NationStates Jolt Archive

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"


Tolerance and love? Love yes. Tolerance no. Jesus was very clear. He had NO tolerance for sin. No tolerance for religions that set themselves up against the TRUE Word of God. NONE whatsoever.

He taught that we should love sinners. He died on the cross for them. He loves them. But he HATES their sins. He was never tolerant of their sin. But instead he embraced them and let them know there was another way.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.


What about the tears he weeps for the babies daily murdered in those abortion clinics? What about the tears that resulted because we idly sat by and allowed an evil dictator to TORTURE his people.


Pat Robertson...enemy of God...great...


What he would be crying about is the fact so many people decided to do things their own way. That so many people refused to read his word and take him seriously. That so many people hold the Bible in their hands and scoff at what he says simply because it doesn't fit with what THEY THINK the world should be like. He sees a creation dying in despair completetly relying on themselves to exist and overcome...when they should really be turning to him.

[QUOTE=Daletha]Tolerance and love? Love yes. Tolerance no. Jesus was very clear. He had NO tolerance for sin. No tolerance for religions that set themselves up against the TRUE Word of God. NONE whatsoever.

He taught that we should love sinners. He died on the cross for them. He loves them. But he HATES their sins. He was never tolerant of their sin. But instead he embraced them and let them know there was another way.
QUOTE]

Well said. :)

True. Jesus wanted sinners to change. To except god. Tolerance for sinners but not for their sins. Sins 2000 years ago can't have been that different from 2005's sins, could they?

True. Jesus wanted sinners to change. To except god. Tolerance for sinners but not for their sins. Sins 2000 years ago can't have been that different from 2005's sins, could they?


Not if you ask Solomon any way ;)

So Jesus is a massive conspiracy by Jews to weed out the weak of faith and those with an inability to read? And the conspirators put intentional clues to prevent those strong in their faith from falling in the trap? WOW. I'm gonna have to reply with aliens stole Elvis' body and they've cloned an army of Elvis' poised to invade the Earth. My evidence is people keep seeing Elvis. My further evidence is that people keep denying this is true.

I'm not saying they were mainstream or Fundamentalist Jews. I certainly wouldn't say they were Pharisees or Sadducees, for example. In fact, they were obviously very much in conflict with those groups. It is difficult for me to imagine, though, that they were as ignorant of scripture as they would appear to be on the surface - so that leaves me with the hypothesis that their deception was intentional. That sort of thing happens with cults all the time in today's world - so why not then?

What I'm saying is that the Word, in writing, and the Word in the flesh, based on John 1 are almost synonymous.

Sin has had a negative effect on all of creation. Granted animals don't have the same moral capacity to commit sin as we do, but they die now, which they wouldn't have had sin not entered the world. They suffer disease now, which they wouldn't have if sin had not entered the world. They are violent and agressive toward humans and other animals, which they would not have been had sin not entered the world.

The plant world also suffers death and disease which it didn't prior to sin. The planet itself, with its turbulent weather, earthquakes, volcanos, landslides etc. also suffers under the weight of sin. I'm not suggesting that these things actively commit sin, but they have suffered the results of our sin and been degraded by our sin.

Well, I read those things differently, but either way, I think those things are a testimony to God. They may pay the price for our sin, but so did Jesus, that didn't make him any less pure. Every plant, animal, rock and cloud is a testimony of the Lord and Jesus Christ in my mind. To suggest that the revelation that is all of the world and its gifts is any less a testimony than it once was due to our sin is to suggest that everything that has EVER paid wages for our sin is rendered less pure by it. Certainly, you are not saying that.

Tolerance and love? Love yes. Tolerance no. Jesus was very clear. He had NO tolerance for sin. No tolerance for religions that set themselves up against the TRUE Word of God. NONE whatsoever.

He taught that we should love sinners. He died on the cross for them. He loves them. But he HATES their sins. He was never tolerant of their sin. But instead he embraced them and let them know there was another way.




What about the tears he weeps for the babies daily murdered in those abortion clinics? What about the tears that resulted because we idly sat by and allowed an evil dictator to TORTURE his people.


Pat Robertson...enemy of God...great...


What he would be crying about is the fact so many people decided to do things their own way. That so many people refused to read his word and take him seriously. That so many people hold the Bible in their hands and scoff at what he says simply because it doesn't fit with what THEY THINK the world should be like. He sees a creation dying in despair completetly relying on themselves to exist and overcome...when they should really be turning to him.

It's simply not true. Jesus was chastised for being tolerant. He was chastised for breaking bread with taxcollectors and whores. During the time he broke bread with them there is no evidence he was calling them sick or twisted. He was preaching to them that they discard those sins, but it's certainly not the same as killing them or denying them rights. Jesus would not support the methods of Christians who try to use the law to force morality on people.

However, he also taught that we are ALL sinners and we ALL sin. He made it clear that we are not to judge others for their sin unless we wish to be judged for our own (which we won't be if we accept the savior). He made it clear that we were not to use the law to punish sin when he stepped to prevent the law from punishing a prostitue (let he who is without sin cast the first stone). The sin is between the sinner and the Lord. You are not the Judge or jury, there is only one judge. You are not the punisher of men, there is only one punisher. Quite simply most Christians are completely overstepping their bounds when they try to force Christianity on people rather than simply praising it by following in the path of Jesus Christ and offering guidance to those we can reach.

I'm not saying they were mainstream or Fundamentalist Jews. I certainly wouldn't say they were Pharisees or Sadducees, for example. In fact, they were obviously very much in conflict with those groups. It is difficult for me to imagine, though, that they were as ignorant of scripture as they would appear to be on the surface - so that leaves me with the hypothesis that their deception was intentional. That sort of thing happens with cults all the time in today's world - so why not then?

Generally, it's more scientific to analyze evidence and create a theory, not to create a theory and only accept evidence that fits that theory. More importantly, you've chosen a theory that can be explained in other ways.

Or you could be right. And, of course, it's possible we'll eventually find Nicole Brown Simpson's real killer and OJ will be exonerated, so long as you believe in massive conspiracy that if exposed would be the breakthrough of the the millenia and yet, no one seems to be willing to come forward and expose it. It's not your fault though. It's probably the aliens that have brainwashed everyone involved.

Well, I read those things differently, but either way, I think those things are a testimony to God. They may pay the price for our sin, but so did Jesus, that didn't make him any less pure. Every plant, animal, rock and cloud is a testimony of the Lord and Jesus Christ in my mind. To suggest that the revelation that is all of the world and its gifts is any less a testimony than it once was due to our sin is to suggest that everything that has EVER paid wages for our sin is rendered less pure by it. Certainly, you are not saying that.


The difference is that the degradation that has happenend to the world is the result of sin. What happened with Christ was that He took our place and suffered the lawful penalty for sin on our behalf. He was untainted by the process, where as the world will continue to be tainted until the earth is remade by its Creator and restored to the splendor it once had.

That isn't to say we can't still see the fingerprints of God in Creation, just that they aren't as clear as they once were.

It's simply not true. Jesus was chastised for being tolerant. He was chastised for breaking bread with taxcollectors and whores. During the time he broke bread with them there is no evidence he was calling them sick or twisted. He was preaching to them that they discard those sins, but it's certainly not the same as killing them or denying them rights. Jesus would not support the methods of Christians who try to use the law to force morality on people.

However, he also taught that we are ALL sinners and we ALL sin. He made it clear that we are not to judge others for their sin unless we wish to be judged for our own (which we won't be if we accept the savior). He made it clear that we were not to use the law to punish sin when he stepped to prevent the law from punishing a prostitue (let he who is without sin cast the first stone). The sin is between the sinner and the Lord. You are not the Judge or jury, there is only one judge. You are not the punisher of men, there is only one punisher. Quite simply most Christians are completely overstepping their bounds when they try to force Christianity on people rather than simply praising it by following in the path of Jesus Christ and offering guidance to those we can reach.

He was tolerant of things that weren't sin but that the Pharisees on the basis of tradition had equated with sin. There's a difference. He was willing to forgive sin, but he never condoned it. He did say that those who chose sin over His offered salvation would eventually be destroyed.

He was tolerant of things that weren't sin but that the Pharisees on the basis of tradition had equated with sin. There's a difference. He was willing to forgive sin, but he never condoned it. He did say that those who chose sin over His offered salvation would eventually be destroyed.
Really? Prostitutes? He was tolerant of the sinners. And he was willing to forgive sin. And he didn't condone it. However, how is expecting people to be treated equally since everyone is a sinner, condoning it?

The difference is that the degradation that has happenend to the world is the result of sin. What happened with Christ was that He took our place and suffered the lawful penalty for sin on our behalf. He was untainted by the process, where as the world will continue to be tainted until the earth is remade by its Creator and restored to the splendor it once had.

That isn't to say we can't still see the fingerprints of God in Creation, just that they aren't as clear as they once were.

I simply don't agree. I think they are perfectly clear. I don't agree that the world is tainted by our sin. I believe only we and our works are tainted. They are the only subject to being soiled by our sin. What happened to the world was a result of our sin. What happend to Christ was a result of our sin. Christ came in the flesh, was degraded to be born in the flesh and died for our sins, all was a result of our sins. Events that are a chain reaction coming from our sins does not make them tainted. The result is unfortunate but they are still the things made by God.

However, he also taught that we are ALL sinners and we ALL sin. He made it clear that we are not to judge others for their sin unless we wish to be judged for our own (which we won't be if we accept the savior).

So that's how the Fundies justify hatred and judgementalism. Pretty clever of them, isn't it? Circumvent the Lord's words by claiming they don't apply to you.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"


I think he will be crying with laughter at the fact that so many people beleived him ( even though they don't know him ) about his dad being the creator of everything. LoL It still makes me laugh

So that's how the Fundies justify hatred and judgementalism. Pretty clever of them, isn't it? Circumvent the Lord's words by claiming they don't apply to you.

See that's the misinterpretation. It says plainly that are not supposed to behave that way.

Bluestrips2']I think he will be crying with laughter at the fact that so many people beleived him ( even though they don't know him ) about his dad being the creator of everything. LoL It still makes me laugh

And yet, it hasn't stopped you from being bitter. Laughter usually makes me happy. Strange how it's had the opposite effect on you.

Generally, it's more scientific to analyze evidence and create a theory, not to create a theory and only accept evidence that fits that theory. More importantly, you've chosen a theory that can be explained in other ways.

Or you could be right. And, of course, it's possible we'll eventually find Nicole Brown Simpson's real killer and OJ will be exonerated, so long as you believe in massive conspiracy that if exposed would be the breakthrough of the the millenia and yet, no one seems to be willing to come forward and expose it. It's not your fault though. It's probably the aliens that have brainwashed everyone involved.

On the other hand, you could be right. Jesus may actually have been God incarnate, born of a virgin, and sired by God himself (who was apparently only kidding when he said that God was not a man or the son of man and that there never had been nor would there ever be another savior beside him). Perhaps Jesus really did walk on water and raise the dead. I'm apparently one of the few those pesky aliens got to and brainwashed into disbelieving such an obvious truth (along with all the historians of Jesus's day who failed to record his astonishing feats, of course).

And yet, it hasn't stopped you from being bitter. Laughter usually makes me happy. Strange how it's had the opposite effect on you.


Bitter ? Please point out where ?? ( it seems by YOUR response you are indeed the bitter one, because you can't understand how I could laugh at the biggest joke ever created )

Opposite effect - Because I don't beleive in fairy tales and it makes me laugh how some people do ?

He will be laughing at all the sad cases who beleive his 2000 year old story about his family owning the world..

Best joke ever.

Oh did I forget to mention he was a CRIMINAL yes he was punished for his crimes accordingly and yet people still beleive his dad made us all. LoLoLoLoL :D

I would contend that it is not flaw in terms of content. There may be gramatical errors, but its content has clearly and miraculous been preserved. Aggrement between modern translations and the Qumaran Scrolls is too close to indicate much of anything else. Yes, some of the texture and subtlety is lost, which is why original language study still has theological value.

He never taught against relying on scripture. He did teach against relying on the traditions of the Pharisees, but that is a different baby.

I understand that my statement about the Map, is a two edged sword. The thing is, the more I study the Bible and about the Bible the more I am convinced of its validity and see the truth about God, Salvation and the universe unfold in a clear, logical and perfectly balanced manner.

First: the translations we always see for Qumran texts, are still influenced by all the other earlier tranlations. Thus, the same errors are still being perpetuated, in order that Qumran texts should be translated to match 'canonical' interpretations.

Thus, there is no surprise that there is 'agreement'. It's more a simple matter that the non-canonical translations get just shouted down during the translation process, I suspect, in favour of 'received' versions.


Second: You might think that the content has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved... I see it differently. Most people today lack any of the necessary knowledge to understand half of the meanings of what they read - and thus rely completely on OTHER PEOPLE's versions of what scripture means.

One has only to look at Shakespeare for a slightly more contemporary text which seems to be misunderstood almost universally. People THINK they know what they are reading (the famous 'wherefore art thou' phrasing springs instantly to mind), but, in fact, for most people, the content has been lost... despite the fact that those same people might THINK it has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved.


Third: Scripture should support your faith. You shouldn't conform your faith to the scripture. Any time you temper your 'feeling' about Christ, by something that exists in scripture, you are commiting the sin of idolatry.


Fourth: Reading the native tongues has theological value. I contend that reading translations has NO value. All you can do with a translation, is consider it a commentary on the original scripture... in my opinion.


Fifth: We are at the same point we have been before. Everything you see, you use to reinforce your belief. Everything I see serves to support the opposite perspective.

Bluestrips2']Bitter ? Please point out where ?? ( it seems by YOUR response you are indeed the bitter one, because you can't understand how I could laugh at the biggest joke ever created )

Opposite effect - Because I don't beleive in fairy tales and it makes me laugh how some people do ?

He will be laughing at all the sad cases who beleive his 2000 year old story about his family owning the world..

Best joke ever.

Oh did I forget to mention he was a CRIMINAL yes he was punished for his crimes accordingly and yet people still beleive his dad made us all. LoLoLoLoL :D

Yep, nothing bitter about that. I know I dance on the graves of executed political prisoners. How would anyone consider that bitter?

First: the translations we always see for Qumran texts, are still influenced by all the other earlier tranlations. Thus, the same errors are still being perpetuated, in order that Qumran texts should be translated to match 'canonical' interpretations.

Thus, there is no surprise that there is 'agreement'. It's more a simple matter that the non-canonical translations get just shouted down during the translation process, I suspect, in favour of 'received' versions.


Second: You might think that the content has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved... I see it differently. Most people today lack any of the necessary knowledge to understand half of the meanings of what they read - and thus rely completely on OTHER PEOPLE's versions of what scripture means.

One has only to look at Shakespeare for a slightly more contemporary text which seems to be misunderstood almost universally. People THINK they know what they are reading (the famous 'wherefore art thou' phrasing springs instantly to mind), but, in fact, for most people, the content has been lost... despite the fact that those same people might THINK it has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved.


Third: Scripture should support your faith. You shouldn't conform your faith to the scripture. Any time you temper your 'feeling' about Christ, by something that exists in scripture, you are commiting the sin of idolatry.


Fourth: Reading the native tongues has theological value. I contend that reading translations has NO value. All you can do with a translation, is consider it a commentary on the original scripture... in my opinion.


Fifth: We are at the same point we have been before. Everything you see, you use to reinforce your belief. Everything I see serves to support the opposite perspective.
Some might see me as critical of those that disagree with my faith. I suppose I am, but I'm always willing to listen to intelligent debate. I have to comment that your points are reasonable and thoughtful. Typically, critiques of Christianity manage to show little other than the bitterness of the critic (just look a couple posts up). Your critique comes off as bitter as a debate on quantum physics.

I particularly agree with you about Shakespeare or even more recently Mark Twain. I simply don't see how people could believe that the average person or even the average spiritual leader could understand the language as it was intended to be read when it was written 2000 years or more ago(depending on which text).

One of the things that makes me particularly suspicious is the rejection of the Gospel of Thomas.

Bluestrips2']Oh did I forget to mention he was a CRIMINAL yes he was punished for his crimes accordingly and yet people still beleive his dad made us all. LoLoLoLoL :D Not bitter as such… comes across more as insane, especially with the shrieking giggles.

He wasn't punished for his crimes, he was punished to prevent a riot. Get facts, sah.

Not bitter as such… comes across more as insane, especially with the shrieking giggles.

He wasn't punished for his crimes, he was punished to prevent a riot. Get facts, sah.


LOL You don't know that and can never proove it ( bible is old and crap not real proof). geez FACTS need proof.

Insane - what for ?

Not beleiving the old dickhead's story about his dad making everything. He was a LIAR can't you see ?

LoL

My dad made everything and he was god - this has more value to it as you know me, you don't know the guy (jesus) and you beleive him through a book which was written BEFORE medi-evil times ?

It's very sad to look past FACTS because of your own personal weakness and I'd call it sellfish to think about yourself so much worrying about what will happen to you when we DIE, its not scary without him - he was a criminal and punished just some people made a book about it for what ever reason and yes Im laughing every day more and more at the IDIOTS who beleive this story its brilliant :D

Yeah my laughing deters the point - what ever TREVOR !!

Awww poor little brains don't know the real FACTS, don't worry mate beleive what you want, its brilliant !!

Bluestrips2']LOL You don't know that and can never proove it ( bible is old and crap not real proof). geez FACTS need proof.

Insane - what for ?

Not beleiving the old dickhead's story about his dad making everything. He was a LIAR can't you see ?

LoL

My dad made everything and he was god - this has more value to it as you know me, you don't know the guy (jesus) and you beleive him through a book which was written BEFORE medi-evil times ?

It's very sad to look past FACTS because of your own personal weakness and I'd call it sellfish to think about yourself so much worrying about what will happen to you when we DIE, its not scary without him - he was a criminal and punished just some people made a book about it for what ever reason and yes Im laughing every day more and more at the IDIOTS who beleive this story its brilliant :D

Yeah my laughing deters the point - what ever TREVOR !!

Awww poor little brains don't know the real FACTS, don't worry mate beleive what you want, its brilliant !!
I can't believe I suggested you were bitter. This post is clearly not bitter or unreasonable. Certainly, you didn't introduce information about Jesus Christ being deservedly executed for his crimes and then when someone corrected you as to the nature of those 'crimes' suggest that no one can know for sure why he was executed. No, of course you didn't do that, because that would be unreasonable since you suggested you know why he was executed. I'm sure am glad I've seen the light regarding your posts. Thanks for leading me to the truth with your careful and educated posts.

Really? Prostitutes? He was tolerant of the sinners. And he was willing to forgive sin. And he didn't condone it. However, how is expecting people to be treated equally since everyone is a sinner, condoning it?

But what did He say to the prostitute? "Go your way and sin no more." He expected, intended for the behavior to stop. He didn't do anything that would in anyway encourage that behavior. Yes, we are certainly called to love sinners as Christ did, but we are also not to condone or accept sin, also as Christ led by example in doing. It's a fine line, or "narrow road" if you will, to walk, but an important one none the less.

I simply don't agree. I think they are perfectly clear. I don't agree that the world is tainted by our sin. I believe only we and our works are tainted. They are the only subject to being soiled by our sin. What happened to the world was a result of our sin. What happend to Christ was a result of our sin. Christ came in the flesh, was degraded to be born in the flesh and died for our sins, all was a result of our sins. Events that are a chain reaction coming from our sins does not make them tainted. The result is unfortunate but they are still the things made by God.

Not surprising. IMO that's why the Bible is so important. Rather than each of us going on about what our opinion is that each of us considers to be correct and in line with our view of God, Christ and the world, it provides a higher authority. Without it, we are left to be blind leaders of the blind, teaching men to follow things that are contrary to the law and the prophets, something Jesus warned very strongly against.

First: the translations we always see for Qumran texts, are still influenced by all the other earlier tranlations. Thus, the same errors are still being perpetuated, in order that Qumran texts should be translated to match 'canonical' interpretations.

Thus, there is no surprise that there is 'agreement'. It's more a simple matter that the non-canonical translations get just shouted down during the translation process, I suspect, in favour of 'received' versions.


Second: You might think that the content has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved... I see it differently. Most people today lack any of the necessary knowledge to understand half of the meanings of what they read - and thus rely completely on OTHER PEOPLE's versions of what scripture means.

One has only to look at Shakespeare for a slightly more contemporary text which seems to be misunderstood almost universally. People THINK they know what they are reading (the famous 'wherefore art thou' phrasing springs instantly to mind), but, in fact, for most people, the content has been lost... despite the fact that those same people might THINK it has been 'clearly' and 'miraculously' preserved.


Third: Scripture should support your faith. You shouldn't conform your faith to the scripture. Any time you temper your 'feeling' about Christ, by something that exists in scripture, you are commiting the sin of idolatry.


Fourth: Reading the native tongues has theological value. I contend that reading translations has NO value. All you can do with a translation, is consider it a commentary on the original scripture... in my opinion.


Fifth: We are at the same point we have been before. Everything you see, you use to reinforce your belief. Everything I see serves to support the opposite perspective.

You're fifth point is noted and agreed. For the most part I'd rather not rehash old arguments with you, but I at least have to respond to the third point you made.

My issue with trusting myself over trusting the scriptures is that I make me, my thoughts, my ideas, my feelings the idol, which was Lucifer's first sin. It was his first temptation to Eve. The scripture is far more trustworthy than me and, since it is God's revelation to humanity of who He is and who He desires us to be, His Children, joint heirs with Christ, it isn't idolatry to hold its teachings as superior to my random thoughts and feelings. Is that making sense? You don't have to agree mind you, just wanted to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

Not surprising. IMO that's why the Bible is so important. Rather than each of us going on about what our opinion is that each of us considers to be correct and in line with our view of God, Christ and the world, it provides a higher authority. Without it, we are left to be blind leaders of the blind, teaching men to follow things that are contrary to the law and the prophets, something Jesus warned very strongly against.

So, instead, we each get to go on about what our opinion is that each of us considers to be in line with the Bible.

Whether you get your personal interpretation from God directly, or from the guidance of God through the Bible, it is still a personal and opinionated interpretation. Others will and always have interpreted it differently.

I recognize that you wish for something absolutely objective - but human beings are fallible, and thus we will disagree on the exact details of things. We will disagree on interpreation, even when we ask for guidance in getting to it, as we are all fallible beings.

So, instead, we each get to go on about what our opinion is that each of us considers to be in line with the Bible.

Whether you get your personal interpretation from God directly, or from the guidance of God through the Bible, it is still a personal and opinionated interpretation. Others will and always have interpreted it differently.

I recognize that you wish for something absolutely objective - but human beings are fallible, and thus we will disagree on the exact details of things. We will disagree on interpreation, even when we ask for guidance in getting to it, as we are all fallible beings.

This is true, but at least if we're both looking at the elephant and each discribing different parts, we'll eventually run into each other. Without a common source, you might be looking at an elephant and me a pig and never the twain shall meet.

This is true, but at least if we're both looking at the elephant and each discribing different parts, we'll eventually run into each other. Without a common source, you might be looking at an elephant and me a pig and never the twain shall meet.

And that common source can't be the guidance of God?

But what did He say to the prostitute? "Go your way and sin no more." He expected, intended for the behavior to stop. He didn't do anything that would in anyway encourage that behavior. Yes, we are certainly called to love sinners as Christ did, but we are also not to condone or accept sin, also as Christ led by example in doing. It's a fine line, or "narrow road" if you will, to walk, but an important one none the less.

It's not condoning or accepting to not outlaw it is really the point. Yes, he expected and intended for the behavior to stop. He could expect that, he wasn't a sinner. You can't. You're not just a sinner, but you still sin. You've likely sinned today.

I don't walk around damning things and using the word God as a swear word or exclamation, but I don't believe making a law against it was the point. In fact, I think it's preferred for their to be a law that permits freedom of religion and speech. I think were Jesus Christ here, he would support the first amendment (of course, I understand that this is just my opinion). However, you could argue that the first amendment encourages people to hold another God before the Christian God, now couldn't you? See the rather clear distinction? More importantly, does the first amendment condone devilworshipping or Naziism simply because it allows it?

Not surprising. IMO that's why the Bible is so important. Rather than each of us going on about what our opinion is that each of us considers to be correct and in line with our view of God, Christ and the world, it provides a higher authority. Without it, we are left to be blind leaders of the blind, teaching men to follow things that are contrary to the law and the prophets, something Jesus warned very strongly against.

Which is quite simply why I'm not lead by you or any other being walking the face of the earth. We're all working on opinions, estimations, translations, guesses at what is the right thing to do. And I think we generally get the big things right and we do our best with the smaller stuff. And that's all we can do. If all of us our blind what good is handing us a book? That's the point. Our human thoughts and feelings are filters of our faith and of what we find in the Bible. Neither is pure or untainted. I hold that God, in fact, accepts this failing and this is quite simply the reason Jesus was necessary.

And that common source can't be the guidance of God?

Exactly. I hold that faith is that common source and that faith is the elephant we're all examining.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"
AMEN!!!

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

I have one thing to say, your totally right. However, under most circumstances, the events or groups you meantioned wouldn't have happened with such extremity with an outside source i.e. the devil. Jesus probably would be crying, if all was lost but it isn't, because of the fact that the truth is still here and that we are still cabapble of finding it and using it properly.

But, unfortunately, we (as Christians) are usually too mild or middle ground now a days to challenge things. Some of you may know what I'm talking about, others not, so for the benefit of all, I'm talking about the Lycomidians (the last church meantion in Revelation). I'm serious with this because of the fact that this church is described almost exactly as what's happening. Not standing up for what is right when we need to. The seven churchs in revelation have been refered to the seven ages of the church and it makes sense. Look throught the history of "Christianity" and you will see some surprising similarities.

Nonetheless though, some extremes are required, most aren't.

I can't believe I suggested you were bitter. This post is clearly not bitter or unreasonable. Certainly, you didn't introduce information about Jesus Christ being deservedly executed for his crimes and then when someone corrected you as to the nature of those 'crimes' suggest that no one can know for sure why he was executed. No, of course you didn't do that, because that would be unreasonable since you suggested you know why he was executed. I'm sure am glad I've seen the light regarding your posts. Thanks for leading me to the truth with your careful and educated posts.


LOL stop lying so plainly in front of us all - I didn't say anything like I know why he was executed simply that he was a criminal ??

It's funny how people try and defend what they are really scared of DEATH - get a grip mate - I have no proof you have no proof so NO ONE IS RIGHT - you get that ?

I await another LIE from you ..

Im still laguhing at the IDIOTS who beleive his dad was our creator - its pathetic and sellfish - CHRIST ON A BIKE - some people need to stop luring themselves into a trap of FEAR about what happens afterwards, Fair enough the bible has some good storys to teach us certain good ways, but as for his FATHER BEING OUR CREATOR LOL It's ubsurd..

Please ammuse me more please

YOU ARE SCARED OF THE TRUTH - USING AN OLD MAN WHO WAS PUT ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES - AND YOU USE HIS SO BELEIVABLE STORY TO COVER THIS.

You want the truth - you could never have it and would never admit it even if it was smacked of your face, NO JESUS WAS GOOD HIS DAD MADE US ALL AND THE UNIVERSE Pfffft OMG its so sad - mate I wonder what goes through your mind and it makes me laugh a LOT :D

Bluestrips2']LOL stop lying so plainly in front of us all - I didn't say anything like I know why he was executed simply that he was a criminal ??

It's funny how people try and defend what they are really scared of DEATH - get a grip mate - I have no proof you have no proof so NO ONE IS RIGHT - you get that ?

I await another LIE from you ..

Im still laguhing at the IDIOTS who beleive his dad was our creator - its pathetic and sellfish - CHRIST ON A BIKE - some people need to stop luring themselves into a trap of FEAR about what happens afterwards, Fair enough the bible has some good storys to teach us certain good ways, but as for his FATHER BEING OUR CREATOR LOL It's ubsurd..

Please ammuse me more please

YOU ARE SCARED OF THE TRUTH - USING AN OLD MAN WHO WAS PUT ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES - AND YOU USE HIS SO BELEIVABLE STORY TO COVER THIS.

You want the truth - you could never have it and would never admit it even if it was smacked of your face, NO JESUS WAS GOOD HIS DAD MADE US ALL AND THE UNIVERSE Pfffft OMG its so sad - mate I wonder what goes through your mind and it makes me laugh a LOT :D Not to make an ad hominem or anything, but the only other person whom I've heard talking like this had trouble with the concept of cause and effect. :rolleyes:

1. He wasn't a criminal. He was crucified to avoid a riot. Pilate said he committed no crime.
2. He wasn't an old man, he was 33.
3. I am not scared of the truth. I managed quite happily as an atheist for 5 years.

Bluestrips2']LOL stop lying so plainly in front of us all - I didn't say anything like I know why he was executed simply that he was a criminal ??

I didn't say you knew why. I said you said he was deservedly executed which would suggest you have something to base whether he deserved it or not on. Let's see if you said that.

Bluestrips2']Oh did I forget to mention he was a CRIMINAL yes he was punished for his crimes accordingly and yet people still beleive his dad made us all. LoLoLoLoL

Emphasis added. So which of us is being deceitful?

Bluestrips2']It's funny how people try and defend what they are really scared of DEATH - get a grip mate - I have no proof you have no proof so NO ONE IS RIGHT - you get that ?

And yet you judge us. I'm not judging you on anything other than what I've seen in your posts. That would be bitterness. You said you were happy and you make it sound like your theories are so sound, but which of us is getting upset. Not confident in your theories enough to have them contested?

Bluestrips2']I await another LIE from you ..

I'd like to see you point out the first one.

Bluestrips2']Im still laguhing at the IDIOTS who beleive his dad was our creator - its pathetic and sellfish - CHRIST ON A BIKE - some people need to stop luring themselves into a trap of FEAR about what happens afterwards, Fair enough the bible has some good storys to teach us certain good ways, but as for his FATHER BEING OUR CREATOR LOL It's ubsurd..

The only thing I'm afraid of us is reading another post with improper punctuation and spelling and every other word capitalized. Take a breath, remember you don't care what I think and take your time with a more thoughtful post.

Bluestrips2']Please ammuse me more please

You seem more upset than amused, cowboy. Amuse is a word. Ammuse is not.

Bluestrips2']YOU ARE SCARED OF THE TRUTH - USING AN OLD MAN WHO WAS PUT ON TRIAL FOR CRIMES - AND YOU USE HIS SO BELEIVABLE STORY TO COVER THIS.

He was a political criminal. You keep using his 'crimes' to suggest something about his character but you admit you have no idea what those crimes were or if he was guilty. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were also criminals.

Bluestrips2']You want the truth - you could never have it and would never admit it even if it was smacked of your face, NO JESUS WAS GOOD HIS DAD MADE US ALL AND THE UNIVERSE Pfffft OMG its so sad - mate I wonder what goes through your mind and it makes me laugh a LOT :D
I know when I'm laughing, I don't yell and freak out. Again, take a breath. You're embarassing yourself.

I didn't say you knew why. I said you said he was deservedly executed which would suggest you have something to base whether he deserved it or not on. Let's see if you said that.



Emphasis added. So which of us is being deceitful?



And yet you judge us. I'm not judging you on anything other than what I've seen in your posts. That would be bitterness. You said you were happy and you make it sound like your theories are so sound, but which of us is getting upset. Not confident in your theories enough to have them contested?



I'd like to see you point out the first one.



The only thing I'm afraid of us is reading another post with improper punctuation and spelling and every other word capitalized. Take a breath, remember you don't care what I think and take your time with a more thoughtful post.



You seem more upset than amused, cowboy. Amuse is a word. Ammuse is not.



He was a political criminal. You keep using his 'crimes' to suggest something about his character but you admit you have no idea what those crimes were or if he was guilty. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were also criminals.


I know when I'm laughing, I don't yell and freak out. Again, take a breath. You're embarassing yourself.


LoL you really want to try and proove your point here, all you are doing is making some sort of accusations at me for stating the obvious, mate your a class act

Everything you have just said is pitiful and pretty much lame using typos ( childish when backed into a corner) ?? that has nothing to do with the fact I KNOW JESUS WILL BE LAUGHING AT ALL THE IDIOTS WHO BELEIVED HIS DAD WAS GOD.

Deceitful you seem to think im bad for saying I don;t beleive him at all, I doubt he wasn't punished for something, but again I can't proove it.

Wait I can't prove this can I, but wait you can't proove anything about Jesus at all not that he even existed ??

What about that go on proove to me he even existed ??

FACE FACTS SON YOUR WRONG YOUR LIFE MAY SHAPED AROUND A FANTASY BUT ALL I AM DOING IS POINTING OUT THE FACTS AND AS I SAID YOU CANT FACE THE TRUTH..

Can't wait to show the guys and gals this at work they are going to laugh their asses of just like I am doing right now, go and read your bible im sure Jesus won't be laughing at YOU !!

I am happy mate - im happy with life I don't need to argue for an old criminal who claimed his dad was GOD and created us ( or base my life round a dingy old criminal and his claims that can never be proven - we could argue all night because there are no FACTS ( that in itself is the FACT the TRUTH your so allways scared of) LOLOLOL man your brilliant post again please please..

** typos mate they dont come into this thats you using your last card your last breath

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9284638&postcount=1

Bluestrips2']Although I respect others beliefs and I know some strong beleivers of their chosen religion may see me as a devil type or as someone outside them. Think what you like I don't mind.


I find this interesting. Is this how you respect the beliefs of others?

Bluestrips2']Im still laguhing at the IDIOTS who beleive his dad was our creator

I also find it rather unusual since you also profess to believing in things that cannot be proven and are based on your own personal experiences, i.e. dream precognition. Perhaps, you should practice tolerance rather than insensitivity. Do unto others...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9284638&postcount=1



I find this interesting. Is this how you respect the beliefs of others?



I also find it rather unusual since you also profess to believing in things that cannot be proven and are based on your own personal experiences, i.e. dream precognition. Perhaps, you should practice tolerance rather than insensitivity. Do unto others...


If you actually read the thread other people have had the same things LOL

Mate this isn't helping your point your now turning to my other points because your WRONG to believe in FANTASY its all soo wrong..

I respect others beleifs but when they can't accept facts over fantasy it becomes a laugh like what i've been doin all along laughing at your response to my first post..

SO what next mate ?

Please say more fuel my humour more

Proof for the dreams - other people get them its all to do with loved ones thats all I can say - JESUS's dad made everything - not one inch of evidence in this world to proove that m8 ???

Bluestrips2']LoL you really want to try and proove your point here, all you are doing is making some sort of accusations at me for stating the obvious, mate your a class act

Everything you have just said is pitiful and pretty much lame using typos ( childish when backed into a corner) ?? that has nothing to do with the fact I KNOW JESUS WILL BE LAUGHING AT ALL THE IDIOTS WHO BELEIVED HIS DAD WAS GOD.

Deceitful you seem to think im bad for saying I don;t beleive him at all, I doubt he wasn't punished for something, but again I can't proove it.

Wait I can't prove this can I, but wait you can't proove anything about Jesus at all not that he even existed ??

What about that go on proove to me he even existed ??

FACE FACTS SON YOUR WRONG YOUR LIFE MAY SHAPED AROUND A FANTASY BUT ALL I AM DOING IS POINTING OUT THE FACTS AND AS I SAID YOU CANT FACE THE TRUTH..

Can't wait to show the guys and gals this at work they are going to laugh their asses of just like I am doing right now, go and read your bible im sure Jesus won't be laughing at YOU !!

I am happy mate - im happy with life I don't need to argue for an old criminal who claimed his dad was GOD and created us ( or base my life round a dingy old criminal and his claims that can never be proven - we could argue all night because there are no FACTS ( that in itself is the FACT the TRUTH your so allways scared of) LOLOLOL man your brilliant post again please please..

** typos mate they dont come into this thats you using your last card your last breath
I was just saying that your posts would be taken more seriously if you took your time and made them more legible. It wasn't an attack. Keep mistyping if you think it helps your case.

Wait, there are no facts or your beliefs are based on facts? Which is it? I accept that my beliefs are based on my perceptions and than I can't objectively prove to you the existence of Jesus or that he was the savior. Do you accept that you can't objectively prove he didn't exist, was a criminal (versus just being executed for a crime), what crime he was execute for, that he wasn't the son of God or really any of your claims.

The difference here is that I didn't attack you and, in fact, if you read the first post carefully, I made no judgements on belief or required you to believe in Jesus. I said that if Jesus existed and was who he Christians believe him to be, would he be happy with the way his name is used?

Are you beliefs about precognition based on facts? Can you prove that it, in fact, legitimately occurs? Do you notice that despite this, I'm not attacking your beliefs? Which of us is being unreasonable?

EDIT: I'm going to intentionally not correct my typos above. See, I make typos too, but I make an effort to keep them from being the majority of the words in my post. Punctuation and spelling are the friend of the reasonable poster.

I was just saying that your posts would be taken more seriously if you took your time and made them more legible. It wasn't an attack. Keep mistyping if you think it helps your case.

Wait, there are no facts or your beliefs are based on facts? Which is it? I accept that my beliefs are based on my perceptions and than I can't objectively prove to you the existence of Jesus or that he was the savior. Do you accept that you can't objectively prove he didn't exist, was a criminal (versus just being executed for a crime), what crime he was execute for, that he wasn't the son of God or really any of your claims.

The difference here is that I didn't attack you and, in fact, if you read the first post carefully, I made no judgements on belief or required you to believe in Jesus. I said that if Jesus existed and was who he Christians believe him to be, would he be happy with the way his name is used?

Are you beliefs about precognition based on facts? Can you prove that it, in fact, legitimately occurs? Do you notice that despite this, I'm not attacking your beliefs? Which of us is being unreasonable?

EDIT: I'm going to intentionally not correct my typos above. See, I make typos too, but I make an effort to keep them from being the majority of the words in my post. Punctuation and spelling are the friend of the reasonable poster.


Now your just stabbing in the dark, I don't have beleifs mate my crazy dreams ( which im glad im not the only one who gets them by the way) are something I CANT HELP, YOU choose to beleive in and maybe base your life around something that will never have any proof and you base your life around something that COULD/COULD NOT be true is it really worth it in the end ?

Ask yourself this mate, no proof for his existence, no proof he didnt exist what a thing to have as a beleif, AND as for proof for the dreams look at my post loads of people said they have the same thing, where is your proof ..

This is what you say -- YOU CANT PROOVE HE DIDNT EXIST - thats childish and pitiful. FACE THE FACT YOU BELEIVE IN SOMETHING THAT NO ONE WILL PROOVE THEREFORE THE ANSWER WILL ALLWAYS BE THE SAME -- MAYBE ?

MAYBE is not a solid thing to base your life/beliefs on at all its stupid in fact.

READ the dream thread mate see what I mean, AND AS I SAID I HAVE NO CHOICE IT JUST HAPPENS, I wouldn't choose not to have them because they have saved my ass ( I have no proof of my story i know) but the fact so many people said they have the same dreasm undermimes your attack on my beleif which isn't my beleif as I don't have any.

I am deeply sorry if I offended you but stop and think what your saying, posts that happened this week of loads of people - NO WAY ARE THEY ALL LYING ??

Thats better proof than you will ever have mate and it's not my beleif which again makes me LAUGH OUT LOUD.

TYPOS are not a part of this argument im sure we cleared this allready. ( pathetic way to try and claim your right - really pathetic )

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


What is that meant to mean talk sense boy ? :p

LOVERS OF GOD LOL imagine loving him how WEIRD :D

Bluestrips2']If you actually read the thread other people have had the same things LOL

Appeal to popularity? Really? Versus Christianity? Does this seem logical to you? What percentage of the population would you say claim to have experienced precognative dreams? What portion of the population have experienced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Does my appeal to popularity convince you? No. Well, your appeal to popularity does not convince me either. Particularly when you're talking about such a small portion of the population.

Bluestrips2']Mate this isn't helping your point your now turning to my other points because your WRONG to believe in FANTASY its all soo wrong..

More attacks. Good thing you aren't bitter.

Bluestrips2']I respect others beleifs but when they can't accept facts over fantasy it becomes a laugh like what i've been doin all along laughing at your response to my first post..

Facts? Really? I'm waiting for your facts proving precognition. I'm patient. Take your time.

Bluestrips2']SO what next mate ?

Please say more fuel my humour more

I thoroughly enjoy the fact that you pretend to be amused.

Bluestrips2']Proof for the dreams - other people get them its all to do with loved ones thats all I can say - JESUS's dad made everything - not one inch of evidence in this world to proove that m8 ???

Again, appeal to popularity? If others believing the same as you is a proof, then wouldn't you say I have more proof for my faith than you for yours. Obviously, popularity does not prove either of us correct. At one time people believed they were regularly infused with the spirits of gods and the dead. Did that make them right?

Again, when did I try to prove anything to you? You came into a thread I started and attacked Christians. How is that respecting the beliefs of others as you claim to do?

Bluestrips2']What is that meant to mean talk sense boy ?
It means exactly what it says, and verse 7 makes the point.

Appeal to popularity? Really? Versus Christianity? Does this seem logical to you? What percentage of the population would you say claim to have experienced precognative dreams? What portion of the population have experienced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Does my appeal to popularity convince you? No. Well, your appeal to popularity does not convince me either. Particularly when you're talking about such a small portion of the population.



More attacks. Good thing you aren't bitter.



Facts? Really? I'm waiting for your facts proving precognition. I'm patient. Take your time.



I thoroughly enjoy the fact that you pretend to be amused.



Again, appeal to popularity? If others believing the same as you is a proof, then wouldn't you say I have more proof for my faith than you for yours. Obviously, popularity does not prove either of us correct. At one time people believed they were regularly infused with the spirits of gods and the dead. Did that make them right?

Again, when did I try to prove anything to you? You came into a thread I started and attacked Christians. How is that respecting the beliefs of others as you claim to do?


LoL

The first part - LIKE I SAID READ THE POST AND WEEP

You stabbing at my dreams - who cares lol do it I dont care - I CANT HELP THEM YOU CHOOSE TO BELEIVE IN SOMETHING THAT ISNT TRUE or CANT BE PROVEN. Brilliant LOL hahaha

FACTS FOR THE DREAMS READ THE THREAD BOY A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM HAVE THEM THATS MORE THAN ENOUGH ..

Now I want one real inch of proof from you that jesus's dad was god .. go on ??

DONT IGNORE THE QUESTION this is what it boiled down to no matter how many irregular points you bring up..

Bluestrips2']Now your just stabbing in the dark, I don't have beleifs mate my crazy dreams ( which im glad im not the only one who gets them by the way) are something I CANT HELP, YOU choose to beleive in and maybe base your life around something that will never have any proof and you base your life around something that COULD/COULD NOT be true is it really worth it in the end ?

I have as much proof as you do. I experience something I can't actually show or prove to you. I could no more stop believing God and Jesus Christ than you could stop believing in your dreams. I'm not attacking your beliefs, why are you attacking mine?

Bluestrips2']Ask yourself this mate, no proof for his existence, no proof he didnt exist what a thing to have as a beleif, AND as for proof for the dreams look at my post loads of people said they have the same thing, where is your proof ..

Appeal to popularity is a poor tool in most cases, but against Christianity, it's really illogical.

Bluestrips2']This is what you say -- YOU CANT PROOVE HE DIDNT EXIST - thats childish and pitiful. FACE THE FACT YOU BELEIVE IN SOMETHING THAT NO ONE WILL PROOVE THEREFORE THE ANSWER WILL ALLWAYS BE THE SAME -- MAYBE ?
You're not basing your claims on something verifiable. There is evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ though it certainly does not prove he was who the Bible claims him to be, of course. However, you keep telling me to face a fact, I accept. I can't prove the existence of the savior to you. But then, I'm not attacking you, am I?

Bluestrips2']MAYBE is not a solid thing to base your life/beliefs on at all its stupid in fact.

Oh, look. More attacks.

Bluestrips2']READ the dream thread mate see what I mean, AND AS I SAID I HAVE NO CHOICE IT JUST HAPPENS, I wouldn't choose not to have them because they have saved my ass ( I have no proof of my story i know) but the fact so many people said they have the same dreasm undermimes your attack on my beleif which isn't my beleif as I don't have any.

I'm not attacking your belief. I just find it funny that you claim that all these people believing the same as you and claiming similar experiences validates your beliefs, but not mine. Do you not see the humor in that?

Oh, and if you can't show objective supporting evidence of something then it is a belief.

Bluestrips2']I am deeply sorry if I offended you but stop and think what your saying, posts that happened this week of loads of people - NO WAY ARE THEY ALL LYING ??

You're not sorry. You're being intentionally offensive. Let's not pretend things are different than they are. I notice again you say that all that claim to share your experiences CAN'T be lying but the people who share mine obviously are all stupid. Interesting assessment.

Bluestrips2']Thats better proof than you will ever have mate and it's not my beleif which again makes me LAUGH OUT LOUD.

I'm interested to see what passes for proof.

Bluestrips2']TYPOS are not a part of this argument im sure we cleared this allready. ( pathetic way to try and claim your right - really pathetic )
I didn't claim that typos were a part of the argument. I asked you to use care so your posts will easier to read. Punctuation and spelling are necessary in communication. That's why we use them. They weren't just made up to mess with you.

I have as much proof as you do. I experience something I can't actually show or prove to you. I could no more stop believing God and Jesus Christ than you could stop believing in your dreams. I'm not attacking your beliefs, why are you attacking mine?



Appeal to popularity is a poor tool in most cases, but against Christianity, it's really illogical.


You're not basing your claims on something verifiable. There is evidence to support the existence of Jesus Christ though it certainly does not prove he was who the Bible claims him to be, of course. However, you keep telling me to face a fact, I accept. I can't prove the existence of the savior to you. But then, I'm not attacking you, am I?



Oh, look. More attacks.



I'm not attacking your belief. I just find it funny that you claim that all these people believing the same as you and claiming similar experiences validates your beliefs, but not mine. Do you not see the humor in that?

Oh, and if you can't show objective supporting evidence of something then it is a belief.



You're not sorry. You're being intentionally offensive. Let's not pretend things are different than they are. I notice again you say that all that claim to share your experiences CAN'T be lying but the people who share mine obviously are all stupid. Interesting assessment.



I'm interested to see what passes for proof.


I didn't claim that typos were a part of the argument. I asked you to use care so your posts will easier to read. Punctuation and spelling are necessary in communication. That's why we use them. They weren't just made up to mess with you.


THERE IS NO PROOF HERE MATE ?

IM WAITING FOR THE PROOF, AND GO AND READ MY THREAD AGAIN IT HAPPENS MATE ACCEPT IT JUST BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAPPEN TO YOU.

I WANT SOME PROOF IF YOUR GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT IT YOU NEED PROOF ???

PROOF ??

Don't quote me again and say I have no proof because if you read my thread it is PROOF.

Bluestrips2']LoL

The first part - LIKE I SAID READ THE POST AND WEEP

You stabbing at my dreams - who cares lol do it I dont care - I CANT HELP THEM YOU CHOOSE TO BELEIVE IN SOMETHING THAT ISNT TRUE or CANT BE PROVEN. Brilliant LOL hahaha

FACTS FOR THE DREAMS READ THE THREAD BOY A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM HAVE THEM THATS MORE THAN ENOUGH ..

Now I want one real inch of proof from you that jesus's dad was god .. go on ??

DONT IGNORE THE QUESTION this is what it boiled down to no matter how many irregular points you bring up..
I am astonished by your continued appeal to popularity. You suggest that the 'large' group of people who cultivate your belief are proof. How do they compare to the number of Christians on this forum and in the world? Do you understand how faulty the logic is of claiming that because people agree with you, you must be right while simultaneously stating that one of the most popular belief structures in the world is 'stupid'? If popularity is proof then Christianity certainly has more proof than precognative dreams. Of course popularity isn't proof and you have no more proof than I and I no more than you. The difference is I understand this.

THAT IS NOT PROOF IT JUST MEANS MORE PEOPLE BELEIVE IN IT..

And the proof for the dreams still stands read the post again mate.


PROOF ??

Just because a lot of people think one thing is NEVER PROOF for anything no matter what angle you claim it from it's not solid proof, THE FACT IS YOU WILL NEVER EVER EVER HAVE PROOF FOR IT EVER ?

Can you actually produce any real proof ?

Bluestrips2']THERE IS NO PROOF HERE MATE ?

IM WAITING FOR THE PROOF, AND GO AND READ MY THREAD AGAIN IT HAPPENS MATE ACCEPT IT JUST BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAPPEN TO YOU.

I WANT SOME PROOF IF YOUR GOING TO ARGUE ABOUT IT YOU NEED PROOF ???

PROOF ??

Don't quote me again and say I have no proof because if you read my thread it is PROOF.

Fine then this thread is proof. Plenty of Christians posted here. This forum is proof because you encounter Christians every day on it. This country is proof, because my goodness there are a lot of Christians in it. Including most of the presidents. All professing to have a personal relationship with the Lord and Jesus Christ. That proof doesn't work for you though, does it? Yeah, it doesn't for me either. I don't have proof. Neither do you. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. And dream precognition is hardly popular. I read the thread. It offers no proof. Only anecdotes. You know the difference?

Fine then this thread is proof. Plenty of Christians posted here. This forum is proof because you encounter Christians every day on it. This country is proof, because my goodness there are a lot of Christians in it. Including most of the presidents. All professing to have a personal relationship with the Lord and Jesus Christ. That proof doesn't work for you though, does it? Yeah, it doesn't for me either. I don't have proof. Neither do you. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. And dream precognition is hardly popular. I read the thread. It offers no proof. Only anecdotes. You know the difference?

I edited my posy but not fast enough because AGAIN this isnt PROOF at all it never will be ..

DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ANY REAL PROOF ??

I know the answer mate it's a BIG NO ???

People posted here because they believe in the same thing that doesnt mean it's true, what about the suicide bombers who beleive they go to heaven for killing people - is that also true because there are a lot of them ?

The dreams arent a belief therefore need no proof

Bluestrips2']THAT IS NOT PROOF IT JUST MEANS MORE PEOPLE BELEIVE IN IT..

And the proof for the dreams still stands read the post again mate.


PROOF ??

Just because a lot of people think one thing is NEVER PROOF for anything no matter what angle you claim it from it's not solid proof, THE FACT IS YOU WILL NEVER EVER EVER HAVE PROOF FOR IT EVER ?

Can you actually produce any real proof ?

Okay, then other than a lot of people believing in dream precognition in your thread, what proof do you have? The thread doesn't present any proof, just after the fact anecdotal evidence. Unlike you, I understand that appeal to popularity is not proof. You keep suggesting that I'm using popularity as proof, but I've done no such thing. I've established that appeal to popularity is faulty and you've agreed. So would you like to 'prove' your belief in dream precognition without an appeal to popularity. To be perfectly clear, suggesting that your belief is valid because a lot of other people think the same thing is an appeal to popularity and it's a logical fallacy.

Bluestrips2']I edited my posy but not fast enough because AGAIN this isnt PROOF at all it never will be ..

DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ANY REAL PROOF ??

I know the answer mate it's a BIG NO ???

People posted here because they believe in the same thing that doesnt mean it's true, what about the suicide bombers who beleive they go to heaven for killing people - is that also true because there are a lot of them ?
What about those that believe in dream precognition - is it true because there's a lot of them?

Okay, then other than a lot of people believing in dream precognition in your thread, what proof do you have? The thread doesn't present any proof, just after the fact anecdotal evidence. Unlike you, I understand that appeal to popularity is not proof. You keep suggesting that I'm using popularity as proof, but I've done no such thing. I've established that appeal to popularity is faulty and you've agreed. So would you like to 'prove' your belief in dream precognition without an appeal to popularity. To be perfectly clear, suggesting that your belief is valid because a lot of other people think the same thing is an appeal to popularity and it's a logical fallacy.


Once again ITS NOT MY BELIEF IF IT WAS ID NEED PURE PROOF to beleive in it ok ( yes my dreams are enough ive seen things that then happen ) not some crazy story that has no proof ?

Your beleif is a real beleif based on something that has NO PROOF

MATE MY DREAMS ARENT A BELEIF SO WE CAN PUT THAT ASIDE..

Do you have any proof to back your beleif, that jesus's dad was god LOL ??

There's really no point in either of you arguing. All you do is attack each other's characters and It's really unnecessary. And as for proof... you don't need proof to know that something is there. Have you ever known that someone was in a room with you? Have you ever, even once, found the way without knowing the path? Have you ever felt that something bad happened, and it proved to be true? And do you think it's completely accurate to assume absolute proof constitutes absloute truth? I completely believe that many people do have precognitave dreams (or visions) just as a believe that someone who believes in God feels that He is there. I have experienced both for my self, so to me, you're both right. In my opinion. Argument settled. Oh, and if the Bible could be absolutely right about the future, wouldn't it make perfect sense that it is accurate about the past? Of course, to know this, you actually have to read the Bible. We silly humans are always so quick to discount something we know nothing about, something we haven't even attempted to study. We just call it a lie.

What about those that believe in dream precognition - is it true because there's a lot of them?


LoL its not a belief get that ok ?

It happens to some people and thats why I choose to tell my friends about my dreams because it freaked me out at first.

I would NEVER BASE MY LIFE ON IT, ESPECIALLY IF IT DIDNT HAPPEN, As for beliving in jesus's dad was god now that has nothing backing it what so ever apart from people who beleive in it.

There's really no point in either of you arguing. All you do is attack each other's characters and It's really unnecessary. And as for proof... you don't need proof to know that something is there. Have you ever known that someone was in a room with you? Have you ever, even once, found the way without knowing the path? Have you ever felt that something bad happened, and it proved to be true? And do you think it's completely accurate to assume absolute proof constitutes absloute truth? I completely believe that many people do have precognitave dreams (or visions) just as a believe that someone who believes in God feels that He is there. I have experienced both for my self, so to me, you're both right. In my opinion. Argument settled. Oh, and if the Bible could be absolutely right about the future, wouldn't it make perfect sense that it is accurate about the past? Of course, to know this, you actually have to read the Bible. We silly humans are always so quick to discount something we know nothing about, something we haven't even attempted to study. We just call it a lie.


I have read the bible a few times, and it's crap boring but the storys have a positive thought even though a rather old method of sharing love, decency etc ... amonsgt people.

I didn't beleive in it though, I did beleive in the storys it taught us.

At the end of the day there is no proof jesus' dad was god LOLOL

But who cares beleive what you want if your a good guy then nothing can go wrong..

Answer me this Jocabia do you enjoy life ?

Bluestrips2']I have read the bible a few times, and it's crap boring but the storys have a positive thought even though a rather old method of sharing love, decency etc ... amonsgt people.

I didn't beleive in it though, I did beleive in the storys it taught us.

Would you care to point to an example, references what you call crap? And if you have read the Bible a few times, could you not say where to find it?

Would you care to point to an example, references what you call crap? And if you have read the Bible a few times, could you not say where to find it?


What I meant was its CRAP - i'd rather read Lord of the Rings etc ..

No I can't remember any of it just the basic storys of how to treat people etc .. I found it rather badly written and to be honest it goes on and on a lot.

Something parents teach their kids anyway. ( how to be good )

Bluestrips2']What I meant was its CRAP - i'd rather read Lord of the Rings etc ..

No I can't remember any of it just the basic storys of how to treat people etc .. I found it rather badly written and to be honest it goes on and on a lot.

Something parents teach their kids anyway. ( how to be good )

Well based on that response, i assume you wouldn't have read it again then. Basically what it says about raising your kids is to raise them on the Truth and moral principles. Also to show them discipline. I can't recall an instance of it going on and on about raising your children. I think you're referring to all the listings of generations in the Old Testament.

Jocabia sorry if I upset you mate at least your a good guy * hopes * if your going by the bible ( yes there are a lot of pedo priests who the pope protects but thats a different book shelf ), although you don't need it to be good im glad you stick by your guns mate.

Well based on that response, i assume you wouldn't have read it again then. Basically what it says about raising your kids is to raise them on the Truth and moral principles. Also to show them discipline. I can't recall an instance of it going on and on about raising your children. I think you're referring to all the listings of generations in the Old Testament.


Thats not what I said mate

It has decent moral storys in it about how to treat people etc ..

BUT THATS SOMETHING PARENTS TEACH THEIR KIDS ANYWAY.

Jocabia page before this if your still about ;)

Bluestrips2']Thats not what I said mate

It has decent moral storys in it about how to treat people etc ..

BUT THATS SOMETHING PARENTS TEACH THEIR KIDS ANYWAY.

Fair Enough. I gotta go though, and I hope you get a chance to read all of II Timothy Chapter 3. Adios.

There's really no point in either of you arguing. All you do is attack each other's characters and It's really unnecessary. And as for proof... you don't need proof to know that something is there. Have you ever known that someone was in a room with you? Have you ever, even once, found the way without knowing the path? Have you ever felt that something bad happened, and it proved to be true? And do you think it's completely accurate to assume absolute proof constitutes absloute truth? I completely believe that many people do have precognitave dreams (or visions) just as a believe that someone who believes in God feels that He is there. I have experienced both for my self, so to me, you're both right. In my opinion. Argument settled. Oh, and if the Bible could be absolutely right about the future, wouldn't it make perfect sense that it is accurate about the past? Of course, to know this, you actually have to read the Bible. We silly humans are always so quick to discount something we know nothing about, something we haven't even attempted to study. We just call it a lie.

I agree with most of what you said other than I never attacked him/her. I suggested that his attacks were bitter, well, because they are and as you said, that believing in dream precognition is no more proven than believing in Jesus Christ and God. I don't think he/she's wrong for believing in dream precognition if it actually happens to him/her. I wasn't attacking his/her belief, I was drawing a parallel. That parallel fell on deaf ears.

Bluestrips2']At the end of the day there is no proof jesus' dad was god LOLOL

But who cares beleive what you want if your a good guy then nothing can go wrong..

Answer me this Jocabia do you enjoy life ?

I do. That's why I'm not offended by you attacking my belief. I'm quite content. Generally, content people don't feel the need to attack other people. I find attacks are usually based on fear and frustration. I fall victim to neither. That's why I'm not bothered that you don't agree with me or that you believe in dream precognition without proof.

Now let me ask you do you BELIEVE that people can see the future in their dreams? If you had a very vivid dream about a trip on the school bus say, and you got on the bus and started on your way to school and everything in the dream appeared to be true. Now in the dream the bus drives into a ditch, would you attempt to stop the bus? Of course you would. That is living your life according to YOUR belief.

Christianity is no different. Based on the events of my life, I've received enough information to believe in Jesus Christ as the savior and God. This information doesn't inspire me to ignore scientific evidence or to be intolerant as some Christians are. It does however, inspire me to tell people if the bus is going off the cliff. You believe in something based on your experiences and the experiences of a limited number of people. So do I. Only I'm not attacking your belief.

I do. That's why I'm not offended by you attacking my belief. I'm quite content. Generally, content people don't feel the need to attack other people. I find attacks are usually based on fear and frustration. I fall victim to neither. That's why I'm not bothered that you don't agree with me or that you believe in dream precognition without proof.

Now let me ask you do you BELIEVE that people can see the future in their dreams? If you had a very vivid dream about a trip on the school bus say, and you got on the bus and started on your way to school and everything in the dream appeared to be true. Now in the dream the bus drives into a ditch, would you attempt to stop the bus? Of course you would. That is living your life according to YOUR belief.

Christianity is no different. Based on the events of my life, I've received enough information to believe in Jesus Christ as the savior and God. This information doesn't inspire me to ignore scientific evidence or to be intolerant as some Christians are. It does however, inspire me to tell people if the bus is going off the cliff. You believe in something based on your experiences and the experiences of a limited number of people. So do I. Only I'm not attacking your belief.


Dreaming is a lot different from A belief it's something we all do, and I don't ever like to call it my belief, And I don't have a choice they just happen, and of course I belive in them when they happen because they have prooved to me that they can come true and I really started to worry about me being a freak and even thought my friends theory was right about the radioactive waves effecting my brain from the local dockyard untill I posted up here and others said the same thing, very comforting I must admit.

As long as you enjoy it mate you ain't doing nothing wrong :)

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

I know what you mean, and its been happening since Christianity started.
Mary, for instance...Ive seen several examples that strongly imply she wasnt a prostitute at all...never was...in fact, the wife of Jesus, and the most favored of all the disciples.
Problem was ..other disciples were members of "The He-Man Women Haters Club", if you will..and couldnt stomach the idea of a woman with such high prominence in the growing church.

Like, were these guys not listening to anything Big J said?

It started out misconstrued, and moved straight into hippocracy, when wich ever pope it was, who decided wich biblical texts could stay, and wich ones didnt fit the scheme he was devising.

Then..it more or less turned straight to evil when they tried to personally gain from the Crusades.

..and the Inquisitions..

Kept up its murderous disposition when it suckled on South American gold while the natives were slaughtered en mass.

Sat idly by when millions of Jews were being sluaghtered, and then helped Nazi's escape to South America.

Then...took great strides to cover up thousands of pedophillia cases.

I cant honestly imagine why people follow it.

The messages were so simple...so easy to do..just be good to one another.

Thats it.

How could one religion, have gotten so wrong?

Bluestrips2']Something parents teach their kids anyway. ( how to be good ) Ahahahah. (That wasn't bitter, nor was it amused, it was merely convulsive) Funny how morality doesn't seem to come to many people naturally, isn't it?

I have no proof that I can show to you right this instant that God exists… however I'm pretty sure of it because it's happened to me.

Ahahahah. (That wasn't bitter, nor was it amused, it was merely convulsive) Funny how morality doesn't seem to come to many people naturally, isn't it?

I have no proof that I can show to you right this instant that God exists… however I'm pretty sure of it because it's happened to me.


OMG are you saying that was bitter ?? Please explain ..

PARENTS TEACH THEIR KIDS HOW TO BE GOOD - Simple and how it needs to be, it comes natuarally after generations go through hell of war etc .. ??

And please explain how GOD happened to you and how proof of jesus's dad being our creator happened to you ?

Bluestrips2']OMG are you saying that was bitter ?? Please explain ..

PARENTS TEACH THEIR KIDS HOW TO BE GOOD - Simple and how it needs to be, it comes natuarally after generations go through hell of war etc .. ??

And please explain how GOD happened to you and how proof of jesus's dad being our creator happened to you ? No, I meant my fit of giggles wasn't bitter.

The point was that parents don't always successfully teach their children to be good. I'd probably turn out like Anakin if I wasn't a Christian :) . I mean, even when people are GIVEN the damn moral laws they still ignore them. Point of fact is, you can't simply shrug off a conversion. I've always been open minded about God… I just loathed him.

No, I meant my fit of giggles wasn't bitter.

The point was that parents don't always successfully teach their children to be good. I'd probably turn out like Anakin if I wasn't a Christian :) . I mean, even when people are GIVEN the damn moral laws they still ignore them. Point of fact is, you can't simply shrug off a conversion. I've always been open minded about God… I just loathed him.


Ahh sorry for mis-understanding mate ;)

Yes it's true some people do still ignore the morals they are taught but it usually boils down to them hanging around with other kids with lesser morals as I've seen happen in my youth a lot. It seems to spread in the youth. Some people are just born crazy I guess.

The thought of being punished for your wrongs is the strongest power of behaviour control I've ever seen it does work, and even without a belief I beleive we are punished or rewarded for our rights and wrongs * awaits burning *

Bluestrips2']Dreaming is a lot different from A belief it's something we all do, and I don't ever like to call it my belief, And I don't have a choice they just happen, and of course I belive in them when they happen because they have prooved to me that they can come true and I really started to worry about me being a freak and even thought my friends theory was right about the radioactive waves effecting my brain from the local dockyard untill I posted up here and others said the same thing, very comforting I must admit.

As long as you enjoy it mate you ain't doing nothing wrong :)

See now that's much more reasonable and all I was looking for. Tolerance is your friend. And for the Christian who is going to jump all over that, tolerance does not mean condoning.

See now that's much more reasonable and all I was looking for. Tolerance is your friend. And for the Christian who is going to jump all over that, tolerance does not mean condoning.

I may rant on a bit mate but I do respect people ;)

I know what you mean, and its been happening since Christianity started.
Mary, for instance...Ive seen several examples that strongly imply she wasnt a prostitute at all...never was...in fact, the wife of Jesus, and the most favored of all the disciples.
Problem was ..other disciples were members of "The He-Man Women Haters Club", if you will..and couldnt stomach the idea of a woman with such high prominence in the growing church.

Like, were these guys not listening to anything Big J said?

It started out misconstrued, and moved straight into hippocracy, when wich ever pope it was, who decided wich biblical texts could stay, and wich ones didnt fit the scheme he was devising.

Then..it more or less turned straight to evil when they tried to personally gain from the Crusades.

..and the Inquisitions..

Kept up its murderous disposition when it suckled on South American gold while the natives were slaughtered en mass.

Sat idly by when millions of Jews were being sluaghtered, and then helped Nazi's escape to South America.

Then...took great strides to cover up thousands of pedophillia cases.

I cant honestly imagine why people follow it.

The messages were so simple...so easy to do..just be good to one another.

Thats it.

How could one religion, have gotten so wrong?
Yes, yes, exactly.

Matthew 7:12 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

A passage tells you that treating people as you would be treated sums up the law and people can't seem to see it at times. Unless, of course during the crusades Christians were saying, I would like for these people to come to the Christians and kill them for believing differently. Unless today some Christians are saying, "I would like for people to oppress me for being different than them. I would like for people to take away my right to marriage. I would like for people to suggest that I am an abomination. I would like to judged."

I tell people that I've never told my beliefs unless they -
1. asked
2. it was appropriate to a conversation (as I do here)
3. explained their beliefs to me

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of Christians who tell me I am not a good Christian for doing the above. I ask them if when they tell someone why they believe in Christianity and that person listens with an open mind, do they allow that person to also explain their beliefs and does the Christian listen with an open mind? Very commonly, the answer is no usually followed by some sort of insult about my crazy notions about Christianity. Go look at some threads and you'll find that many Christians think following the Golden Rule is blasphemy and has earned a ticket to hell. Amazing, isn't it?

Bluestrips2']I may rant on a bit mate but I do respect people ;)

No offense, mate, but calling them or their beliefs stupid is not the way to do that.

No offense, mate, but calling them or their beliefs stupid is not the way to do that.


I know mate and thats why I wanted to make it clear I didn't mean any harm.

I call everything stupid - I have silly names for all my friends and in my mobile phone my mum is 'gay-mum' I just like having a laugh, And i realised people will take it the wrong way therefore I aplogise again ;)

Im away to phone my friend called jobby LOL he hates that name but it stuck with him one night after a strange incident involving a toilet :D

God and Jesus dont like whats going on around the world In London War Egypt...They are very upset and well said ^^^^

1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Incontinent? I guess it must be the "last days" - that explains why I see Depends on the store shelves all the time. :D

Bluestrips2']I know mate and thats why I wanted to make it clear I didn't mean any harm.

I call everything stupid - I have silly names for all my friends and in my mobile phone my mum is 'gay-mum' I just like having a laugh, And i realised people will take it the wrong way therefore I aplogise again ;)

Im away to phone my friend called jobby LOL he hates that name but it stuck with him one night after a strange incident involving a toilet :D Jobby? Hmm… he's not a South African kid by any chance?

Yes, yes, exactly.

Matthew 7:12 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

A passage tells you that treating people as you would be treated sums up the law and people can't seem to see it at times. Unless, of course during the crusades Christians were saying, I would like for these people to come to the Christians and kill them for believing differently. Unless today some Christians are saying, "I would like for people to oppress me for being different than them. I would like for people to take away my right to marriage. I would like for people to suggest that I am an abomination. I would like to judged."

I tell people that I've never told my beliefs unless they -
1. asked
2. it was appropriate to a conversation (as I do here)
3. explained their beliefs to me

You'd be surprised (or maybe not) at the number of Christians who tell me I am not a good Christian for doing the above. I ask them if when they tell someone why they believe in Christianity and that person listens with an open mind, do they allow that person to also explain their beliefs and does the Christian listen with an open mind? Very commonly, the answer is no usually followed by some sort of insult about my crazy notions about Christianity. Go look at some threads and you'll find that many Christians think following the Golden Rule is blasphemy and has earned a ticket to hell. Amazing, isn't it?

Thats not amazing honey, thats frightening.

Im a staunch athiest, so my opinions of most Christians is jaded, becuase I do not believe they way they do, and its hard for me to think like most of them do.

But of all the Christians I know, (and I live in the town that has more churches per capita than any other spot in the world)...I know very few who take what they believe and use it to actually become better people.

The ones that think for themselves, and use their faiths to better thier own spirit first, and use it as an example to help others, are rare among your kind, Im afraid.
Sure many of them mean well, but then go to church, and hear the Pastor/Priest/Grand Pubah..whatever..speak out against the evil of homosexuals, or whatever, and endlessly repeat that rhetoric as if it came from God himself.


Always question authority, and always, always stick to your guns.

You seem like one of the good ones.

Thats not amazing honey, thats frightening.

Im a staunch athiest, so my opinions of most Christians is jaded, becuase I do not believe they way they do, and its hard for me to think like most of them do.

But of all the Christians I know, (and I live in the town that has more churches per capita than any other spot in the world)...I know very few who take what they believe and use it to actually become better people.

The ones that think for themselves, and use their faiths to better thier own spirit first, and use it as an example to help others, are rare among your kind, Im afraid.
Sure many of them mean well, but then go to church, and hear the Pastor/Priest/Grand Pubah..whatever..speak out against the evil of homosexuals, or whatever, and endlessly repeat that rhetoric as if it came from God himself.


Always question authority, and always, always stick to your guns.

You seem like one of the good ones. It's actually very hard. Despite what it may look like, being a true Christian is an incredibly rigorous thing to stick to. Sorry to hear that your local Christians aren't like that… in most of Europe it's different, although the numbers of Christians are on the decline.

You're fifth point is noted and agreed. For the most part I'd rather not rehash old arguments with you, but I at least have to respond to the third point you made.

My issue with trusting myself over trusting the scriptures is that I make me, my thoughts, my ideas, my feelings the idol, which was Lucifer's first sin. It was his first temptation to Eve. The scripture is far more trustworthy than me and, since it is God's revelation to humanity of who He is and who He desires us to be, His Children, joint heirs with Christ, it isn't idolatry to hold its teachings as superior to my random thoughts and feelings. Is that making sense? You don't have to agree mind you, just wanted to make sure you understand what I'm saying.

I underdstand where you are coming from, but I still see a flaw or two.

First: 'Satan' (according to Christian teaching) is the great deceiver. You could almost say it's his 'raison d'etre'. All lies originate (in Christian mythology) with this 'father of lies', and it is is very purpose to deceive. And yet, he is a subtle deceiver... his lies are always credible as truth... Am I right?

So - WHY do you set the Bible aside, separate from any other source, as being trustworthy? Surely, the entirety of scripture could ACTUALLY be a satanic ruse, and you could have been following a book of carefully crafted lies for your whole life?

It would still be internally consistent... it would even seem to fit everything we 'know' about 'god'... because that is how the best lies work...

So, WHY believe that the Bible is NOT the work of Satan?

Second: As supporting evidence of the 'Bible=Satan lying' theory... you could say that the Bible must be true because it FEELS true. But, then... Satan always was good at selling what FEELS right....

Third: People trust the Bible scripture, even above personal faith - which MUST be the closest you can get to God. If you can feel God in your life, and the Bible argues against what you feel... which one do you trust?

The way I see it... if you trust the Bible MORE than you trust your own experience of God, then you are placing another 'god' before Jehovah, in the form of idolatory of the Book.

It's actually very hard. Despite what it may look like, being a true Christian is an incredibly rigorous thing to stick to. Sorry to hear that your local Christians aren't like that… in most of Europe it's different, although the numbers of Christians are on the decline.


No my friend, its no different in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter.
Its a global problem, and its not just with Christians either.
Its stupidity, that allows people to let other do their thinking.
Its the sheep-like attitude to just sit back idly, and allow ourselves to be told how to think and feel.

Christians who question thier faiths often find them becoming stronger, or so my experience with them tells me.
But few are the ones who use it as nothing more than a pattern for living, and take the good morals of the bible to heart.

European Christians may not have the sexual hang-ups Americans do, or take the stance of the "Perscuted Christian", and try o make themselves as martyrs....but they are essentially people, and too many of us are not thinking things through anymore.

Bluestrips2']
DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ANY REAL PROOF ??

I know the answer mate it's a BIG NO ???


The Bible

Now before you say "The Bible is not valid proof" it should be pointed out that archological standards say that a document is what it claims to be unless another, more reliable document is found to disprove it. The Gospels were written and distributed widely within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's life. Thats how Christianity suvived. If the documents were so unreliable and people knew them to be false then they would have been passed on. And as for the Old Testement, can anyone here claim to explain how Isaiah 45 predicts that Cyrus king of Persia will be the one to let the Jews return home and rebuild the temple when he was writing over 150 years before Cyrus came to the throne. The prophecy is made in Isaiah 44:28 and again in Isaiah 45:1 and 13 and is fufilled in Ezra Chapter 1: Verses 2-4.

The Bible

Now before you say "The Bible is not valid proof" it should be pointed out that archological standards say that a document is what it claims to be unless another, more reliable document is found to disprove it. The Gospels were written and distributed widely within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's life. Thats how Christianity suvived. If the documents were so unreliable and people knew them to be false then they would have been passed on. And as for the Old Testement, can anyone here claim to explain how Isaiah 45 predicts that Cyrus king of Persia will be the one to let the Jews return home and rebuild the temple when he was writing over 150 years before Cyrus came to the throne. The prophecy is made in Isaiah 44:28 and again in Isaiah 45:1 and 13 and is fufilled in Ezra Chapter 1: Verses 2-4.


The Bible is proof of nothing except that several people had vivid imaginations.

First of all...No Archeologist in his right mind would claim to find a document that says it was the word of god...and take it for face value.

Secondly...and by your own logic, it would seem that Nostrodamus was much more accurate that the Bible ever was. Was he a biblical prophet maybe?

Also..did you ever stop to think that if Christ, and therefore God, are the only perfect beings in all of existance...then that means that humanity, as a whole, are not?
Ergo, any interperetation of anything pure..is going to be flawed as well.

Saying the Bible is proof of God's existance is like saying that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is proof of magical schools for young wizards.

Both works of pure fiction.

First of all...No Archeologist in his right mind would claim to find a document that says it was the word of god...and take it for face value.

I didnt say that. I said that it contains within it accurate accounts, which it does.


Saying the Bible is proof of God's existance is like saying that "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" is proof of magical schools for young wizards.

Both works of pure fiction.

No, because unlike Harry Potter, the Bible was written as historical documentation. They were actual accounts. Harry Potter never claims to be true or actual, it is always clear to be a work of fiction. The way we can prove this is that the Gospels were written at the time of those who actually lived and saw Jesus. Thus when they saw it, they knew it to be accurate because they too had witnessed these events and known them to be true. If it was fiction claiming to be true, then people would have ignored it. Harry Potter is not fiction claiming to be true. It is fiction claiming to be fiction. It is not a historical document.

I didnt say that. I said that it contains within it accurate accounts, which it does.



No, because unlike Harry Potter, the Bible was written as historical documentation. They were actual accounts. Harry Potter never claims to be true or actual, it is always clear to be a work of fiction. The way we can prove this is that the Gospels were written at the time of those who actually lived and saw Jesus. Thus when they saw it, they knew it to be accurate because they too had witnessed these events and known them to be true. If it was fiction claiming to be true, then people would have ignored it. Harry Potter is not fiction claiming to be true. It is fiction claiming to be fiction. It is not a historical document.


Reeaally?

So Jonah was really swallowed by a whale?

Noah really gathered two of every creature and stuck em on a boat for 40 days and nights?

Methusalah really lived to be 900 years old?

Moses really parted the Red Sea?

Ham really did see his father, who was passed out naked and drunk, and therefore was cast into slavery, along with all his decsendants?

Historical document huh?

Crap.

These might all be Old Testament examples, but nonetheless, Gospel, right?

Please.

Fiction.

The only difference between the Bible and Potter, is that Potter sells more books.

I'm not sure I understand you.
We, in the UK, can beat the crap out of each other over which football team we support. people get killed. these are not religious people.
My point. religion is not required for us to brutalise each other. It's just a VERY good excuse. You can see that by the way bishops are pulled out to support every war we fight.

I'll go with karma. If I'm bad I suffer for it in the long run.
Thats cause its not religion, football or anything like that which is the cause of this, it is the fanaticism, extreme muslimm-9/11,extreme christinas-blow up abortion clinics and the crusades, extreme athesim:Stalin and Hitler both slaughter many..u cld argue that is mainly extrme examples of communism and fasims but the lack of religioyus belief, it could be argued allowed them 2 devise their own moral structure which let them kill millions i.e hitler and his belief that all imperfect humans shold be killed

Reeaally?

So Jonah was really swallowed by a whale?

Noah really gathered two of every creature and stuck em on a boat for 40 days and nights?

Methusalah really lived to be 900 years old?

Moses really parted the Red Sea?

Ham really did see his father, who was passed out naked and drunk, and therefore was cast into slavery, along with all his decsendants?

Historical document huh?

Crap.

These might all be Old Testament examples, but nonetheless, Gospel, right?

Please.

Fiction.

The only difference between the Bible and Potter, is that Potter sells more books.

All you have done is given some biblical examples and claimed them to be fiction. You've given no reason as to why they must be fiction other than the implied idea that they are too fantastical for you to believe. Beyond the fantastical elements, do you actually have any reason to believe them to be false? As in Historical evidence to the contary?

And just for the record the Bible far, far outsells Harry Potter. You just dont know it becuase they are in diffrent catogaries when it comes to bestsellers lists.

Thats not amazing honey, thats frightening.

Im a staunch athiest, so my opinions of most Christians is jaded, becuase I do not believe they way they do, and its hard for me to think like most of them do.

But of all the Christians I know, (and I live in the town that has more churches per capita than any other spot in the world)...I know very few who take what they believe and use it to actually become better people.

The ones that think for themselves, and use their faiths to better thier own spirit first, and use it as an example to help others, are rare among your kind, Im afraid.
Sure many of them mean well, but then go to church, and hear the Pastor/Priest/Grand Pubah..whatever..speak out against the evil of homosexuals, or whatever, and endlessly repeat that rhetoric as if it came from God himself.


Always question authority, and always, always stick to your guns.

You seem like one of the good ones.

I really wish it wasn't so surprising, but thank you.

All you have done is given some biblical examples and claimed them to be fiction. You've given no reason as to why they must be fiction other than the implied idea that they are too fantastical for you to believe. Beyond the fantastical elements, do you actually have any reason to believe them to be false? As in Historical evidence to the contary?

And just for the record the Bible far, far outsells Harry Potter. You just dont know it becuase they are in diffrent catogaries when it comes to bestsellers lists.

I'm sorry. I'm really rooting for you, but that may be the worst argument I've heard. Let me paraphrase. "What proof do you have they are false other than they are absolutely impossible according to the laws of physics and biology? Beyond the impossible elements, do you actually have any reason to believe they are false?"

I happen to believe that many of those stories are allegories meant to teach lessons, much as most of the stories Jesus told were. However, the argument you just made is also an argument for the stories of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, et al mythologies. What evidence do you have that spiders didn't come from the goddess Minerva turning a woman into one when she was defeated in a contest of weaving skill, other than the fantastical elements that is?

I'm sorry. I'm really rooting for you, but that may be the worst argument I've heard. Let me paraphrase. "What proof do you have they are false other than they are absolutely impossible according to the laws of physics and biology? Beyond the impossible elements, do you actually have any reason to believe they are false?"


Well thats just the thing you see. The way they are described, they "Sound" false, but actually looked at in another light they are quite possible. For example, the parting of the red sea and all the plagues mentioned beforehand have been ascribed to a volcanic eruption. The clouds created by the volcano spreading certian chemicals into the clouds which then rained in the nile, killing all the fish causing the river to go blood red which in turn made the frogs all leave the river and then die which in turn lead to a lack of predetors for the insects so the insects spread the plauges of boils and flies etc. The point being that just because the causes are explainable does not detract from God at all. Nor does the description being fantastical make it impossible.

Well thats just the thing you see. The way they are described, they "Sound" false, but actually looked at in another light they are quite possible. For example, the parting of the red sea and all the plagues mentioned beforehand have been ascribed to a volcanic eruption. The clouds created by the volcano spreading certian chemicals into the clouds which then rained in the nile, killing all the fish causing the river to go blood red which in turn made the frogs all leave the river and then die which in turn lead to a lack of predetors for the insects so the insects spread the plauges of boils and flies etc. The point being that just because the causes are explainable does not detract from God at all. Nor does the description being fantastical make it impossible.

That doesn't explain the parting of the Red Sea, the flood story, a man being alive inside a whale, etc.

That doesn't explain the parting of the Red Sea, the flood story, a man being alive inside a whale, etc.

The sea may have been parted because the volcano's landslide created a wave which pulled the water away for a brief time. And it wasnt a whale, thats just something songwriters have come up with. It was just a big fish a very big fish. Now I dont pretend to know everything, but what I will say is that it just being fantastical is not always evidence enough for its untruth.

[[First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"]]



Generally im a Non-Christian, this is the first thing that a Christian has said in a very very long time that has made me respect them, that took a level of honour i didnt beleive that Christianity still had, when im being anti-Christian its generally because "the path to heaven has historically proved to be paved with bigotry and blood" Christs basic principles, (i still stuggle with alot of the bible), of Love and Peace seem honourable, however theyre fequently overshaddowed by humanitys ignorance and hypocracy, [i believe Jesus said in Mark that "you disreguard Gods commandments and cling to human tradition" that then went on to say, "woe to you scribes and pharisees"] honestly if Jesus is the reigning son of a God thats Almighty, i think he would be ashamed of the horrendous attrocities that are carried out in his name.

The sea may have been parted because the volcano's landslide created a wave which pulled the water away for a brief time. And it wasnt a whale, thats just something songwriters have come up with. It was just a big fish a very big fish. Now I dont pretend to know everything, but what I will say is that it just being fantastical is not always evidence enough for its untruth.

However, it's only reasonable to consider something that seems impossible to be impossible until you're proven otherwise. If I told you that I just filled my car with gas, you'd probably believe me. If I told you my car runs on strawberries, you'd probably openly tell me you think I'm full of it, and if not, you'd think it. Your argument of "why call it impossible just because it violates the rules of physics and biology" is a poor one.

However, it's only reasonable to consider something that seems impossible to be impossible until you're proven otherwise. If I told you that I just filled my car with gas, you'd probably believe me. If I told you my car runs on strawberries, you'd probably openly tell me you think I'm full of it, and if not, you'd think it. Your argument of "why call it impossible just because it violates the rules of physics and biology" is a poor one.

My point is that if you've got evidence that supports that something happened very strongly, and all you've got against it is the fact that the way its described it doesnt sound possible, you need to investigate more by trying to find explainable phonomina which may be described in this way.

Christianity is for weak people who need a transcendental teddybear to hold on to.

BUT: There are two types of christianity, and i'm not talking 'protestant'/'catholic'.
The nice liberal buddhist-like hippy known as Jesus created his form of Christianity while the bible-bashing, misogynical, misanthropic, fundamentalist, Pat Robertson type Christianity was created by (St.)Paul. All the gay-bashing and woman-hating comes from Paul's text, while the Gospel tells that Jesus liked hanging out with hookers and similar types of people, people that Paul condemned.

"The Antichrist" by Nietzsche is a great read by the way. So is "The Genealogy of Morals" by same author.

My point is that if you've got evidence that supports that something happened very strongly, and all you've got against it is the fact that the way its described it doesnt sound possible, you need to investigate more by trying to find explainable phonomina which may be described in this way.

So why don't you present that evidence instead of asking for proof it didn't happen?

while the Gospel tells that Jesus liked hanging out with hookers and similar types of people, people that Paul condemned.

Just because Jesus ascociated with prostitutes and thiving tax collecetors does not mean he condoned their actions, in the same way that because Paul condones Homosexuality does not mean he hates people. Love sinners, hate sin.

So why don't you present that evidence instead of asking for proof it didn't happen?

I'm not enough of an authority on the Old Testement archology to talk about that but in terms of the New, the Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus. Heres a good web explaintion of some more of the evidence

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

I'm not enough of an authority on the Old Testement archology to talk about that but in terms of the New, the Gospels were written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus. Heres a good web explaintion of some more of the evidence

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

But s/he's talking about the old testament. You suggested their evidence that these stories are true. Present it. Your response to his skepticism was let's ignore the fact that it's not possible. That's a terrible argument.

Christianity is for weak people who need a transcendental teddybear to hold on to.

BUT: There are two types of christianity, and i'm not talking 'protestant'/'catholic'.
The nice liberal buddhist-like hippy known as Jesus created his form of Christianity while the bible-bashing, misogynical, misanthropic, fundamentalist, Pat Robertson type Christianity was created by (St.)Paul. All the gay-bashing and woman-hating comes from Paul's text, while the Gospel tells that Jesus liked hanging out with hookers and similar types of people, people that Paul condemned. Surely not just Christianity? Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Animism, Buddhism… a lot of weak people in this world. Not counting the people (martyrs) who willingly die because they're weak.

Surely not just Christianity? Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Animism, Buddhism… a lot of weak people in this world. Not counting the people (martyrs) who willingly die because they're weak.
Yeah Its really weak to not give into base urges, be they sexual, emotional or other. it so hard to go out screw any and everything you can, talk about others (gossip). use others for your own gratification, and just generaly be a selfish ass, as opposed to regulating these things. really you athiest should get better argument

The way we can prove this is that the Gospels were written at the time of those who actually lived and saw Jesus.

Just for the record, this isn't actually true. Most of the Gospels were not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. Most likely, they were written by followers of the apostles (ie. the Gospel of Mark would have been written by one of Mark's students). It still would have been appropriate at the time for a student to put his teacher's name on what he wrote, but mos of the Gospels weren't written until 50-100 years after Christ's death.

That doesn't explain the parting of the Red Sea, the flood story, a man being alive inside a whale, etc.

The parting of the Red Sea needs no explanation, because it isn't actually in Scripture. Scholars have found that the "Red Sea" was a mistranslation and that it was actually a "Sea of Reeds" that Moses led everyone through. In other words, a swamp. God led the ancient Hebrews through a swamp - finding the safe path - while the chariots, etc. of pharaoh got bogged down.

Now, the Jonah story - that's something entirely different. =)

Yeah Its really weak to not give into base urges, be they sexual, emotional or other. it so hard to go out screw any and everything you can, talk about others (gossip). use others for your own gratification, and just generaly be a selfish ass, as opposed to regulating these things. really you athiest should get better argument

No one said that being a christian would be easy, in fact Jesus said just the oposite.

John 15:20 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain
A Public Domain Bible KJV at Zondervan Zondervan

20Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

and paul and peter too.

Hebrews 10:33-35 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

33Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.


But we need to remeber that in all hardships God has a plan.

More Than Conquerors
28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[a] who[b] have been called according to his purpose.

and

Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
NIV at IBS International Bible Society NIV at Zondervan Zondervan

11 For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Just for the record, this isn't actually true. Most of the Gospels were not written within the lifetimes of the apostles. Most likely, they were written by followers of the apostles (ie. the Gospel of Mark would have been written by one of Mark's students). It still would have been appropriate at the time for a student to put his teacher's name on what he wrote, but mos of the Gospels weren't written until 50-100 years after Christ's death.

Yes it is true

John's Gospel for example has been found quoted in works written by Papias and Irenaeus, who both wrote their works in the mid to late 1st Century (most likely AD 70-90) thus given that Jesus died in aproximatley AD 30-35 and these works quoted John's Gospel we can assume the gospels were around pretty soon after Jesus's death. And then on the 24th December in 1994 the director of the institute of basic epistomological research (Dr Carsten Peter Thiede) released to the press scentific evidence that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have avilable (which is on display at present in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford) was written between 30-60 AD. The study can be found along with more infomation in his book "Eyewitness to Jesus"

Yes it is true

John's Gospel for example has been found quoted in works written by Papias and Irenaeus, who both wrote their works in the mid to late 1st Century (most likely AD 70-90) thus given that Jesus died in aproximatley AD 30-35 and these works quoted John's Gospel we can assume the gospels were around pretty soon after Jesus's death. And then on the 24th December in 1994 the director of the institute of basic epistomological research (Dr Carsten Peter Thiede) released to the press scentific evidence that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have avilable (which is on display at present in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford) was written between 30-60 AD. The study can be found along with more infomation in his book "Eyewitness to Jesus"

Yah, I saw a documentary on the History Channel on that book.
Turns out that this guy is pretty much the only one of his peers that is willing to say that those texts are as old as you claim.
All of the other ones "Leading Theologists" and whatnot, say that its unfounded and more probably the earliest of the texts was written about 80-200 AD.
See..thats the problem.
None of them can really agree when they were written.
The Gospel of Thomas, for instance..some claim it to be written @40. A.D, but others say thats impossible, and set it closer to the others.

But as to your circular arguement that the Bible is solid proof....thats a joke.

I'll tell you what...

My return arguement to you is this:

If you can convince me, by showing resolute, and incontrovertable evidence that ANY text of the bible was NOT conceived in deceit...ie..the author LIED...I'll convert to Christianity right now.

But...that isnt going to happen.

With the earlier arguement about the O.T, you were saying that just becuase an impossible story, with such ludicrous and implausible elements, that could not happen within the possibility of science and physics, as we know them......is not proof that such events couldnt take place?

You dont possibly think that those instances are entirely fictional, meant to set a fable?
Aesop anyone?


Let me ask you this...

I could say that the Magical Pink Bunny wrote the bible, and you couldnt prove me wrong...why is that?

If you can convince me, by showing resolute, and incontrovertable evidence that ANY text of the bible was NOT conceived in deceit...ie..the author LIED...I'll convert to Christianity right now.


http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

I think you'd aprciate the historical points raised by this site. It basicly explains why the authors couldn't have lied because if they had, they would have been making the most stupid wild lies ever come up with, so thus without irrifuteable evidence of Jesus's ressurection Christianity could not have suvived.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

I think you'd aprciate the historical points raised by this site. It basicly explains why the authors couldn't have lied because if they had, they would have been making the most stupid wild lies ever come up with, so thus without irrifuteable evidence of Jesus's ressurection Christianity could not have suvived.


and you dont suppose that the fact that they are the wildest, most implausible lies ever written is EXACTLY why they are so popular?

And as for irrefutable evidence, once again, your using the bible...to back up the bible...thats circular logic again, and really not admissable is it?

At any rate, the christian/Jewish mythology is no wilder or more stupid, than any other mythology.

Being swallowed by a whale, and surving, is no sillier than Thor, killing the Midgaard Serpent, taking nine steps backward, and dying himself.

Surtur.....

Okay..I browsed the site....

It isnt "incontrovertable proof" of anything, in fact its merely one mans conjecture on why Chritianity has survived so long, despite being so ridiculous in its origins.
In fact, he pretty much outlines the case against the faith for all to see.

Again, its evidence wich Im looking for...not conjecture.

And as for irrefutable evidence, once again, your using the bible...to back up the bible...thats circular logic again, and really not admissable is it?


You clearly havn't read the page


Being swallowed by a whale, and surving, is no sillier than Thor, killing the Midgaard Serpent, taking nine steps backward, and dying himself.

The story of Jonah firstly does not involve a whale (a big fish) and secondly is not central to the Christian faith. What is central is the crucifixtion and the resurection. Those can be historically proved, and I've given you a series of evidences already. If you refuse to accept them, your just being closed minded.

You clearly havn't read the page



The story of Jonah firstly does not involve a whale (a big fish) and secondly is not central to the Christian faith. What is central is the crucifixtion and the resurection. Those can be historically proved, and I've given you a series of evidences already. If you refuse to accept them, your just being closed minded.


Im closed minded?

You cant be serious.

Please...tell me where you saw this "historical proof" of the ressurection of Jesus, and will bet you ANYTHING that its conjecture, and nothing like evidence at all.

As for the "evidence" you have provided, you provided an article on a religious based website, wich was clearly one man giving his opinion as to why the Bible, and the ressurection of Jesus was true.

In short, nothing more than what we are doing now.

If I'M closed minded, then you are oblivious.

The way I see it, Christianity is a mixture of fables, truths and half truths from a bunch of people through history. This is why the Bible contradicts its self. It's written by a bunch of people who (apparantly) share most of Jesus' beliefs. I think the only person in the New Testament to speak against Gay's was Paul. Maybe this was just his opinion?

Christ may or may not have been real, but I believe his character may have been distorted, based on the fact that he has many almost identical charecteristics to A Pagan Man-God (I can't remember the God's name), but he was said to be the flesh of God, born on Dec 25th in a barn, and re-incarnated in the Spring months. I believe this simply shows that man has altered some truths in order to increase the popularity of the Religion.

If Christ was real, from an Atheist/Agnostic perception, I think he may have been a traveller, who saw what other religions such as Buddhism where doing, and felt he could introduce them to others. To convert judgement and hate to tolerance and love, and to teach that we are all facing an equal struggle. I think he saw greed being rewarded and the unselfish being punished, and went in search for justice. If Jesus where to greet us in the afterlife, as an enlightened person (with the Super Best Friends ;)), who knows what he'd think? From an Historical perspective, I believe Human kind are becoming more loving, with the obvious exceptions, we are generally more tolerant today than we where 100, 1000, or 2000 years ago. Who knows? Maybe the last 2000 years are nothing compared to the thousands of years of bliss we may face when his teachings are really realized by everyone.

Man, that was one preachy post for an Atheist :D

The way I see it, Christianity is a mixture of fables, truths and half truths from a bunch of people through history. This is why the Bible contradicts its self. It's written by a bunch of people who (apparantly) share most of Jesus' beliefs. I think the only person in the New Testament to speak against Gay's was Paul. Maybe this was just his opinion?

Christ may or may not have been real, but I believe his character may have been distorted, based on the fact that he has many almost identical charecteristics to A Pagan Man-God (I can't remember the God's name), but he was said to be the flesh of God, born on Dec 25th in a barn, and re-incarnated in the Spring months. I believe this simply shows that man has altered some truths in order to increase the popularity of the Religion.

If Christ was real, from an Atheist/Agnostic perception, I think he may have been a traveller, who saw what other religions such as Buddhism where doing, and felt he could introduce them to others. To convert judgement and hate to tolerance and love, and to teach that we are all facing an equal struggle. I think he saw greed being rewarded and the unselfish being punished, and went in search for justice. If Jesus where to greet us in the afterlife, as an enlightened person (with the Super Best Friends ;)), who knows what he'd think? From an Historical perspective, I believe Human kind are becoming more loving, with the obvious exceptions, we are generally more tolerant today than we where 100, 1000, or 2000 years ago. Who knows? Maybe the last 2000 years are nothing compared to the thousands of years of bliss we may face when his teachings are really realized by everyone.

Man, that was one preachy post for an Atheist :D

Jesus loves you anyway!

Jesus loves you anyway!


Maybe, but he doesnt want you for a sunbeam.

Im closed minded?

You cant be serious.

Please...tell me where you saw this "historical proof" of the ressurection of Jesus, and will bet you ANYTHING that its conjecture, and nothing like evidence at all.

As for the "evidence" you have provided, you provided an article on a religious based website, wich was clearly one man giving his opinion as to why the Bible, and the ressurection of Jesus was true.

In short, nothing more than what we are doing now.

If I'M closed minded, then you are oblivious.

*moans*

Please, PLEASE, do not make posts like that. This forum is full of enough metaphysical debate about "what is proof" and "what is evidence".

Maybe, but he doesnt want you for a sunbeam.

*confusion*

*moans*

Please, PLEASE, do not make posts like that. This forum is full of enough metaphysical debate about "what is proof" and "what is evidence".


Couldnt be helped.
He started it you see..originally claiming the bible was proof ofthe existance of God.
I was trying to show him that there is no proof, and it never will be, for either side of the arguement.

However, becuase Im a defensive little bastard at heart, but one possesed with a twinge of concsience...I offer these to you:

1. My sincerest apologies.

2. Get stuffed.

Couldnt be helped.
He started it you see..originally claiming the bible was proof ofthe existance of God.
I was trying to show him that there is no proof, and it never will be, for either side of the arguement.

However, becuase Im a defensive little bastard at heart, but one possesed with a twinge of concsience...I offer these to you:

1. My sincerest apologies.

2. Get stuffed.

Was that entirely necessary? "get stuffed"?

Was that entirely necessary? "get stuffed"?

3. Never take me too seriously.

I didnt mean offense, its just my sense of humour.

3. Never take me too seriously.

I didnt mean offense, its just my sense of humour.

Righto.

The Bible

Now before you say "The Bible is not valid proof" it should be pointed out that archological standards say that a document is what it claims to be unless another, more reliable document is found to disprove it. The Gospels were written and distributed widely within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's life. Thats how Christianity suvived. If the documents were so unreliable and people knew them to be false then they would have been passed on. And as for the Old Testement, can anyone here claim to explain how Isaiah 45 predicts that Cyrus king of Persia will be the one to let the Jews return home and rebuild the temple when he was writing over 150 years before Cyrus came to the throne. The prophecy is made in Isaiah 44:28 and again in Isaiah 45:1 and 13 and is fufilled in Ezra Chapter 1: Verses 2-4.

First: A document is what it claims to be... and this is the case with bible texts. They are documents belonging to a religion... to be more accurate - documents belonging to a series of religions.

Taken at that value, no arguement. But, when you try to introduce the idea that they are the infallible word of god, you immediately run in to trouble... since they can not be assessed SCIENTIFICALLY on their 'truth' regarding something which is not FALSIFIABLE.

Second: There are far more religious texts in this world that are NOT biblical texts, than there are that ARE bible texts.

Therefore, by your own argument, the Bible must be assessed by archeology as FALSE... since there are many more texts (equally as reliable, if not moreso) that do not 'fit' with the Bible text.

Third: The Bible is NOT one text... it is a series of texts, written over about a thousand years. Thus - it is totally possible for one 'book' to be true... but without guaranteeing ANYTHING about the truth of any of the OTHER texts.

Fourth: The Bible could ALL be fiction. It could have easily survived "within the lifetimes of those who witnessed Jesus's life", because those people didn't really exist... or because they were characters who were real, but the STORIES about them are false.

I have read stories on the internet, written DURING the lives of the 'characters' that claim that the actors playing Willow and Giles in Buffy are lovers. Does that make them true? Or any more reliable than if they were written a hundred years from now?

Fifth: Simply because a text CLAIMS to be true, doesn't make it so. I recommend to you the series of Lemony Snicket books, which ALL claim to be 'true'. This doesn't mean that it is ACTUALLY any more likely that the Baudelaire Orphans really exist.

Sixth: You seem to ignore the fact that the texts we see NOW as 'The Bible', are not the same set of texts that existed in Jesus' day (if he existed).

Some of the Old Testament texts were still not considered 'canonical', even AFTER Jesus' (alleged) lifetime... and other texts WERE considered reliable, that are not considered so now... like the Book of Enoch.

I'm sorry. I'm really rooting for you, but that may be the worst argument I've heard. Let me paraphrase. "What proof do you have they are false other than they are absolutely impossible according to the laws of physics and biology? Beyond the impossible elements, do you actually have any reason to believe they are false?"

I happen to believe that many of those stories are allegories meant to teach lessons, much as most of the stories Jesus told were. However, the argument you just made is also an argument for the stories of Greek, Roman, Celtic, Norse, et al mythologies. What evidence do you have that spiders didn't come from the goddess Minerva turning a woman into one when she was defeated in a contest of weaving skill, other than the fantastical elements that is?

I'm siding with Jocabia, here. Good points, well made.

Until someone can show me a GOOD reason why I should accept (as factual) a story where a whale deliberately swallows a human... who then lives happily inside said whale, until he basically simply 'walks out of it' onto a beach... I will have to view any such story with more than a little scepticism.

You clearly havn't read the page



The story of Jonah firstly does not involve a whale (a big fish) and secondly is not central to the Christian faith. What is central is the crucifixtion and the resurection. Those can be historically proved, and I've given you a series of evidences already. If you refuse to accept them, your just being closed minded.

There are NO independent, contemporary sources to corroborate Bible stories of the resurrection.

The 'Gospels' were written by (or in the names of - we can't PROVE who they were written by) followers of Jesus (or followers of the 'movement' he inspired) - so NONE of them are can be considered 'independent'.

The earliest 'independent' texts actually arrive a time AFTER the deaths of any of those who might have been eye-witnesses - in the form of Josephus and Tacitus - so they are not 'contemporary'.


My other point, of course, is that you walk a dangerous path by saying that the Old Testament texts could be somehow 'wrong' without affecting the New Testament..... after all, the only reason ANYONE ever thought Jesus might be Messiah, is BECAUSE of the Old Testament texts, right?

So - if THOSE texts COULD be wrong... you are practically admitting that Jesus might not be the Messiah of the Old Testament. (He isn't ANYWAY, but for very different reasons).

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

I think you'd aprciate the historical points raised by this site. It basicly explains why the authors couldn't have lied because if they had, they would have been making the most stupid wild lies ever come up with, so thus without irrifuteable evidence of Jesus's ressurection Christianity could not have suvived.

Could not have survived? There are very prevelant stories that Richard Gere was hospitalized because a rodent was stuck up his ass. Besides the fact that a live rodent up your ass could very well kill you under the circumstances presented, it's well-known that the story is completely and entirely false. That's doesn't stop people from regularly swearing to God and all that is holy that's it's true. Or that Microsoft will give you money if you forward an email (my friend earned thousands this way). Or that GWB has an IQ of 60 (he apparently looks up to Forrest Gump). Or a million other ridiculous and falsifiable claims. And, yet, none of them can be stopped from circulating. Why do you think that is? Sometimes people just want to believe. I'm not saying the stories of Jesus are false. I happen to believe them, but your argument here isn't very strong.

And if you want arguments that are a little better suited to this discussion, how about the fact that people were absolutely convinced at one time that the 'witches' of Salem were killing children and causing crops to go bad and milk to go sour even though there was absolutely no evidence that any of these events could ever actually be attributed to a witch. They were so convinced that they were willing to kill people over it.

Quite simply, it's amazing what people will believe.

Now, as for the bible, I find it amazing that you bother to try and PROVE the bible. If it could be proved it would be knowledge and not faith. Faith is the whole point, thus it isn't likely it will be proven ever. Attempts to try and do so are generally laughable.

You clearly havn't read the page

The story of Jonah firstly does not involve a whale (a big fish) and secondly is not central to the Christian faith. What is central is the crucifixtion and the resurection. Those can be historically proved, and I've given you a series of evidences already. If you refuse to accept them, your just being closed minded.

Wow, what passes for proof in your world...

First, again, I believe the stories of Jesus to be true. However, I don't and can't accept this site as anything less than a complete idiot pretending to be a scholar. Yes, I said that about the site's author. That's his conclusion don't follow logic and he bends the evidence to try and make it seem to support the conclusions he draws (though he does so poorly).

#1 There can be only one good explanation: Christianity succeeded because from the cross came victory, and after death came resurrection! The shame of the cross turns out to be one of Christianity's most incontrovertible proofs!

Incontrovertible proof? That Christ was the son of God? How so? I read the whole thing as his argument is that no one in their right mind would worship or pray to a martyr, particularly one martyred in this way. Has this guy been around in history at all? Here's a couple and it's well-known that these men were not considered to be the son of God, but have been prayed to and worshipped. It's not a far leap from there. All of these men were killed in heinous ways.

http://www.antiochian.org/1251
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05323a.htm
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintj29.htm

#2 There are other minor extensions to this business of stereotyping. Assigning Jesus the work of a carpenter was the wrong thing to do; Cicero noted that such occupations were "vulgar" and compared the work to slavery. Placing Jesus' birth story in the a suspicious context where a charge of illegitimacy would be all too obvious to make would compound the problems as well. If the Gospels were making up these things, how hard would it have been to put Jesus in Sepphoris or even Capernaum (and still take advantage of the prophetic "Galilee" connection) -- and as skeptics are wont to say, wrongly, this would be no easier or harder to check out than Nazareth. How hard would it have been to take an "adoptionist" Christology and give Jesus an indisputably honorable birth (rather than claiming honor by the dubious, on the surface, claim that God was Jesus' Father)? Maybe harder, since more people are less likely to notice one man than in a small town with strong community ties. What it boils down to is that everything about Jesus as a person was all wrong to get people to believe he was deity -- and there must have been something powerful to overcome all the stigmas.

Yes, because people are much more likely to worship a man that has absolutely no ties to them than they would a man of the people./sarcasm It's known that some of the strongest leaders in history have come from lowly beginnings to sit on high, Joan of Arc anyone? (saint burned at the stake, mind you. I'll also add that she was thought to be prophesied as well.) It's not so strange that it would make people worship more strongly to know that God sent his son not to be King or the Wealthy on Earth, but instead gave him humble beginnings and let him suffer as we suffer.

Again our friend requires us to ignore history and common understanding.

#3 Physical resurrection was the last sort of endgame for mankind that you wanted to preach... But what makes this especially telling is that a physical resurrection was completely unnecessary for merely starting a religion... There is only one plausible answer -- they really had a resurrection to preach.

Really? The only plausible answer is that he was actually resurrected? No amount of worship or diefication could result from resurrecting oneself? Or appearing to? Or telling a story of a man who resurrected himself? No, no, people would just think that a resurrection suggests he's worthy of scorn, or at least that's the argument our friend here makes. That's so ridiculous it's hard to even continue reading.

#4 Critics of Christianity, of course, "caught on" to this "trick" and soon pointed (however illicitly) out that Christians could hardly claim Judaism and at the same time observe none of its practices. Therefore this is a hurdle that Christianity could never overcome outside a limited circle -- not without some substantial offering of proof.

This one is simply precious. You have a religion with overbearing practices which everyone hated and a religion pops up that says that it's a derivative of that religion and the Son of God has arrived and lifted these overbearing practices and freed men to worship without all those laws. Yes, why would anyone follow this new, gentler religion when they could continue living under the hundreds of laws of Judaism. It's just silly.

#5 This is not one of the greatest barriers, but it is a significant one, and of course still is today. Ethically, Christian religion is "hard to do"...But it is very difficult to explain why Christianity grew where God-fearers were always a very small group. Not even evangelistic fervor explains that.

This is so hilarious. First, it completely contradicts #4 where he admits that much of the Judaic (not sure if that's a word) law was lifted. Second, the same argument could be made of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al. If evangelism does not explain it (and thus it must be that the Bible is true) then wouldn't it hold that the Q'uran must also be true?

There are 17 of this ridiculous proofs. Do I really need to continue? You can't possibly believe these pass for science or even logic.

It's not condoning or accepting to not outlaw it is really the point. Yes, he expected and intended for the behavior to stop. He could expect that, he wasn't a sinner. You can't. You're not just a sinner, but you still sin. You've likely sinned today.

I don't walk around damning things and using the word God as a swear word or exclamation, but I don't believe making a law against it was the point. In fact, I think it's preferred for their to be a law that permits freedom of religion and speech. I think were Jesus Christ here, he would support the first amendment (of course, I understand that this is just my opinion). However, you could argue that the first amendment encourages people to hold another God before the Christian God, now couldn't you? See the rather clear distinction? More importantly, does the first amendment condone devilworshipping or Naziism simply because it allows it?

Thing is, He already had made a law against it. He chose to offer mercy rather than the penalty of the law and to suffer the penalty of the law in her, and our place, but the law said that both adultery and homosexuality were unlawful.

If Christ were here, it'd mean He'd have come for the second time and there would be no more lawless, sinful, selfish behavior and the need for the first ammendment would be moot as every knee would have bowed and every tongue confessed that Christ was the rightful ruler of the universe. His unchanging law would be written on all of our hearts and we'd all agree as to what that law was. You got me excited just thinkin about it. Unfortunately, we're still here, sinful, selfish beings, in the land of decision, deciding whom we will serve.

Which is quite simply why I'm not lead by you or any other being walking the face of the earth. We're all working on opinions, estimations, translations, guesses at what is the right thing to do. And I think we generally get the big things right and we do our best with the smaller stuff. And that's all we can do. If all of us our blind what good is handing us a book? That's the point. Our human thoughts and feelings are filters of our faith and of what we find in the Bible. Neither is pure or untainted. I hold that God, in fact, accepts this failing and this is quite simply the reason Jesus was necessary.

I prefer to filter my thoughts and feelings through my faith which is based on scripture. Granted, my understanding of scripture is certainly fallible and I am still growing in my walk with Christ, however, without trusting scripture, there is no difinitive reason to trust in Jesus or even believe that He exists for that matter.

Exactly. I hold that faith is that common source and that faith is the elephant we're all examining.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not the thing itself. I'd prefer to be examining God through faith rather than examining faith on the basis of my feelings.

I prefer to filter my thoughts and feelings through my faith which is based on scripture. Granted, my understanding of scripture is certainly fallible and I am still growing in my walk with Christ, however, without trusting scripture, there is no difinitive reason to trust in Jesus or even believe that He exists for that matter.

Gee, and here I thought that we each had a personal connection with the Jesus Christ. When I meet the savior I'm sure he'll tell me that his influence my heart is no evidence he exist or a reason to trust him. I suggest if the only reason you can find to trust in Jesus or believe He exists is words written on paper, then it's the book you're worshipping. I prefer to worship the actual entity and thus find His relationship with me to be the very thing that evidences Him.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not the thing itself. I'd prefer to be examining God through faith rather than examining faith on the basis of my feelings.

False. Faith is belief. We are examining our beliefs, our faith. Faith is NOT evidence and, in fact, often exists in the absence of evidence. My faith is my belief in God and it is this I am examining through my personal connection to Him. You are misusing the word, even in relation to God.

Faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

Thing is, He already had made a law against it. He chose to offer mercy rather than the penalty of the law and to suffer the penalty of the law in her, and our place, but the law said that both adultery and homosexuality were unlawful.

No, I mean a secular law. Religious laws and secular laws are clearly and obviously seperate. If I commit a homosexual act will I be punished under the law of Jesus? Depends. Not if afterward I accept Jesus as the savior and decide to live my life according to his principles. Obviously, secular law cannot operate that way. If I made a law against homosexual acts then asking to be absolved of your sins would obviously not clear you and, in fact, only One can actually absolve you of sin.

If Christ were here, it'd mean He'd have come for the second time and there would be no more lawless, sinful, selfish behavior and the need for the first ammendment would be moot as every knee would have bowed and every tongue confessed that Christ was the rightful ruler of the universe. His unchanging law would be written on all of our hearts and we'd all agree as to what that law was. You got me excited just thinkin about it. Unfortunately, we're still here, sinful, selfish beings, in the land of decision, deciding whom we will serve.

Way to avoid the point. I thought you wanted to have an intelligent discussion. Getting frustrated?

You know, I get tire of these Christian types asking me "Have you found Jesus?", bcause frankly, if they can't keep track of their messiah, then don't ask me to go looking for him. Have they checked under the sofa cushions? I lose stuff there all the time.

Oh, and:

Pirate Jesus (http://www.piratejesus.com/001.html)

Gee, and here I thought that we each had a personal connection with the Jesus Christ. When I meet the savior I'm sure he'll tell me that his influence my heart is no evidence he exist or a reason to trust him. I suggest if the only reason you can find to trust in Jesus or believe He exists is words written on paper, then it's the book you're worshipping. I prefer to worship the actual entity and thus find His relationship with me to be the very thing that evidences Him.

I would be untrusting of any internal voice that contridicted scripture. When they agree, I attribute it to Christ via the Holy Spirit. If my internal impression disagrees with scripture, I opperate under the premise that, "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Is. 8:20. That is how I know whose voice and with whom I'm developing a relationship. Without that frame of referrence, one could easily be led astray by selfishness or worse yet, by demonic agencies.

False. Faith is belief. We are examining our beliefs, our faith. Faith is NOT evidence and, in fact, often exists in the absence of evidence. My faith is my belief in God and it is this I am examining through my personal connection to Him. You are misusing the word, even in relation to God.

Faith
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

If you look at that first defintion, you see that faith is more than belief, it is also trust and loyalty... "Even the demons believe and tremble"...

Faith, in the Christian sense, is a gift from God and it entails more than just a belief structure, it is a living, active agent acting upon a human being, changing, shaping, molding a person's intellect, heart, whole being after the pattern of Christ, which He made know to us in scripture.

No, I mean a secular law. Religious laws and secular laws are clearly and obviously seperate. If I commit a homosexual act will I be punished under the law of Jesus? Depends. Not if afterward I accept Jesus as the savior and decide to live my life according to his principles. Obviously, secular law cannot operate that way. If I made a law against homosexual acts then asking to be absolved of your sins would obviously not clear you and, in fact, only One can actually absolve you of sin.



Way to avoid the point. I thought you wanted to have an intelligent discussion. Getting frustrated?

I'm not advocating a secular law that makes homosexual acts illegal. Marriage, by definition is not a homosexual act. Infact, it is not a secular act and shouldn't fall under Gov. regulation period.

Sorry for the divergent thought. You just got me thinking of Jesus being here and you're right, He would be crying even more than He did for Jerusalem during the "triumphal entry". It was a thought hard for me to face for long and my mind wondered to the next time Jesus will physically be here and I couldn't help but express a little joy.

If you look at that first defintion, you see that faith is more than belief, it is also trust and loyalty... "Even the demons believe and tremble"...

Faith, in the Christian sense, is a gift from God and it entails more than just a belief structure, it is a living, active agent acting upon a human being, changing, shaping, molding a person's intellect, heart, whole being after the pattern of Christ, which He made know to us in scripture.

That's fine, but it's still the thing we are examining. I examine my faith, how my belief, trust and loyalty should be shaped, how God would like for the that belief, trust and loyalty to take shape through my personal relationship with God. None of this supports your claims about the scripture. In fact, "a living, active agent acting upon a human being, changing, shaping, molding a person's intellect, heart, whole being after the pattern of Christ" is exactly what I've been talking about. And I trust in that faith before I trust in any paper or ink.

I'm not advocating a secular law that makes homosexual acts illegal. Marriage, by definition is not a homosexual act. Infact, it is not a secular act and shouldn't fall under Gov. regulation period.

Sorry for the divergent thought. You just got me thinking of Jesus being here and you're right, He would be crying even more than He did for Jerusalem during the "triumphal entry". It was a thought hard for me to face for long and my mind wondered to the next time Jesus will physically be here and I couldn't help but express a little joy.

First, before there is much evidence of societies that married without any belief in God. A secular government has a requirement to allow freedom of religion. Thus you can't support the claim that marriage is purely religious.

Second, the rights and priveleges of marriage, 1138 rights and priveleges, are necessary to support the institution. They address the joining of two entities into one, financially. They address the needs of the spouse to be considered a member of the family. They address the needs of the spouse to be cared for by retirement benefits after the death of a spouse. They address many needs that exist in marriage. It requires government regulation.

Now, as there is seperation of church and state, the state cannot define the act of marriage by anything other than secular standards. They must give anyone that enters a marriage equal rights whether there marriage is secular or religious. You may enter into a marriage by being married in a church, but the government cannot make this a requirement in order to recieve the rights and priveleges. In fact, they cannot limit the act of marriage based on religious dogma, period.

I would be untrusting of any internal voice that contridicted scripture. When they agree, I attribute it to Christ via the Holy Spirit. If my internal impression disagrees with scripture, I opperate under the premise that, "To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Is. 8:20. That is how I know whose voice and with whom I'm developing a relationship. Without that frame of referrence, one could easily be led astray by selfishness or worse yet, by demonic agencies.

I do speak according the word, the word of my savior as he writes it upon my heart. You have still not established how I can't be just as easily led astray by the scripture itself. Certainly it can be misinterpreted as we've seen throughout history.

More importantly, what if I couldn't read? Would I have no ability to trust in the Lord? Of course not, because we have a personal relationship with our savior and he gives us words that we can all hear, all read, all understand, if we have ears and eyes and open hearts. There are a hundred ways one can be saved, led by Christ and not have access to scripture. This in no way impedes one's ability to connect to our savior. If you feel that scripture is more necessary than faith then I think you have a little problem there.

Most importantly, my heart is under the influence of only our Lord and our Savior. That book is quite clearly not.

That's fine, but it's still the thing we are examining. I examine my faith, how my belief, trust and loyalty should be shaped, how God would like for the that belief, trust and loyalty to take shape through my personal relationship with God. None of this supports your claims about the scripture. In fact, "a living, active agent acting upon a human being, changing, shaping, molding a person's intellect, heart, whole being after the pattern of Christ" is exactly what I've been talking about. And I trust in that faith before I trust in any paper or ink.

The problem is, without scripture, you are just as likely saying, "I trust in, my own selfish, demon inspired thoughts, feelings and impressions" as to be saying that you are listening to the voice of God. The scripture gives a referrence point that without which, you have nothing verifyable upon which to base your faith, making it a truly "blind" faith. I hope and pray, for your sake, that the impressions you cling to truly are divinely inspired and not the deceptions of Lucifer, but as for me, I'm sticking with Christ's recommendation to accept the Law and the Prophets rather than my own feelings.

First, before there is much evidence of societies that married without any belief in God. A secular government has a requirement to allow freedom of religion. Thus you can't support the claim that marriage is purely religious.

Second, the rights and priveleges of marriage, 1138 rights and priveleges, are necessary to support the institution. They address the joining of two entities into one, financially. They address the needs of the spouse to be considered a member of the family. They address the needs of the spouse to be cared for by retirement benefits after the death of a spouse. They address many needs that exist in marriage. It requires government regulation.

Now, as there is seperation of church and state, the state cannot define the act of marriage by anything other than secular standards. They must give anyone that enters a marriage equal rights whether there marriage is secular or religious. You may enter into a marriage by being married in a church, but the government cannot make this a requirement in order to recieve the rights and priveleges. In fact, they cannot limit the act of marriage based on religious dogma, period.

Again, I have no problem with civil contracts that define financial/property relationships, between two or more individuals of any gender. The other benefits have nothing to do with the Gov. IMO.

I do speak according the word, the word of my savior as he writes it upon my heart. You have still not established how I can't be just as easily led astray by the scripture itself. Certainly it can be misinterpreted as we've seen throughout history.

More importantly, what if I couldn't read? Would I have no ability to trust in the Lord? Of course not, because we have a personal relationship with our savior and he gives us words that we can all hear, all read, all understand, if we have ears and eyes and open hearts. There are a hundred ways one can be saved, led by Christ and not have access to scripture. This in no way impedes one's ability to connect to our savior. If you feel that scripture is more necessary than faith then I think you have a little problem there.

Most importantly, my heart is under the influence of only our Lord and our Savior. That book is quite clearly not.

I don't believe that scripture is more necessary than faith, just that a faith that contridicts scripture is a false faith. As for why I take the scripture to be more valid than a persons feelings, and whims, I again refer to Christ's example, "It is written" and every time He said that He quoted scripture.

And referring to scriptures validity, Christ said it was they that "testify of Me". I'd say that is a pretty ringing endorsment.

I don't believe that scripture is more necessary than faith, just that a faith that contridicts scripture is a false faith. As for why I take the scripture to be more valid than a persons feelings, and whims, I again refer to Christ's example, "It is written" and every time He said that He quoted scripture.

And referring to scriptures validity, Christ said it was they that "testify of Me". I'd say that is a pretty ringing endorsment.

What version of the bible are you using because I searched for that phrase in several versions the first time you used it and found no examples.

What version of the bible are you using because I searched for that phrase in several versions the first time you used it and found no examples.

See John 5:37-47. The actual statment is in verse 39 but that whole section is germaine to the topic.

The problem is, without scripture, you are just as likely saying, "I trust in, my own selfish, demon inspired thoughts, feelings and impressions" as to be saying that you are listening to the voice of God. The scripture gives a referrence point that without which, you have nothing verifyable upon which to base your faith, making it a truly "blind" faith. I hope and pray, for your sake, that the impressions you cling to truly are divinely inspired and not the deceptions of Lucifer, but as for me, I'm sticking with Christ's recommendation to accept the Law and the Prophets rather than my own feelings.

With scripture, you are saying "I trust in, my own selfish, demon inspired thoughts, feelings and impressions and that of others." You don't actively speak the original language and cannot know for sure that any semblence of that language you learn is accurate. You cannot know for sure that what you learn of the context of when these texts were written is accurate either. In every case, you have to rely on teachings and translations of other human beings. How is that more pure? You suggest that the Lord protects the writings in the Bible and yet He doesn't protect my heart and my faith when I've come to Him? That's a bit of a contradiction.

The bible is also not verifiable. It is contested who wrote it or wrote certain passages, when it was written, if it is prophetic or not, if it should be taken literally or not, among other things.

So Lucifer suggested that I believe in Christ as my personal savior? That's an odd thing for him to do since the bible clearly states that once my name is written in the book of life it can never be erased and that to accept Jesus as my personal savior is the requirement for having my name written there.

I'm sticking to Christ's own suggestion that we are saved by faith and not knowledge.

See John 5:37-47. The actual statment is in verse 39 but that whole section is germaine to the topic.

You made my point for me. Thank you.

John 5:36-40 36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

He says here that you should be weary of those that put too much weight in the scripture. I do exactly what it says. It says that scripture testifies about him (I agree with that) but that following the scripture rather than him does not make sense.

John 5:45-47 45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

He goes on further to say that if you don't believe the scripture testifies of him (referring to prophesying him rather than believing it testifies of someone else) then why would you believe what he says at all (I believe saying that one needs to accept that he is the Son of God and not just a man, thus all the comments about men praising men instead of listening to God and having Him in their hearts).

You made my point for me. Thank you.

John 5:36-40 36"I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. 37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

He says here that you should be weary of those that put too much weight in the scripture. I do exactly what it says. It says that scripture testifies about him (I agree with that) but that following the scripture rather than him does not make sense.

John 5:45-47 45"But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

He goes on further to say that if you don't believe the scripture testifies of him (referring to prophesying him rather than believing it testifies of someone else) then why would you believe what he says at all (I believe saying that one needs to accept that he is the Son of God and not just a man, thus all the comments about men praising men instead of listening to God and having Him in their hearts).


Boy can you pic and piece together things. Lest anyone else be confuse, I'm going to quote that section in its entirety.

"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, an dI know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has born witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the buring and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish - the very works that I do - bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to cometo Me that you may have life.
I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one antoher and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you - Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words."

John 5:31-47

If you don't believe the written word, how can you expect to believe or even recognize the living word?

Boy can you pic and piece together things. Lest anyone else be confuse, I'm going to quote that section in its entirety.

"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, an dI know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. You have sent to John, and he has born witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the buring and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish - the very works that I do - bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to cometo Me that you may have life.
I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honor from one antoher and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God? Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you - Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words."

John 5:31-47

If you don't believe the written word, how can you expect to believe or even recognize the living word?


You didn't like my translation? It can't be faulty because God wouldn't let it be that. Remember? You said that. But the version you're using and the one I'm using are different in core ways. Here's another version. Here the intent is clear. Jesus is saying that they put the scripture before him but the scripture is in fact about him and they need to put it down and come to him if they wished to be saved. I see this as the exact opposite of what you are saying. They claimed he was violating the scripture, the Law, and he was saying, "fools, I'm the Law. That was only there to help you find me. Look at me and what I do and you'll know that I was the one who sent to save you." Your version and you are saying that he was lifting up the scripture when, in fact, he was knocking down the Law that the Jews were using to accuse him. Read below.

1Soon another Feast came around and Jesus was back in Jerusalem. 2Near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem there was a pool, in Hebrew called Bethesda, with five alcoves. 3Hundreds of sick people--blind, crippled, paralyzed--were in these alcoves. 5One man had been an invalid there for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him stretched out by the pool and knew how long he had been there, he said, "Do you want to get well?"
7The sick man said, "Sir, when the water is stirred, I don't have anybody to put me in the pool. By the time I get there, somebody else is already in."

8Jesus said, "Get up, take your bedroll, start walking." 9The man was healed on the spot. He picked up his bedroll and walked off.

That day happened to be the Sabbath. 10The Jews stopped the healed man and said, "It's the Sabbath. You can't carry your bedroll around. It's against the rules."

11But he told them, "The man who made me well told me to. He said, "Take your bedroll and start walking.'"

12They asked, "Who gave you the order to take it up and start walking?" 13But the healed man didn't know, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd.

14A little later Jesus found him in the Temple and said, "You look wonderful! You're well! Don't return to a sinning life or something worse might happen."

15The man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16That is why the Jews were out to get Jesus--because he did this kind of thing on the Sabbath.

17But Jesus defended himself. "My Father is working straight through, even on the Sabbath. So am I."

18That really set them off. The Jews were now not only out to expose him; they were out to kill him. Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, putting himself on a level with God.



What the Father Does, the Son Does
19So Jesus explained himself at length. "I'm telling you this straight. The Son can't independently do a thing, only what he sees the Father doing. What the Father does, the Son does. 20The Father loves the Son and includes him in everything he is doing.
"But you haven't seen the half of it yet, 21for in the same way that the Father raises the dead and creates life, so does the Son. The Son gives life to anyone he chooses. 22Neither he nor the Father shuts anyone out. The Father handed all authority to judge over to the Son 23so that the Son will be honored equally with the Father. Anyone who dishonors the Son, dishonors the Father, for it was the Father's decision to put the Son in the place of honor.

24"It's urgent that you listen carefully to this: Anyone here who believes what I am saying right now and aligns himself with the Father, who has in fact put me in charge, has at this very moment the real, lasting life and is no longer condemned to be an outsider. This person has taken a giant step from the world of the dead to the world of the living.

25"It's urgent that you get this right: The time has arrived--I mean right now!-when dead men and women will hear the voice of the Son of God and, hearing, will come alive. 26Just as the Father has life in himself, he has conferred on the Son life in himself. 27And he has given him the authority, simply because he is the Son of Man, to decide and carry out matters of Judgment.

28"Don't act so surprised at all this. The time is coming when everyone dead and buried will hear his voice. 29Those who have lived the right way will walk out into a resurrection Life; those who have lived the wrong way, into a resurrection Judgment.

30"I can't do a solitary thing on my own: I listen, then I decide. You can trust my decision because I'm not out to get my own way but only to carry out orders. 31If I were simply speaking on my own account, it would be an empty, self-serving witness. 32But an independent witness confirms me, the most reliable Witness of all. 33Furthermore, you all saw and heard John, and he gave expert and reliable testimony about me, didn't he?

34"But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I'm speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. 35John was a torch, blazing and bright, and you were glad enough to dance for an hour or so in his bright light. 36But the witness that really confirms me far exceeds John's witness. It's the work the Father gave me to complete. These very tasks, as I go about completing them, confirm that the Father, in fact, sent me. 37The Father who sent me, confirmed me. And you missed it. You never heard his voice, you never saw his appearance. 38There is nothing left in your memory of his Message because you do not take his Messenger seriously. 39"You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you'll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! 40And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren't willing to receive from me the life you say you want.

41"I'm not interested in crowd approval. 42And do you know why? Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially God's love, is not on your working agenda. 43I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms. 44How do you expect to get anywhere with God when you spend all your time jockeying for position with each other, ranking your rivals and ignoring God?

45"But don't think I'm going to accuse you before my Father. Moses, in whom you put so much stock, is your accuser. 46If you believed, really believed, what Moses said, you would believe me. He wrote of me. 47If you won't take seriously what he wrote, how can I expect you to take seriously what I speak?"

You didn't like my translation? It can't be faulty because God wouldn't let it be that. Remember? You said that. But the version you're using and the one I'm using are different in core ways. Here's another version. Here the intent is clear. Jesus is saying that they put the scripture before him but the scripture is in fact about him and they need to put it down and come to him if they wished to be saved. I see this as the exact opposite of what you are saying. They claimed he was violating the scripture, the Law, and he was saying, "fools, I'm the Law. That was only there to help you find me. Look at me and what I do and you'll know that I was the one who sent to save you." Your version and you are saying that he was lifting up the scripture when, in fact, he was knocking down the Law that the Jews were using to accuse him. Read below.

1Soon another Feast came around and Jesus was back in Jerusalem. 2Near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem there was a pool, in Hebrew called Bethesda, with five alcoves. 3Hundreds of sick people--blind, crippled, paralyzed--were in these alcoves. 5One man had been an invalid there for thirty-eight years. 6When Jesus saw him stretched out by the pool and knew how long he had been there, he said, "Do you want to get well?"
7The sick man said, "Sir, when the water is stirred, I don't have anybody to put me in the pool. By the time I get there, somebody else is already in."

8Jesus said, "Get up, take your bedroll, start walking." 9The man was healed on the spot. He picked up his bedroll and walked off.

That day happened to be the Sabbath. 10The Jews stopped the healed man and said, "It's the Sabbath. You can't carry your bedroll around. It's against the rules."

11But he told them, "The man who made me well told me to. He said, "Take your bedroll and start walking.'"

12They asked, "Who gave you the order to take it up and start walking?" 13But the healed man didn't know, for Jesus had slipped away into the crowd.

14A little later Jesus found him in the Temple and said, "You look wonderful! You're well! Don't return to a sinning life or something worse might happen."

15The man went back and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. 16That is why the Jews were out to get Jesus--because he did this kind of thing on the Sabbath.

17But Jesus defended himself. "My Father is working straight through, even on the Sabbath. So am I."

18That really set them off. The Jews were now not only out to expose him; they were out to kill him. Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was calling God his own Father, putting himself on a level with God.



What the Father Does, the Son Does
19So Jesus explained himself at length. "I'm telling you this straight. The Son can't independently do a thing, only what he sees the Father doing. What the Father does, the Son does. 20The Father loves the Son and includes him in everything he is doing.
"But you haven't seen the half of it yet, 21for in the same way that the Father raises the dead and creates life, so does the Son. The Son gives life to anyone he chooses. 22Neither he nor the Father shuts anyone out. The Father handed all authority to judge over to the Son 23so that the Son will be honored equally with the Father. Anyone who dishonors the Son, dishonors the Father, for it was the Father's decision to put the Son in the place of honor.

24"It's urgent that you listen carefully to this: Anyone here who believes what I am saying right now and aligns himself with the Father, who has in fact put me in charge, has at this very moment the real, lasting life and is no longer condemned to be an outsider. This person has taken a giant step from the world of the dead to the world of the living.

25"It's urgent that you get this right: The time has arrived--I mean right now!-when dead men and women will hear the voice of the Son of God and, hearing, will come alive. 26Just as the Father has life in himself, he has conferred on the Son life in himself. 27And he has given him the authority, simply because he is the Son of Man, to decide and carry out matters of Judgment.

28"Don't act so surprised at all this. The time is coming when everyone dead and buried will hear his voice. 29Those who have lived the right way will walk out into a resurrection Life; those who have lived the wrong way, into a resurrection Judgment.

30"I can't do a solitary thing on my own: I listen, then I decide. You can trust my decision because I'm not out to get my own way but only to carry out orders. 31If I were simply speaking on my own account, it would be an empty, self-serving witness. 32But an independent witness confirms me, the most reliable Witness of all. 33Furthermore, you all saw and heard John, and he gave expert and reliable testimony about me, didn't he?

34"But my purpose is not to get your vote, and not to appeal to mere human testimony. I'm speaking to you this way so that you will be saved. 35John was a torch, blazing and bright, and you were glad enough to dance for an hour or so in his bright light. 36But the witness that really confirms me far exceeds John's witness. It's the work the Father gave me to complete. These very tasks, as I go about completing them, confirm that the Father, in fact, sent me. 37The Father who sent me, confirmed me. And you missed it. You never heard his voice, you never saw his appearance. 38There is nothing left in your memory of his Message because you do not take his Messenger seriously. 39"You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you'll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! 40And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren't willing to receive from me the life you say you want.

41"I'm not interested in crowd approval. 42And do you know why? Because I know you and your crowds. I know that love, especially God's love, is not on your working agenda. 43I came with the authority of my Father, and you either dismiss me or avoid me. If another came, acting self-important, you would welcome him with open arms. 44How do you expect to get anywhere with God when you spend all your time jockeying for position with each other, ranking your rivals and ignoring God?

45"But don't think I'm going to accuse you before my Father. Moses, in whom you put so much stock, is your accuser. 46If you believed, really believed, what Moses said, you would believe me. He wrote of me. 47If you won't take seriously what he wrote, how can I expect you to take seriously what I speak?"

Interesting translation, but it still makes my point... BTW which translation is it? Or is it a modern paraphrase? Either way, if you note the bolded sections, it still says that, if you can't take what Moses wrote seriously, you can't really expect to take Christ seriously either.

As for the issue of the Man Jesus healed on the Sabbath... There are other stories of Jesus healing on the Sabbath as well and condoning His disciples picking heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. Does that mean that He was a Sabbath breaker? I think not, He, as "Lord of the Sabbath", was actually pointing out that the Jewish leaders of His day had so misconstrued what the law actually said on the basis of their traditions that they had lost track of what Sabbath keeping was actually all about. It was not a doing away with the Commandment, which He clearly states that would last till all was fulfilled, it was rather a clarification as to what it actually meant to keep the Sabbath, and as Jesus Himself said, it is "lawful to do good on the Sabbath".

I feel deep down that jesus was a liberal and a pacifist and a generally pretty stand up dude who taught us that love and pacifism will overcome all. kinda like buddha, ghandi, and countless other prophets.

jesus wouldnt deny anyone their rights, but he wouldnt be happy if they were commiting sins. he would try to help them out.

He would be sobbing at the fact that he gave people an excuse to kill, repress, rape torture, etc.

Interesting translation, but it still makes my point... BTW which translation is it? Or is it a modern paraphrase? Either way, if you note the bolded sections, it still says that, if you can't take what Moses wrote seriously, you can't really expect to take Christ seriously either.

As for the issue of the Man Jesus healed on the Sabbath... There are other stories of Jesus healing on the Sabbath as well and condoning His disciples picking heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath. Does that mean that He was a Sabbath breaker? I think not, He, as "Lord of the Sabbath", was actually pointing out that the Jewish leaders of His day had so misconstrued what the law actually said on the basis of their traditions that they had lost track of what Sabbath keeping was actually all about. It was not a doing away with the Commandment, which He clearly states that would last till all was fulfilled, it was rather a clarification as to what it actually meant to keep the Sabbath, and as Jesus Himself said, it is "lawful to do good on the Sabbath".

I do take it seriously. But when Jesus said it, the Catholic church hadn't been in control of the documentation of him for 2000 years. I think even he would be a little wary of that. I didn't say he was doing away the commandment, he was saying you spend all your time pointing to scripture when you can clearly see that I'm doing Gods work. In other words he said inject a little reason into this stuff, boys.

I think that Jesus may very well be crying. But not because people won't accept a formulaic statement and then continue living their lives just the same as anyone else....ok, maybe a little better but not much.

I think Jesus would cry because we don't love our neighbors as ourselves. Well, only the ones our country says that we shouldn't bomb. I think Jesus would cry because we don't care for the orphan or the widow, or the "least of these" (Matthew 25).

I think Jesus would cry because Christians are willing to live in an uncompassionate caplitalistic society which uses slave (sweatshop anyway) labor and exploits people and resources.

To quote James 1:27

"Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

or Isaiah:

"cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow." (1:16b-17)

Jesus wasn't about having nice houses and retirement and living in comfort. He offered to share his home in heaven with us, but warned that the price on Earth would be to have no home.

How many people who pray the salvation prayer care to follow Jesus?

I think it's pretty much worthless if you don't.

Food for thought: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/making/warprayer.html

I do take it seriously. But when Jesus said it, the Catholic church hadn't been in control of the documentation of him for 2000 years. I think even he would be a little wary of that. I didn't say he was doing away the commandment, he was saying you spend all your time pointing to scripture when you can clearly see that I'm doing Gods work. In other words he said inject a little reason into this stuff, boys.


While I understand your very legidimate concerns about the documents having been in Catholic hands for nearly 2000 years, the finding of manuscripts that haven't been in their hands and still say the same things.

I know that G_n_I has a problem with the translations of those manuscripts, but that is because he thinks that the current translations have influenced the re-translation process unduely. I disagree...

While I understand your very legidimate concerns about the documents having been in Catholic hands for nearly 2000 years, the finding of manuscripts that haven't been in their hands and still say the same things.

I know that G_n_I has a problem with the translations of those manuscripts, but that is because he thinks that the current translations have influenced the re-translation process unduely. I disagree...

Well, I think we've exhausted the topic, but I have to say you gave me some things to think about and research. Thanks for playing. I'm sure we'll cross (s)words again sometime.

Oh, I forgot to answer one of your questions. It's called "The Message".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205;&version=65;

I love the site because I can look at the context of the passages you are citing from the Bible you're using. That's why I asked you which one you were using a couple of times.

Well, I think we've exhausted the topic, but I have to say you gave me some things to think about and research. Thanks for playing. I'm sure we'll cross (s)words again sometime.

Oh, I forgot to answer one of your questions. It's called "The Message".
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205;&version=65;

I love the site because I can look at the context of the passages you are citing from the Bible you're using. That's why I asked you which one you were using a couple of times.

I thought it might be. It is at least a better modern paraphrase than the New Living Bible, but I still have some philosophical problems with paraphrases.

The version I qouted from was the New King James version. The one I have lists out the possible alternative translations and the differences between the different source texts available, which I've found useful in discussing issues with G_n_I. I like it because it keeps some of the poetic flare of the KJV while using current English and contains the previously mentioned info. I also use the NIV, RSV, NRSV and a few other versions, but generally avoid paraphrases.

Oh, you are right, we have pretty much exhausted this topic. I've enjoyed the discussion. God Bless. :)

I thought it might be. It is at least a better modern paraphrase than the New Living Bible, but I still have some philosophical problems with paraphrases.

The version I qouted from was the New King James version. The one I have lists out the possible alternative translations and the differences between the different source texts available, which I've found useful in discussing issues with G_n_I. I like it because it keeps some of the poetic flare of the KJV while using current English and contains the previously mentioned info. I also use the NIV, RSV, NRSV and a few other versions, but generally avoid paraphrases.

Oh, you are right, we have pretty much exhausted this topic. I've enjoyed the discussion. God Bless. :)

See now there's an interesting discussion, but we agree this time. I like using all of those versions, but I find the KJV is a little difficult for many people to read it as it was intended so I tend to use the newer versions. I like NIV because it usually causes less confusion but for personal reasons I like the New King James version. I tend to have problems remembering where I get things from and specific passages, but I have an excellent memory for wording so I can usually find it with a search utility. Hand me a bible though and I might be gone for days before I can make an argument with citations.

I also avoid the paraphrases, but I was being intentionally difficult. I knew it would be hard for you to dismiss any widely held translation I used since you said there generally are no major differences in the translations and that they only varied in style (paraphrase). I'm kind of annoying like that ;)

And may God bless you as well!

See now there's an interesting discussion, but we agree this time. I like using all of those versions, but I find the KJV is a little difficult for many people to read it as it was intended so I tend to use the newer versions. I like NIV because it usually causes less confusion but for personal reasons I like the New King James version. I tend to have problems remembering where I get things from and specific passages, but I have an excellent memory for wording so I can usually find it with a search utility. Hand me a bible though and I might be gone for days before I can make an argument with citations.

I also avoid the paraphrases, but I was being intentionally difficult. I knew it would be hard for you to dismiss any widely held translation I used since you said there generally are no major differences in the translations and that they only varied in style (paraphrase). I'm kind of annoying like that ;)

And may God bless you as well!

I figured as much :p . Anyway, I have been studying the Bible on my own since I was about 8. I was raised in a pretty devout Adventist home, but my father died in a tractor accident when I was 8 and that led me to all kinds of questions an 8 year old should never have to deal with, but in many respects it solidified my faith. I would studied and prayed and screamed at God for several years while I was coming to an understanding of how something like that could happen if God was a loving God and took care of those who were faithful to Him.

Anyway, as a result of that, I know my Bible pretty well. Of course, after my Mom remarried (a pastor) I had much need for know my Bible in order to defend my actions and beliefs to my Stepdad who held to some ideas that needed a little biblical challenge from time to time. That probably also added to my capacity to quote scripture.

When I took religion classed in college, I surprised a few of my profs. when I called them on things from time to time on the basis of scripture.

I figured as much :p . Anyway, I have been studying the Bible on my own since I was about 8. I was raised in a pretty devout Adventist home, but my father died in a tractor accident when I was 8 and that led me to all kinds of questions an 8 year old should never have to deal with, but in many respects it solidified my faith. I would studied and prayed and screamed at God for several years while I was coming to an understanding of how something like that could happen if God was a loving God and took care of those who were faithful to Him.

Anyway, as a result of that, I know my Bible pretty well. Of course, after my Mom remarried (a pastor) I had much need for know my Bible in order to defend my actions and beliefs to my Stepdad who held to some ideas that needed a little biblical challenge from time to time. That probably also added to my capacity to quote scripture.

When I took religion classed in college, I surprised a few of my profs. when I called them on things from time to time on the basis of scripture.

Well, since you brought it up, here's how my story goes (you've gotten bits and pieces in other threads).

I was molested as a child by a female babysitter. My parents failed to deal with the situation properly when I informed them of it after about a year of molestation and it led to my being beaten into the hospital. To be fair, I had two babysitters with the same name and my parents misunderstood the ramblings of a wildly upset four-year-old. They were also told by a counselor that I would not remember it and therapy was unnecessary.

At four, I felt unloved, isolated, but a strange strength you wouldn't find in many four-year-olds. It was weird but I always felt sort of supported, lifted up whenever I felt like I couldn't go on. However, I became angrier, more violent as time went on. I had a lot of pent up emotions and no one was helping me deal with them in a healthy way. I got in fights nearly every day and people sort of reacted in a kind of boys will be boys way so long as my grades stayed up and they did.

I made a friend that invited me to his church and I loved going. It was a lot of fun and I began reading the bible. I was about ten. People would talk to me about the bible and tell me things about it that I actually knew to not be true and I often called them out. I watched as spiritual leaders mistreated children and members of their church, as parents went to church and appeared to be a pillar of the community and then went home and beat their children, as abusers and just plain out bad people held up this book and cast people down with it who were good parents and members of the community. And why could I see all this? Because no one had enough respect for a child to bother hiding it. But I kept reading the bible and admonishing these people (I was often asked not to come back and I even had a full grown man come after me once for suggesting that his treatment of his children merited eternal torment).

I had taken Jesus as my savior in front of the church and been baptized, but I never really found faith in any real way until I was about 11. I woke up and saw 'something' not really sure what it was, but it left me with the most peaceful feeling. For the first time, I really felt like everything would be okay. I felt like I was part of something greater and made all the pain and anguish I felt seem tolerable even worth it.

But I didn't fan that faith like I should have. I kept reading the bible and looking for answers. I looked at different versions and I let people explain parts to me that they thought I was reading wrong (I still had a tendency to weigh their interpretation against their behavior).

I felt like I was figuring it out. All the while struggling with the violence in and around me. I kept fighting several times a week, and by the time I was in high school I was regularly checking with my mother on the condition of my opponents (she was an emergency room nurse who worked nights when I did my 'best' work). The only defense I can give was that I went places where I knew I would be attacked, so I wasn't exactly preying on the innocent.

Then I found and began to trust in my faith. Truly trust in my faith. You ask me to question that it's pure, but I can't. It's the only thing that's saved me. It's the only reason I'm here and not dead or in jail. I realized once and for all what that strength I felt was and how I'd endured. I realized that I was searching the bible what had been being screamed at me from the inside. And I was found. The road was still rocky, but my progress with dealing with my problems was extraordinary (from my POV). People now can't imagine who I was then. People find me incapable of it. I'm sorry for the people I've hurt and the damage I caused. I don't wish any of it away, however. It was my path. It was the one laid out for me and it has brought me here. I've made an effort to reach out to those like the person I was then and I've been mildly successful with some and wildly successful with others and with the remaining few had often lost the battle before it started.

Now you know why I was proud of how I handled that situation I described before. Mostly because at the time it was kind of out of character for me.

I'm not suggesting the world is worse or better. Personally, since I'm a Christian I believe he died for our sins, so I and others are, in fact, better off for him having lived. It's not the point. How would you feel if you became a leader and you taught people tolerance and love and peace and then died (assume you are still aware) and then some (a lot of, but not all) people twisted your message to make it an excuse to hate and destroy?

What about all those poor buggers that died before he showed up. Or before his followers learned how to build a boat that would get them to Africa, or the Americas on time to let them repent before they died?

The notion that he's some sacraficial lamb that earns us all forgivness for us having killed him strikes me as really silly. If anything I think that his being killed for teaching enlightened ideals that were threatening to those entrenched in power may have served as an example to teach people that they went horribly horribly wrong somewhere. But if you now look to the new entrenched power people, and hate who they tell you to hate, and love only who they tell you to love, then he didn't die for your sins, he died for nothing as far as you're concerned. Not you personally of course, having read your post at the begining I assume you get main part of this already.

But I don't think that any of that makes Christ significantly different from anyone else who taught compassion, peace, and universal brotherhood, and then got killed for it by people who didn't like those ideas. Ghandi, Martain Luther King, Socrates. Even Malcolm X was killed for giving up on the idea of race war and embracing reconciliation because the power players in the Nation of Islam had buttered their bread with hatred and didn't want to give it up.

Then I found and began to trust in my faith. Truly trust in my faith. You ask me to question that it's pure, but I can't. It's the only thing that's saved me. It's the only reason I'm here and not dead or in jail. I realized once and for all what that strength I felt was and how I'd endured. I realized that I was searching the bible what had been being screamed at me from the inside. And I was found. The road was still rocky, but my progress with dealing with my problems was extraordinary (from my POV). People now can't imagine who I was then. People find me incapable of it. I'm sorry for the people I've hurt and the damage I caused. I don't wish any of it away, however. It was my path. It was the one laid out for me and it has brought me here. I've made an effort to reach out to those like the person I was then and I've been mildly successful with some and wildly successful with others and with the remaining few had often lost the battle before it started.

Now you know why I was proud of how I handled that situation I described before. Mostly because at the time it was kind of out of character for me.

Makes a lot more sense. I understand what you mean about trusting your faith. I don't think that is a bad thing, but you mentioned that you weighed what people did and said against what you read in the Bible. I'm guessing that didn't steer you wrong.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that Christ through can't lead people in the absense of the Bible. The indwelling of Christ through the Holy Spirit is a very, very important part of Christianity. The only thing that I'm cautious about, is that I know from my own experience, that it was all to easy for me to convince myself that it was okay for me to leave my wife and have an affair with a married woman on the basis of doing what I felt was right. As absurd as it sounds, I had convinced myself that it was okay and the rationale was actually pretty good, so I'm not going to repeat it lest I give anyone else ideas for justifying bad behavior. It was only when they woman I was involved with tried to get me to stop tithing, something I knew to be a biblical principle, did I realize that I was being pulled progressively farther from truth and faith. I found ways to justify ignoring the parts of scripture about adultery on the basis of my feelings. If it wasn't for my knowledge of scripture, I'd have probably completely turned my back on my faith, while believing I was following what was good and right.

I don't believe the Bible saved me, it just provided a mirror that showed me that I can't trust myself. It provides a framework to test my feelings and inclinations against, without which, I could be a very evil person.

What about all those poor buggers that died before he showed up. Or before his followers learned how to build a boat that would get them to Africa, or the Americas on time to let them repent before they died?

The notion that he's some sacraficial lamb that earns us all forgivness for us having killed him strikes me as really silly. If anything I think that his being killed for teaching enlightened ideals that were threatening to those entrenched in power may have served as an example to teach people that they went horribly horribly wrong somewhere. But if you now look to the new entrenched power people, and hate who they tell you to hate, and love only who they tell you to love, then he didn't die for your sins, he died for nothing as far as you're concerned. Not you personally of course, having read your post at the begining I assume you get main part of this already.

But I don't think that any of that makes Christ significantly different from anyone else who taught compassion, peace, and universal brotherhood, and then got killed for it by people who didn't like those ideas. Ghandi, Martain Luther King, Socrates. Even Malcolm X was killed for giving up on the idea of race war and embracing reconciliation because the power players in the Nation of Islam had buttered their bread with hatred and didn't want to give it up.

Taking religion out of it, this was a message to those who believe in Christ as spiritual leader (in this case a savior) and could be applied to those that feel similarly about MLK or Ghandi (I'll drop Socrates due to the nature of what he taught, though I love what he had to say). How would MLK feel if people beat homosexuals to death and said it was in his name or bombed buildings or even tried to use his teachings to deny basic rights to groups of people? That's really the point. I was talking to Christians who hear what Jesus had to say but don't listen to it. All this hate and horror perpetrated in his name has to stop.

Makes a lot more sense. I understand what you mean about trusting your faith. I don't think that is a bad thing, but you mentioned that you weighed what people did and said against what you read in the Bible. I'm guessing that didn't steer you wrong.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that Christ through can't lead people in the absense of the Bible. The indwelling of Christ through the Holy Spirit is a very, very important part of Christianity. The only thing that I'm cautious about, is that I know from my own experience, that it was all to easy for me to convince myself that it was okay for me to leave my wife and have an affair with a married woman on the basis of doing what I felt was right. As absurd as it sounds, I had convinced myself that it was okay and the rationale was actually pretty good, so I'm not going to repeat it lest I give anyone else ideas for justifying bad behavior. It was only when they woman I was involved with tried to get me to stop tithing, something I knew to be a biblical principle, did I realize that I was being pulled progressively farther from truth and faith. I found ways to justify ignoring the parts of scripture about adultery on the basis of my feelings. If it wasn't for my knowledge of scripture, I'd have probably completely turned my back on my faith, while believing I was following what was good and right.

I don't believe the Bible saved me, it just provided a mirror that showed me that I can't trust myself. It provides a framework to test my feelings and inclinations against, without which, I could be a very evil person.

And you can see why for me it was the opposite. The bible couldn't save me and I put too much of my faith in it. It wasn't until I stopped looking for help from paper and flesh and submitted to faith that I was truly found.

And you can see why for me it was the opposite. The bible couldn't save me and I put too much of my faith in it. It wasn't until I stopped looking for help from paper and flesh and submitted to faith that I was truly found.

Certainly makes more sense. I guess the ideal is having both in their proper place/balance.

Certainly makes more sense. I guess the ideal is having both in their proper place/balance.

That's exactly what I was saying. We just differ a bit, I think, on where that balance/line really is.

*mutters under breath while reading newspaper*

I said, is Jesus crying?

*looks up, scowlingly*

When doesn't the lil' bastard cry? this wouldn'ta happened if he was my son. The babies in my family tree don't go on and on and on like a frickin' air-raid siren 24 hours a day.

Don't start in on me, for the thousandth time, it was God, ok? God!

God, God, so why does God need to drive me insane by dumping his brat on my hard-workin' back? Sheesh.

Hardly working, you mean.

And that, in a nutshell, tells you why Jesus is crying. Trouble at home.