you're going to argue a point, do your homework, and think before you speak.

Jame

I know my stuff. But still help is appreciated.

Aslo, Jesus fullfilled every prophesy.

Actually, Jesus didn't. He fulfilled many, but not all. Hell, I fulfill a few of them myself - some of them are pretty general.

If I can name one Messianic prophesy that Jesus did not fulfill, will you concede that Jesus is not the Messiah and not the Son of God? (Be warned ... I can name 10 off the top of my head)

Actually, Jesus didn't. He fulfilled many, but not all. Hell, I fulfill a few of them myself - some of them are pretty general.

If I can name one Messianic prophesy that Jesus did not fulfill, will you concede that Jesus is not the Messiah and not the Son of God? (Be warned ... I can name 10 off the top of my head)

You can name and I can say this about a number of them. They are to come with the second coming. There are two comings. First one is where he dies. Second one is where he comes to rule.

And no. At this point I'd rather die with my belief.

And oh ya, what prophesies have you fullfilled?

Someone else carry this converstaion on plz cause I g2g.

You can name and I can say this about a number of them. They are to come with the second coming. There are two comings. First one is where he dies. Second one is where he comes to rule.

Well, that argument is flawed. The Messiah isn't supposed to die and return. The Messianic prophecies will be fulfilled by the Messiah in a single lifetime.

If Jesus requires a return, then Jesus is not the Messiah.

Jesus was not the son of God and never thought of himself as the son of God. This has been invented by early Christians to increase the influence of their religion. As a Communist I do think that Jesus had some good ideas although I don't agree with them being turned into a religion.

nothing in the bible has been disproven, but many parts have been proven time and time again
prove god exists.you cannot,therefore the bible has no basis on physical truth.if your god exists he doesnt want to be proven anyways(he wants faith remember?) so he wont be.

japanese archaelogists have found a dinosaur inside the stomach of some sort of mammal yesterday, proving that mammals existed in the time of dinosaurs, a theory that has been thrown out by scientists.
we always knew mammels existed at the same time,what we didnt know is how large they were.scientists are HAPPY about this,it gives them a clearer picture of the truth.

Science has been disproven so many times, how could you make that an accurate argument for creation or anything in general
you truly are a blind fool,i aplogize for the flame but lets be blunt.
science isnt intended to be like religion(no doubt it can be made into one)it is a quest for truth,no more no less.theorys can be proven or disproven SCIENCE ITSELF CANNOT.if god made the world,and it gets proven THATS SCIENCE.
to believe science in any way can be "disproven" is to prove you know nothing of science and probably dont think for yourself.

Yes there is evidence against that Jesus was from Satan. He cast out demons, "a country divided cannot stand".
Yes, but is there a source for that which is not written by His followers ?
But my point was that saying "you can't prove it's not so, so you can't say it's not true" is not correct. It should be "you can't prove it's not so, so you can't say it's not true with absolute certainty".

And where did you hear pi being 3?
"And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it about. (I Kings 7, 23) "

d = 10, pi x d = 30, therefor pi=3
There are explanations for this, some quite elegant, some less. Most assume it is a simple approximation, like we often use pi=3,14 . However, that implies that not everything the bible says is absolutely true or must be taken absolutely literally.

On the volume of Heaven - see revelations on New Jerusalem:
21:15 He who spoke with me had for a measure, a golden reed, to measure the city, its gates, and its walls.
21:16 The city lies foursquare, and its length is as great as its breadth. He measured the city with the reed, Twelve thousand twelve stadia. Its length, breadth, and height are equal.

That is enough for all souls; but quite small when compared to e.g. the moon.

or the arc not being able to carry all the animals? Noahs arc is supposed I think the size of a aircraft carrier.
There is a topic about this on this forum ;-) Noah furthermore did not have the technology to make a ship the size of an aircraftcarrier (of wood ??), nor would an aircraftcarrier be big enough. There are a lot of different types of beetles e.g. - those add up.

Also, the order makes sense.

Not according to science. Sun comes before planets, including earth. The evidence pointing to this is pretty overwhelming - especially considering multiple independant methods lead to this conclusion. Get a basic book on stellar evolution for more information. Fruit bearing trees also tend to really need sunlight to grow and animals to spread the seeds. They can live without for a while (every night e.g.) - but sun must be there every once in a while. Unless you of course assume the current trees evolved from a different type of tree ;-)

But as I said: G-d does not have to play by the rules.

Where does the Bible contradict itself anyways? I havent read any place yet.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/contra.htm - have fun ;-) Most of these appear often on this forum. Some are easily waved away, some not. If you don't take the Bible literally there are few problems.

The letters of Paul, Timothy and John seem to be proof. Anyways there isnt proof that he didn't exist so you can't say he didn't.
those aren't proof. paul's letters were written long after the events in question are supposed to have happened. hell, paul came along long after jesus is supposed to have died. and none of the bible is really proof of the existence of jesus either, for the same reasons.

and given the roman censuses, if jesus had existed, he would have been included in with them. as he had been executed, there would be records of that. and given the fact that nazareth didn't exist for some time after he supposedly died, it is impossible for a jesus of nazareth to have existed at the given time.

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...

Why didn't the poll include an option along the lines of :

"A very intelligent and wise philosoph, pacifist and sociologist way ahead of his time" or something like that?

Just because I'm not convinced he's the son of god doesn't mean I don't respect the guy or his ideals.

Why didn't the poll include an option along the lines of :

"A very intelligent and wise philosoph, pacifist and sociologist way ahead of his time" or something like that?

Just because I'm not convinced he's the son of god doesn't mean I don't respect the guy or his ideals.
i believe then you pick liar or crazy dumbass then

i believe then you pick liar or crazy dumbass then

Actually I didn't answer the poll, because I neither believe he was a liar nor a crazy dumbass.

At least, definately not crazy, and to be a liar I would have to be sure this "Son of God" thing came from him and not his disciples.

But they still beleive that you have to confess your sins to a priest who tells God. I've heard to that the Catholic Church tends to actually incorporate pagan believes into their's to get more Catholics. Also, they beleive in purgatory and that there is much more that you have to do to go to heaven. When Jesus himself said "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes unto the Father but by me." Note: the way, not part ofthe way or one of the ways, THE way.

Then if Catholics believe in Jesus and follow him as the way, how are they not Christians as well? The additional bits like purgatory don't change the essential belief in Christ, they're just different in the details. And the priest doesn't tell God, you tell God...the priest just is there for added humility factor, and to channel God's forgiveness (or that's what Catholics are told, anyway...I used to be one.) When Jesus says he is the way, he doesn't mean "Believe in me and you get to heaven even if you act like a big jerk", so sin and forgiveness still come into it. People like Fred Phelps are nominally Christian in that they supposedly believe in Christ, but what kind of God would let him into heaven, with all the hatred and bigotry and pure evil that man has spread?

God does not tell you to reject others for their beliefs in fact both Christianity and Islam teach tollerance of others.

What bible or Quran are you reading?

1 John
2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
5:19
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

And that's only from one book, shall I go through the entire bible and point out every time it tells believers to shun non-believers? It'll be a long list, but I can certainly do 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.
Every time a theist says that, it just displays biggotry and a nervous weakness about their faith that they have to pre-emptively defend.

What bible or Quran are you reading?

1 John
2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
4:2
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
5:19
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

And that's only from one book, shall I go through the entire bible and point out every time it tells believers to shun non-believers? It'll be a long list, but I can certainly do it.



Umm because its from the book of John, the writings of one very militant man, who was trying to incite anti-roman/anti-judean views well after the fact.
The Quraan, which does not contain the book of John, does say that any religion that accepts the Old Testament is free from presecution, but thats it. Jesus (in the Aprocryphial writings, blame the church for leaving it out) actually tells you to be tolerant of others. The commandments tell you to love your neighbor, but doesn't say, only if they are christian. The second Vatican Council decreed that Heaven can be reached by any goodly(not a mispelling) religion.

Jesus certainly did exist. I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but written by mortals with some corruption. However, in the books of Isiah and Jeremiah in the OT there are many prophecies predicting the rise of Jesus. The fact that all these prophecies were fulfilled is in itself enough to prove the legitmacy of Jesus.

Also, if you accept the story of the Gospel, than as the poll goes, Jesus must either have been who He said He was, a liar, or a lunatic, for reasons explained earlier in the post.

But, if you are unwilling to accept the story as its told, then ALL of His disciples must have been liars AND lunatics. Why would they have risked their lives for a cause they knew was untrue? If Jesus didn't ressurect like the Gospels say He did, then the religion would have died with Jesus. It wasn't until the Resurection of Christ that the religion was validated in the first place. The idea that so many people would be so willing to face such persecution and execution for a fallacy is absurd. And that for me is enough proof. As for anything else that is unprovable, faith alone should be suffeceint for belief.

But I think we are all missing the point in arguing about this. Whether or not Jesus is the Son of God should not affect whether or not we should follow His teachings. He taught peace, compassion, humility, acceptance, and love. Anyone who is a true believer in Christ should not condescend to an athiest or Muslim. It is not our job to judge our fellow humans, becuase it is God who is the judge. Man was created to Love, not to fight.

He taught peace, compassion, humility, acceptance, and love. Anyone who is a true believer in Christ should not condescend to an athiest or Muslim. It is not our job to judge our fellow humans, becuase it is God who is the judge. Man was created to Love, not to fight.

Thankyou.

For me, I believe Jesus existed and did preach goodness.

However, the Bible has twisted Jesus into something else entirely. The Old Testament is pure evil, and the New Testament is a slightly more subtle version of it.

Umm because its from the book of John, the writings of one very militant man, who was trying to incite anti-roman/anti-judean views well after the fact.
The Quraan, which does not contain the book of John, does say that any religion that accepts the Old Testament is free from presecution, but thats it. Jesus (in the Aprocryphial writings, blame the church for leaving it out) actually tells you to be tolerant of others. The commandments tell you to love your neighbor, but doesn't say, only if they are christian. The second Vatican Council decreed that Heaven can be reached by any goodly(not a mispelling) religion.

1. The entire bible is pretty militant.

2. Of course the Quran does not contain the book of John, but it does not teach to not persecute the followers of Abraham, otherwise the arabs wouldn't be trying to extreminate the jews, they'd be brothers.

3. Love thy neighbor was something Jesus said, not a commandment.

4. If you accept what the pope says, then you have to accept evolution as true, because the second Vatican Council decreed evolution to be "an undeniable fact due to the overwhelming amount of supporting evidence."

5. They're wrong, they just said that to be more PC. The bible clearly says that one is not saved by works, but by faith.

But, if you are unwilling to accept the story as its told, then ALL of His disciples must have been liars AND lunatics.

Why do you say that? None of the gospels were written by the disciples, therefore it is completely possible that his disciples didn't exist either. It is also possible that they existed and Jesus didn't. That would make them liars or lunatics.

Man was created to Love, not to fight.

They why all the nasty wars, genocides and other nasty thing that happen in the bible with god's approval and much of it at god's hand?

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

Matthew 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

I do generally agree with what you're saying, but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and point out that being an atheist requires a leap of faith similiar to what is needed to believe in any given religion. There's no proof that god/s (Christian or otherwise) exist, but it's even harder to prove a lack of something, and science certainly ain't there yet. Belief that there's nothing is still belief, is what I'm getting at.

(this is differentiating what's often called hard atheism from simply not being religious)

You have a flawed understanding of atheism. Atheism is NOT a positive position, in that atheists do not make any assertions. Atheists simply say they do not believe there is a god, but do not say there is no god. There is something called a "positive atheist", because they make the positive claim that there is no god. However, positive atheists are a minority, I would venture to say that 90% of atheists do not make any claims.

The atheists position is simply this, the atheist does not have any religious beliefs. That's it. An absence of belief is not the same as a belief of absence.

The Bible is not the only source of proof for the faithful: you people are completely ignoring prayer! What about that?
What is prayer supposed to be proof of?