NationStates Jolt Archive

I agree with NSOlara, though perhaps my direction in interpreting "complex" is slightly different. :)
Jesus does say that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, but I think this still leaves open the possibility of people who follow Jesus' way without acknowledging it.



It is really, really hard to understand Jesus' true Gospel and reject it outright. That being said, many do.

Don't get me wrong, his philosophy and the way of life he preached (no matter whether or not he's god or son of god, or if those ideas are original, or even if he really existed) are very nice. It's the organized religions that suck.

Forgiveness isn't "accepted". An apology is accepted or not, forgiveness is given. Plus, it's not our fault the relationship got damaged, there is nothing to forgive.

It just occurred to me that maybe christianity has it wrong. Maybe god isn't so much forgiving you as asking for forgiveness for all the harm he's done. That's what you have to accept, the apology.

Perhapse, to understand the principle more, you should study the Old Testament sacrificial system. The "free gift" which enables forgiveness, is the sacrifice; however, for the sacrifice to be of any value upon the sin of the person, the person must be identified with the sacrifice, in this sense, the sacrificial offering covering the sin of the identified person. In the Old Testament, the periodic sacrifices, identified to the people, covered their sin temporally... In the New Testament, Christ's sacrifice cover's once for all time. However, for the "sacrifice" to be of value, the pentitent must be identified with the sacrifice. This sacrifice is free, in that we have done nothing to either deserve it, nor earn it. It has been provided for us... Our action, however, is "placing" this sacrifice upon ourselves, and thus being identified with the sacrifice, and thus having our sins covered by the shed blood of this sacrifice.

In this concept, God's wrath towards the sin of a person is payed for in either one of two people... The person [unrepentant] outside of Christ's sacrifice upon the person themself; or the person [repentant] inside of Christ's sacrifice, upon the person of Christ...

God in this is both Just [bearing Wrath and penalty in judgement towards sin] and benevolent [providing for the covering of this sin by a free offering, placed upon His own body, Christ]. Neither operation contradicting the other.

Don't get me wrong, his philosophy and the way of life he preached (no matter whether or not he's god or son of god, or if those ideas are original, or even if he really existed) are very nice. It's the organized religions that suck.

Many share your sentiment. It's mainly due to the fact that there are a lot of idiots involved in organizing the religions, what with them being human and all. :)

But I deeply entrenched myself in one because I love its teachings, beliefs, and ideals--even if its members have made mistakes. I may think it's the best way to find Jesus, sure, but I'm not ready to hold that it's the only way to find him.

John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us." Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us.

Good to know that, in the grandest scheme, most of us are on the same side. :D

I agree with NSOlara, though perhaps my direction in interpreting "complex" is slightly different. :)
Jesus does say that the only way to the Father is through Jesus, but I think this still leaves open the possibility of people who follow Jesus' way without acknowledging it.

It is really, really hard to understand Jesus' true Gospel and reject it outright. That being said, many do.

Correct. In my last post I pointed to the concept of being identified with Christ sacrifice.

And there are, unfortuneately, alot of "christians" [small "c" and in quotes] who assume all that is involved in "identification" is screaming "in the name of Christ", pointing to politicians they support, or listening to certain radio or TV personalities.

Perhapse, to understand the principle more, you should study the Old Testament sacrificial system. The "free gift" which enables forgiveness, is the sacrifice; however, for the sacrifice to be of any value upon the sin of the person, the person must be identified with the sacrifice, in this sense, the sacrificial offering covering the sin of the identified person. In the Old Testament, the periodic sacrifices, identified to the people, covered their sin temporally... In the New Testament, Christ's sacrifice cover's once for all time. However, for the "sacrifice" to be of value, the pentitent must be identified with the sacrifice. This sacrifice is free, in that we have done nothing to either deserve it, nor earn it. It has been provided for us... Our action, however, is "placing" this sacrifice upon ourselves, and thus being identified with the sacrifice, and thus having our sins covered by the shed blood of this sacrifice.

In this concept, God's wrath towards the sin of a person is payed for in either one of two people... The person [unrepentant] outside of Christ's sacrifice upon the person themself; or the person [repentant] inside of Christ's sacrifice, upon the person of Christ...

God in this is both Just [bearing Wrath and penalty in judgement towards sin] and benevolent [providing for the covering of this sin by a free offering, placed upon His own body, Christ]. Neither operation contradicting the other.

Which were rules god invented.

YAY! (http://www.digitalend.com/pics/acesreligion.jpg)

Which were rules god invented.

And?

Am I to assume that to you benevolence means that the parent will not impose standards and consequences upon the children?

How's this: you're a human! That's pretty harsh, but it's only in jest.
human!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:


you know I would report you for that, except you said you were kidding:p

(we all know I am not really human;) )

It is really, really hard to understand Jesus' true Gospel and reject it outright. That being said, many do.
It's pretty well impossible to know what Jesus's true gospel was, or whether he had a gospel at all, or whether he really existed. Not one word of Christian teaching comes to direct from the pen of Jesus himself, or even from an eye-witness.

From where I stand, understanding the gospel(s), understanding something of the illogicalities, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies, lack of primary evidence, and earlier non-Christian origins of much which the New Testament says, makes it pretty well impossible to even consider believing it!

Not one word of Christian teaching comes to direct from the pen of Jesus himself, or even from an eye-witness.

not true, the gospels were written by apostles.

And?

Am I to assume that to you benevolence means that the parent will not impose standards and consequences upon the children?
Ususaly a parents punishments are to teach their offspring
In gods case it is eternal punishment without reprive


Its like teaching your kid that its wrong to hit by shooting him in the head

Hardly a learning experience for the kid

Ususaly a parents punishments are to teach their offspring
In gods case it is eternal punishment without reprive


Its like teaching your kid that its wrong to hit by shooting him in the head

Hardly a learning experience for the kid

but we have the chance to get out of the punishment because he provided Jesus

but we have the chance to get out of the punishment because he provided Jesus
So does the kid in my analogy he can choose to not hit before the fact


Still does not make it right that the parent shot him

Finite sins dont deserve infinite punishment

So does the kid in my analogy he can choose to not hit before the fact


Still does not make it right that the parent shot him

Finite sins dont deserve infinite punishment

heaven is perfect-nothing flawed can enter heaven- the only way to be unflawed is through Jesus-if not then we can't enter heaven. the end. thats what i believe anyway, we'll never argree either way, i wont be swayed and neither will you

heaven is perfect-nothing flawed can enter heaven- the only way to be unflawed is through Jesus-if not then we can't enter heaven. the end. thats what i believe anyway, we'll never argree either way, i wont be swayed and neither will you
I have been swayed before ... but it requires a pretty high quality arguement

There is probably more evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Juluis Caesar or Alxander Magna.

SOme christians se the Genesis story as metaphor, and do not treat all teh words of the bible as of equal value or divinly inspired through some mecvhanical means

There is probably more evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Juluis Caesar or Alxander Magna.

SOme christians se the Genesis story as metaphor, and do not treat all teh words of the bible as of equal value or divinly inspired through some mecvhanical means
Show us some of this non biblical or contemporary evidence of jesus existing and being the son of god

not true, the gospels were written by apostles.
The names given to the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were added by tradition during the 2nd century. There is no clear historical evidence of precisely who any of the authors were.

And?

Am I to assume that to you benevolence means that the parent will not impose standards and consequences upon the children?

That's not what I said. You tried to justify this necessity of "accepting forgiveness" based on an old ritual, as if that made it make sense. You forgot that the ritual was imposed by the very same god that makes us jump through hoops to "accept" the forgiveness he oh so willingly gives (forgiveness for something that isn't even our fault, by the way). If he wanted us to receive his forgiveness, he wouldn't have put so many rules to it in the first place.

Maybe we need a Believers Annotated Nietzsche

The SAB site is quite good and very useful for debating fundamentalists, though.

There is probably more evidence for Jesus existing than there is for Juluis Caesar or Alxander Magna.
People keep coming out with this mantra, without having any real idea of what the evidence is, or even what constitutes good evidence.

Good evidence should be contemporary (from the time of the events) and, if written, first-hand (from a historical figure himself or an eye-witness). There is plenty of evidence of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great from their own times. There is not one single tiny little shred of written or artifact evidence of Jesus from his own lifetime or from the following 20 years, and nothing about his life for 40 years. Not a thing - he is completely absent from the historical record. Without that primary corroborative evidence, all that gets written afterwards amounts to no more than hearsay or myth.

not true, the gospels were written by apostles.

Refresh my memory, here, it's a little fuzzy. Did Mark even meet Jesus?

Maybe we need a Believers Annotated Nietzsche

The SAB site is quite good and very useful for debating fundamentalists, though.

SAB (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) rules.

Refresh my memory, here, it's a little fuzzy. Did Mark even meet Jesus?
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Mark

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Mark
The apostle mark yes but if I remember right there has been some major questioning as to if they were the real authors in a lot of them

Grave_N_Idle is better at remembering this sort of thing then me though

That's not what I said. You tried to justify this necessity of "accepting forgiveness" based on an old ritual, as if that made it make sense. You forgot that the ritual was imposed by the very same god that makes us jump through hoops to "accept" the forgiveness he oh so willingly gives (forgiveness for something that isn't even our fault, by the way). If he wanted us to receive his forgiveness, he wouldn't have put so many rules to it in the first place.

No, I defined the principle of love by which God provided the facility for forgiveness.

Yes, it is your fault.

"Jumping through hoops" is an illustration of a virtually impossible task; this task is actually neither, in a real sense.

The last illustrates your futher belief that standards and rules cannot abide by a concept of love.

Under your belief system, if a parent tells a child not to go out after dark, then the parent does not love the child, because he imposes rules on them. (You'll deny this of course... But in reality, it's the exact same thing you illustrate).

http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Apostle_Mark

Companion of Paul, who even persecuted christians before being converted. I asked a simple yes or not question, you know? The answer is "no". 1/4 of the gospels was written by someone who didn't even meet Jesus.

The apostle mark yes but if I remember right there has been some major questioning as to if they were the real authors in a lot of them

Grave_N_Idle is better at remembering this sort of thing then me though
I am aware of the questions that some people have about who actually wrote what, but they haven't given me any real reason to doubt yet.

She was asking if Mark was actually an apostle at all, like maybe he never met Jesus, not if he actually wrote the book of Mark (which I believe he did)

and where is Grave_N_Idle anyway?

this conversation would be a lot more interesting to me if both you and he were here.

No, I defined the principle of love by which God provided the facility for forgiveness.

Yes, it is your fault.

"Jumping through hoops" is an illustration of a virtually impossible task; this task is actually neither, in a real sense.

The last illustrates your futher belief that standards and rules cannot abide by a concept of love.

Under your belief system, if a parent tells a child not to go out after dark, then the parent does not love the child, because he imposes rules on them. (You'll deny this of course... But in reality, it's the exact same thing you illustrate).

I know you won't accept any rebuttal for your statements, even though I don't agree with any of them. So just explain this one thing: how the hell is it my fault?

No, I defined the principle of love by which God provided the facility for forgiveness.

Yes, it is your fault.

"Jumping through hoops" is an illustration of a virtually impossible task; this task is actually neither, in a real sense.

The last illustrates your futher belief that standards and rules cannot abide by a concept of love.

Under your belief system, if a parent tells a child not to go out after dark, then the parent does not love the child, because he imposes rules on them. (You'll deny this of course... But in reality, it's the exact same thing you illustrate).


Personaly rules can coincide with love my problem is infinite punishment for a finite sin

My idea of a loving god would ya know stop by every once and a while and check in and make sure I was not reconsidering my decision (talking about post not pre-death)

The apostle mark yes but if I remember right there has been some major questioning as to if they were the real authors in a lot of them
Most scholars don't believe that any of the gospels were written by any of the apostles. The attribution of apostle authorship is part of the subsequent myth-making process.

Companion of Paul, who even persecuted christians before being converted. I asked a simple yes or not question, you know? The answer is "no". 1/4 of the gospels was written by someone who didn't even meet Jesus.
yeah, you didn't actually read the site then did you?


His name was John, as the Holy Bible says: "He came to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose surname was Mark, where many were gathered together praying" (Acts 12:12). He was the one that the Lord Christ, to Whom is the glory, meant when He said: "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, The Teacher says, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at your house with My disciples" (Matthew 26:18).

yeah, you didn't actually read the site then did you?

the Twelve chosen by Jesus near the beginning of his ministry, those whom "also he named Apostles", were:

1. Simon called Peter (Grk. petros, petra; Aram. kēf; Engl. rock) by Jesus, also known as Simon bar Jonah and Simon bar Jochanan (Aram.) and earlier (Pauline Epistles were written first) Cephas (Aram.) by Paul of Tarsus and Simon Peter, a fisherman from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (Jn 1:44; cf. 12:21)
2. Andrew brother of Peter, a Bethsaida fisherman and disciple of John the Baptist
3. James and
4. John, sons of Zebedee, called by Jesus Boanerges (an Aramaic name explained in Mk 3:17 as "Sons of Thunder")
5. Philip from Bethsaida "of Galilee" (Jn 1:44, 12:21)
6. Bartholomew, in Aramaic "bar-Talemai?", "son of Talemai" or from Ptolemais, identified with Nathanael
7. Matthew the tax collector, sometimes identified with Levi, son of Alphaeus
8. Thomas, also known as Judas Thomas Didymus, Aramaic T'oma', "twin", Greek Didymous, "twin": believed by some to be the twin brother of Jesus
9. James son of Alphaeus
10. Simon the Canaanite, called in Luke and Acts "Simon the Zealot"
11. Judas Iscariot "the traitor"; name Iscariot may refer to the Judaean towns of Kerioth or to the sicarii, Jewish nationalist insurrectionists; replaced as an apostle in Acts by Matthias
12. Thaddaeus, but in some manuscripts of Matthew "Lebbaeus" or "Judas the Zealot" and in Luke Judas, son of James

So, which one of those is Mark, again?

So, which one of those is Mark, again?
you are aware that apostle and disciple mean different things right?

John Mark (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/john.html)

I know you won't accept any rebuttal for your statements, even though I don't agree with any of them. So just explain this one thing: how the hell is it my fault?

So, you've never commited a "wrong"?

Never lied?
Never cheated?
Never lusted after another or their posessions?
Never slandered?

So, you've never commited a "wrong"?

Never lied?
Never cheated?
Never lusted after another or their posessions?
Never slandered?
According to Christianity, those are not done by choice. They are our nature. Free will is for the purpose of choosing not to do those things.

Personaly rules can coincide with love my problem is infinite punishment for a finite sin

My idea of a loving god would ya know stop by every once and a while and check in and make sure I was not reconsidering my decision (talking about post not pre-death)

So you think sin is finite?

So you think sin is finite?
It exists and is chosen by finite beings with finite knoledge

I would say yes ... it is a single act (or a series of individual acts)

not true, the gospels were written by apostles.
I was taught otherwise in religion class in catholic school...

According to Christianity, those are not done by choice.
They are our nature.

They are both... Part of our nature, and our choice. Choice is part of our nature.


Free will is for the purpose of choosing not to do those things.

And if you do not choose not to.....

I was taught otherwise in religion class in catholic school...
really? tell me.

I never went to Catholic school or a religion class, I have to do my own research, if you could add anything to my knowledge base though, I would like to be able to research that too.

you are aware that apostle and disciple mean different things right?

John Mark (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/john.html)

I read that site, both on "John" and "Mark". Doesn't say anything about Mark knowing Jesus personally, except for "It is probable that the "young man" spoken of in Mark 14:51,52 was Mark himself."

Mark 14:51, 52: And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

Otherwise, no sign of Mark anywhere near Jesus.

So, you've never commited a "wrong"?

Never lied?
Never cheated?
Never lusted after another or their posessions?
Never slandered?

I'm sinful by nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Even if I haven't done any of that, it's impossible for me, as an imperfect human, to never do anything sinful in my lifetime. God decreed it so.

It exists and is chosen by finite beings with finite knoledge

I would say yes ... it is a single act (or a series of individual acts)

You treat your acts as if they are disconnected from a larger reality...

Why, for example, would a person who has been driving under the influence, got in a wreck and caused the death of another be charged with DUI and vehicular manslaughter? Why not the DUI alone? After all, the "single act" was driving under the influence, the wreck and manslaughter were only "Connected" events to the act of DUI...

The effects of singular acts of sin ripple through nature as a ripple in a pond from falling drop of water...

In WW1 a single bullet, hitting a single person, caused the death of millions.

My friend, our sin, is not a "single act"... Far, far from it.

Olara']I dunno, makes pretty good sense if you need a "sin lawyer," which we all do. At least we got the best.

The best in your opinion. But even that doesn't make sense. A person who has never sinned can really argue their way out of a paper bag for people who have sinned. I wouldn't trust him. Then again, I search for knowledge, I don't hope for an afterlife...so I doubt I'll be on the bench hoping J. Christ, Esq can argue for me.

And what if we are all wrong, no god, no afterlife?

You treat your acts as if they are disconnected from a larger reality...

Why, for example, would a person who has been driving under the influence, got in a wreck and caused the death of another be charged with DUI and vehicular manslaughter? Why not the DUI alone? After all, the "single act" was driving under the influence, the wreck and manslaughter were only "Connected" events to the act of DUI...

The effects of singular acts of sin ripple through nature as a ripple in a pond from falling drop of water...

In WW1 a single bullet, hitting a single person, caused the death of millions.

My friend, our sin, is not a "single act"... Far, far from it.


But it is a single decision ... how many of thoes people that shot one person were actualy charged with the death of millions?

A finite being can not be responsable for the infinate effects ... some of the closly related ones yes but not for an infinite amount

I'm sinful by nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Even if I haven't done any of that, it's impossible for me, as an imperfect human, to never do anything sinful in my lifetime. God decreed it so.

And yet God has provided a means of sanctification. Whereby those sins can be washed away.

really? tell me.

I never went to Catholic school or a religion class, I have to do my own research, if you could add anything to my knowledge base though, I would like to be able to research that too.

Smunkee is a professional researcher. Not just on religion either...

And yet God has provided a means of sanctification. Whereby those sins can be washed away.
By faith alone suposedly

I can choose my actions but in the end I can not activly choose my faith

really? tell me.

I never went to Catholic school or a religion class, I have to do my own research, if you could add anything to my knowledge base though, I would like to be able to research that too.

Actually, the necessitant requirements for the inclusion of documents in the New Testament were by people who had met Christ. Or who were relating the first hand account of another who had.

And yet God has provided a means of sanctification. Whereby those sins can be washed away.

But, see, I didn't do anything to become sinful. I shouldn't have to do anything to be purified. The only reason any of us is sinful, according to your mythology, is that these two people disobeyed god, so he had to punish them. Fine, but couldn't he have restricted the punishment to them? Or are you telling me this was beyond your god's power?

The history of the Bible is quite interesting. The books that landed in the Bible got there almost by accident. Various popes had various committees select form many different books which should go it the Bible. Each committee put in different ones and took out different ones. The last committee almost left out Hebrews since there weren't any Hebrews in the church. They left out all of the apocolyptic books since they were out of favor at that time. Then the last day they threw in Revelation just so there would be an example or an apocolyptic book. That's how it ended up at the end. There were 4 gospels selected because at the time 4 was considered a perfect number. That final committee didn't think they would be the final one so they didn't really take a lot of care. Then the printing press was invented and that finalized that committee's selection.

Also interesting is the Christians cannonized their scriptures before the Jews cannonized the OT. Then when the OT was cannonized, the Jews selected different books for the OT, then the Christians had selected for the OT. Made quite a conflict.

Did God lead this final committee? Well, that can be debated, but a lot of books were thrown in and a lot were left out.

I'm sinful by nature because of what Adam and Eve did. Even if I haven't done any of that, it's impossible for me, as an imperfect human, to never do anything sinful in my lifetime. God decreed it so.

God decreed that we have the ability to be sinful if we so choose, yes. The fact I do still sin is evidence to me that Adam and Eve's choice DID represent my fallen nature.

And it is possible to go through life without sinning; the Bible makes this clear with the passages in which Jesus says that anyone is capable of doing the deeds he does. We just don't. Not one of us has yet.

It's funny how often I've heard people say that religion or belief in a God is just a way to avoid responsibility. But that's primarily through outsiders' interpretation.

really? tell me.

I never went to Catholic school or a religion class, I have to do my own research, if you could add anything to my knowledge base though, I would like to be able to research that too.

For the record, many theological references point out that the gospels were spoken word recorded and translated in 400 BC by Emperor Constantine and his group of scribes not only to have the Bible as a recorded document but also to make it more appealing. This is part of the reason for books in the Torah not being in the Christian Old Testament and several glanced over portions of Jesus' life, like a majority of his childhood and teenage years, where likely many worldly events took place.

So stating that the gospel was "written" by the apostles would be incorrect. Created would be the more appropriate verb as they began an oral tradition.

For the record, many theological references point out that the gospels were spoken word recorded and translated in 400 BC by Emperor Constantine and his group of scribes not only to have the Bible as a recorded document but also to make it more appealing. This is part of the reason for books in the Torah not being in the Christian Old Testament and several glanced over portions of Jesus' life, like a majority of his childhood and teenage years, where likely many worldly events took place.

So stating that the gospel was "written" by the apostles would be incorrect. Created would be the more appropriate verb as they began an oral tradition.
interesting, thank you. ;)

But, see, I didn't do anything to become sinful. I shouldn't have to do anything to be purified. The only reason any of us is sinful, according to your mythology, is that these two people disobeyed god, so he had to punish them. Fine, but couldn't he have restricted the punishment to them? Or are you telling me this was beyond your god's power?
I see the story of Adam and Eve as being a parable. The story to me is that the animal that became man began to envision the idea of right and wrong (the tree of knowledge). This is probably the only thing that separates humans from every other animal. By thinking in terms of right and wrong, humans realized that everyone at some time does wrong. Then they realized that they in some way needed to make up for their wrongs. The idea of sacrifice--Giving up your best to make up for your worst.

But it is a single decision ... how many of thoes people that shot one person were actualy charged with the death of millions?

A finite being can not be responsable for the infinate effects ... some of the closly related ones yes but not for an infinite amount

Why not, we are the fault of them, and are thus accountable for them. As much as everyone else in the chain.

If my sin results in the death of millions, damage to far more, I will be accountable for all of them. This judgement is either borne by me, or is layed upon Christ.

really? tell me.

I never went to Catholic school or a religion class, I have to do my own research, if you could add anything to my knowledge base though, I would like to be able to research that too.

I was taught that the 4 evangelists are students (of students) of the apostles who lived about 50 years after Jezus.

I have to say that I'm an atheist and don't care that much which one of you (you or my religion teacher) is wrong. I just find it peculiar that such blatant contradictions are taught in what is actually the same religion.

But, see, I didn't do anything to become sinful. I shouldn't have to do anything to be purified. The only reason any of us is sinful, according to your mythology, is that these two people disobeyed god, so he had to punish them. Fine, but couldn't he have restricted the punishment to them? Or are you telling me this was beyond your god's power?

You're not punished for being "sinful", you're punished for sinning.

Why not, we are the fault of them, and are thus accountable for them. As much as everyone else in the chain.

If my sin results in the death of millions, damage to far more, I will be accountable for all of them. This judgement is either borne by me, or is layed upon Christ.
Personaly I can not find one truly guilty of things beyond his ability to understand (and baring that general human ability to understand)

In society sometimes we have to hold people somewhat responsable for the sake of social stability, sometimes compromises have to be made.

By faith alone suposedly

I can choose my actions but in the end I can not activly choose my faith

You cannot choose to trust?

You cannot choose to trust?
Nope ... trust is earned not given.

For the record, many theological references point out that the gospels were spoken word recorded and translated in 400 BC by Emperor Constantine and his group of scribes not only to have the Bible as a recorded document but also to make it more appealing. This is part of the reason for books in the Torah not being in the Christian Old Testament and several glanced over portions of Jesus' life, like a majority of his childhood and teenage years, where likely many worldly events took place.

So stating that the gospel was "written" by the apostles would be incorrect. Created would be the more appropriate verb as they began an oral tradition.
I think you should get some new theological references! Wrriten copies, or at least fragments, of the gospels pre-date Constantine by 1-2 hundred years. It certainly wasn't 400 BC - perhaps you meant AD; but Constantine died in 337 AD :)

Personaly I can not find one truly guilty of things beyond his ability to understand (and baring that general human ability to understand)

In society sometimes we have to hold people somewhat responsable for the sake of social stability, sometimes compromises have to be made.

Except, these ramifications do not lay within a realm of being beyond comprehension. I can sit here and state that my actions extend beyond those ramifications that I can see... The ramifications are not beyond understanding, though they are beyond our limited capacity to visualize.

Even in modern law, people are held accountable for ramifications of acts, when those acts occur during the comision of something we already know to be wrong. A gun accidcently going off and hitting someone else can be manslaughter.... But, if the same occurs when the person is holding up a covenience store, it becomes murder... Why? Because, the person knew what that their act was wrong, and their commision of the first wrong led to the second event.

You call it compromise. I call it equity. Since the person knew armed robery was wrong, the death of the other person was not accidental.

If my lie causes the death of another, even if I cannot see it at the time. The lie was still wrong, and I am still accountable for the death, and all the ramifications of that death. That is "justice".

The "benevolence" and love of God, exists from the point that the way, whereby these sins can be cleansed, and we rejoined with Him; is that He has provided the sacrifice, and borne the sin upon His own body, for us.

God (in my belief) is both loving and just.

Ignoring sin and letting everyone into His presence would be "loving", but it would not be just.

Punishing all sin, and providing no way or process for atonement would be "just", but it would not be loving.

Punishing all sin, and providing a way and process of atonement, is both just and loving.

Nope ... trust is earned not given.

IOW: You choose not to trust.

IOW: You choose not to trust.
Nope it happens naturaly when they have show it
I dont conciously choose it
It happens of its own accord

interesting, thank you. ;)

I try to keep everyone learnin'

I try to keep everyone learnin'
I haven't actually learned anything yet, still researching, thanks for pointing me in a direction to go though.;)

:) That's no reason. I can eat rice, but I don't. Most of the stuff in the bible doesn't make any sense at all.
My biggest problem: If God talked and came down to earth in ancient times, why did he stop? If he so wants us to believe, why doesn't he just show we aethiests that we're wrong?:)


It probably wont mean much to you, but in John 3:16, God HAS shown athiests that they are wrong: "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotton son, so that those who believe in Him may not perish, but have eternal life" This was fullfilled (in all four gospels) when Jesus the Christ (the Holy one of God) was hung upon a cross made of wood, and died for all our sins. He showed Himself there in form of a 'normal' man with a 'normal' job (a carpenter) and with a 'normal' (Gallilean) accent, but this man was also God Incarnate. :)

God decreed that we have the ability to be sinful if we so choose, yes. The fact I do still sin is evidence to me that Adam and Eve's choice DID represent my fallen nature.

And it is possible to go through life without sinning; the Bible makes this clear with the passages in which Jesus says that anyone is capable of doing the deeds he does. We just don't. Not one of us has yet.

Right. We all can, but no one except god incarnate himself has. But we all can, it's just that no one has. Ever. In the whole history of humanity.

It's funny how often I've heard people say that religion or belief in a God is just a way to avoid responsibility. But that's primarily through outsiders' interpretation.

I usually hear that belief in the devil is just a way to avoid responsibility.


But it looks to me like it's this god person that has some responsibility issues.

I see the story of Adam and Eve as being a parable. The story to me is that the animal that became man began to envision the idea of right and wrong (the tree of knowledge). This is probably the only thing that separates humans from every other animal. By thinking in terms of right and wrong, humans realized that everyone at some time does wrong. Then they realized that they in some way needed to make up for their wrongs. The idea of sacrifice--Giving up your best to make up for your worst.

Where does the tree of life come in? And Jesus' sacrifice, how is that supposed to make up for us knowing right and wrong?

You're not punished for being "sinful", you're punished for sinning.

Something I can't help doing because of my nature. It's like saying I should go to jail for eating. "Oh, you aren't being punished for being hungry, you're punished for eating".

Well, to toss in my two silver coins... And risk flamming... >_>

I'm a firm believer that the bible we know of and read today isn't what was originally written way back when. Back before America, when Great Britain was the only 'Superpower,' I firmly believe that they (The clergy, or whatever) edited and rewrote the bible to fit their desires. It no longer became about worshiping God, but rather a means to control the masses.

Mass religion has always been that way since. Follow this line of thought for a moment: You are King of Britain. You control most or all of the civilized world. But, your military alone can't hope to control the countless numbers of people in all the lands you control. What do you do?

You introduce and set about some basic guidelines you want your people to follow, (Thou Shalt not steal, kill, or have intercourse with someone who isn't your wife) and who better to enforce your rules then an all-seeing, all-knowing immortal divine entity who ultimately judges you at the end of your life for all your sins/crimes? Basterdize Christanity, retool their scriptures with your own dogma, and set it upon your subjects. I have only read the Bible once, and I've never touched it again. I don't attend church either.

I simply don't trust people. I have no faith in humanity, at all. The bible has been edited, rewritten and retooled so many times that the original message has been all but lost. It's a lie now, straight out from page one to the end.

I've always said have your own relationship with your God (Or role model, a la Buddah). I stand by that. You don't need any 'Holy Books' to be in your God's favor. You don't need to attend church sermons to be in your God's Favor. (Psst: Church sermons are a means to enforce the governing bodies point of views upon the masses.)

Well... Take it as you will. Those are my beliefs, and I've never said you should accept them as your own. Just, open your mind. :P

Mass religion has always been that way since. Follow this line of thought for a moment: You are King of Britain. You control most or all of the civilized world. But, your military alone can't hope to control the countless numbers of people in all the lands you control. What do you do?
The line of thought falls down immediately - the King of Britain has never controlled most of the "civilised" world. The text of the Bible we know today pre-dates the British Empire by centuries. Even the first major English translation dates from a time when England was a growing but still relatively minor European power, with no overseas possessions except a few thousand people in North America.

Well... Take it as you will. Those are my beliefs, and I've never said you should accept them as your own. Just, open your mind. :P
Believing your scenario would require opening one's mind so much that one's brain falls out! :)

Gnufasur... that could be true...

If we didn't have access to the original greek and hebrew texts...

The bible has been proven to be...

1.The most reliable ancient book known (ie What we have now was what was originally written back 100-300 AD (not sure exactly where it has been)

2. A historically accurate record of events (both Old Testament and New Testament)... Eg It was assumed because no current evidence that the bible had lied about there being Assyrians... until they found an Assyrian city.. Josepheus (a roman historian of jewish decent) confirm's jesus existance ... and other things... et al. And the bible itself contains many other confirmed historical accounts...


Anyway as has been said before... Christianity is about a person relationship with God... not just doing things like praying, reading bible, going to church... those things are helpful but doing these do not make you a Christian...

Some demoninations... have done exactly what the jews had done in the new testament ... replaced the word of God with the commandment of men... That is not the fault of Christianity or the bible.... That is just one example of sin....

The line of thought falls down immediately - the King of Britain has never controlled most of the "civilised" world. The text of the Bible we know today pre-dates the British Empire by centuries. Even the first major English translation dates from a time when England was a growing but still relatively minor European power, with no overseas possessions except a few thousand people in North America.


Believing your scenario would require opening one's mind so much that one's brain falls out! :)

Well, you took my words as being fact. I've never said it was fact that the King of Britain ruled most or all of the civillized world. I try to stay away from facts. Better to deal in vagueries and generalization, just like Astrology. :P

And may I ask, do you know that, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that what you have been told and read about the Bible is true? Do you personally know that the first major English translation predates the British Empire? Did you witness the translation, perhaps in a past life? Can you account for what's happened in the time between the first translation and now? Do you know that it hasn't been retranslated any number times afterward?

Remember, simply because someone says it hasn't, doesn't always means it true.

As I stated, I have no faith in humanity. I'm not bitter, mind you. I am a generally happy-go-lucky person, but still. When it comes to these types of things, there's no telling what's true...


Bazalonia, I'd be interested in reading up on the information you posted. May I ask from where you found that information?

EDITED: Removed a potentional flamebait... >_>

Well, to toss in my two silver coins... And risk flamming... >_>

I'm a firm believer that the bible we know of and read today isn't what was originally written way back when. Back before America, when Great Britain was the only 'Superpower,' I firmly believe that they (The clergy, or whatever) edited and rewrote the bible to fit their desires. It no longer became about worshiping God, but rather a means to control the masses.

Mass religion has always been that way since. Follow this line of thought for a moment: You are King of Britain. You control most or all of the civilized world. But, your military alone can't hope to control the countless numbers of people in all the lands you control. What do you do?

You introduce and set about some basic guidelines you want your people to follow, (Thou Shalt not steal, kill, or have intercourse with someone who isn't your wife) and who better to enforce your rules then an all-seeing, all-knowing immortal divine entity who ultimately judges you at the end of your life for all your sins/crimes? Basterdize Christanity, retool their scriptures with your own dogma, and set it upon your subjects. I have only read the Bible once, and I've never touched it again. I don't attend church either.

I simply don't trust people. I have no faith in humanity, at all. The bible has been edited, rewritten and retooled so many times that the original message has been all but lost. It's a lie now, straight out from page one to the end.

I've always said have your own relationship with your God (Or role model, a la Buddah). I stand by that. You don't need any 'Holy Books' to be in your God's favor. You don't need to attend church sermons to be in your God's Favor. (Psst: Church sermons are a means to enforce the governing bodies point of views upon the masses.)

Well... Take it as you will. Those are my beliefs, and I've never said you should accept them as your own. Just, open your mind. :P

Do you really think the bible would've lasted unaltered until it reached the superpower Great Britain? What makes you think its message is worth anything to begin with, even if it's not adulterated?

Do you really think the bible would've lasted unaltered until it reached the superpower Great Britain? What makes you think its message is worth anything to begin with, even if it's not adulterated?

lol A valid point, that is. Great Britain wasn't the first super power, and I'm sure there's been plenty of 'superpowers' before hand.

I'm going to quote my old history teacher in high school. "The victor writes the history books." He was talking about, of course, the American Revolution. :P

Where does the tree of life come in? And Jesus' sacrifice, how is that supposed to make up for us knowing right and wrong?


Jesus became an evolutionary end to the practice of sacrifice. As I said above, at some point in history the human animal became aware of "right and wrong". When the conscience began to dig into the human animal, there was a need to relieve this guilt. So sacrifice came to be. Not just in the Semitic culture, but throughout the world. Some type of sacrifice seems to be a part of the DNA. Not necessarily with blood. Sometimes wealth to help others, time in contemplation.

As far as the tree of life, probably at about the same time the human animal became aware of death. It is something we can't wrap our minds around. Animals are aware of death at the time it happens around them, but probably don't have an awareness that it will happen to them. Humans came to this awareness. The mind longed for knowledge (fruit) that would end death. If they could just find that missing link they would live forever. Who would have such knowledge? God of course. Why would he deny it? Because death comes when you are imperfect. If you could become perfect, God would give you that fruit (knowledge).

So in my mind the trees were linked by an awareness of self. That awareness reaches it's peak in "right and wrong" and death. And the knowledge that neither can be controlled be humans.

You do realize how stupid you look... the bible is a book of metaphors. Trying to take these stories literally so you can try to decry the deeply held beliefs of a fellow human being just shows you aren't very well educated and are obviously a very deeply disturbed human being who wants nothing more than to cause pain to his felow humans.

I'd ask God to help you, but he likes it better when you help yourself.

<snip> My friend, our sin, is not a "single act"... Far, far from it.
Your sin, I have never sinned

It probably wont mean much to you, but in John 3:16, God HAS shown athiests that they are wrong: <snip>
No he hasn't, nor has he shown Agnostics

The bible has been proven to be...

1.The most reliable ancient book known (ie What we have now was what was originally written back 100-300 AD (not sure exactly where it has been)
Care to provide evidence?
The bible has been proven to be...
2. A historically accurate record of events (both Old Testament and New Testament)... Eg It was assumed because no current evidence that the bible had lied about there being Assyrians... until they found an Assyrian city.. Josepheus (a roman historian of jewish decent) confirm's jesus existance ... and other things... et al. And the bible itself contains many other confirmed historical accounts...
And again.

1.The most reliable ancient book known (ie What we have now was what was originally written back 100-300 AD (not sure exactly where it has been)
Which means that we can't know how reliable our texts are, since the originals of most of the Bible were supposed to have been written before 100 AD! How much was changed between the originals and the copies we now have? We don't know, but we do know there were changes.

2. A historically accurate record of events (both Old Testament and New Testament)... Eg It was assumed because no current evidence that the bible had lied about there being Assyrians... until they found an Assyrian city.. Josepheus (a roman historian of jewish decent) confirm's jesus existance ... and other things... et al. And the bible itself contains many other confirmed historical accounts...
The fact that Assyrians existed doesn't prove that what the Bible says happened with Assyrians actually happened. Most fiction is set in real places and societies, but is still fiction.

Josephus confirms nothing. He is not a primary historical source - he was writing in the 90s AD, was not present in the time of Jesus, and cites no primary sources. He is almost certainly simply repeating claims which emanate from the Christian community of his time. There is no primary historical evidence about Jesus, from either Christian or non-Christian sources. Christian historians and theologians seize upon people like Josephus and Seutonius, and pretend that they are reliable, primary, confirmation, because they have nothing better. In a serious, unbiased, history course, if anyone tried making such claims solely on the basis of seconday evidence, they'd be failed. If you tried to prove your case in a court of law, your evidence would be ruled inadmissible, because it's hearsay.

Anyway as has been said before... Christianity is about a person relationship with God...
Christianity is about believing that one has a personal relationship with god, but there's no reliable evidence to show that it isn't just an illusion in one's own mind, and there is growing evidence that it is just an illusion.

It probably wont mean much to you, but in John 3:16, God HAS shown athiests that they are wrong: "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotton son, so that those who believe in Him may not perish, but have eternal life"
That isn't showing that atheists are wrong - it's merely words, making a claim. Where's the hard evidence to back up the claim?

You may believe in God..but if you are a fundamentalist God does NOT believe in YOU

Which means that we can't know how reliable our texts are, since the originals of most of the Bible were supposed to have been written before 100 AD! How much was changed between the originals and the copies we now have? We don't know, but we do know there were changes


Let me suggest something to you...

Do some research... Work out how many ancient copies of the bible we have and the time between when the text was written and the eariest copies of the bible that we have.... then compare to any number of well known ancient books/texts. I don't have the numbers on hand but from what I remember.. If you do not accept that the bible is an accurate record of what was originally written... then I would have to say that you do not believe Julius Ceaser existed either....


The fact that Assyrians existed doesn't prove that what the Bible says happened with Assyrians actually happened. Most fiction is set in real places and societies, but is still fiction.

Josephus confirms nothing. He is not a primary historical source - he was writing in the 90s AD, was not present in the time of Jesus, and cites no primary sources. He is almost certainly simply repeating claims which emanate from the Christian community of his time. There is no primary historical evidence about Jesus, from either Christian or non-Christian sources. Christian historians and theologians seize upon people like Josephus and Seutonius, and pretend that they are reliable, primary, confirmation, because they have nothing better. In a serious, unbiased, history course, if anyone tried making such claims solely on the basis of seconday evidence, they'd be failed. If you tried to prove your case in a court of law, your evidence would be ruled inadmissible, because it's hearsay.


Josephus confirms nothing? I would not say that... at the minimum I'd say that even when Josephus was writing ... I do not have the numbers on hand but taking 90AD as the year where Josephus wrote what he did about Jesus... This confirms 2 things... That in 90 AD Jesus was not only beleived to have existed but also to be of an enough stature to warrant a mention in a ROMAN history book... wether or not it is Primary in this instance is inconsequential...

I would suggest you at least read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do so with an open mind not only allowing the possibility of them being primary sources but at least attempt to leave biases behind when you start reading.... Read them through and determine only from what you read if they are Primary or Secondary... If you do give a serious attempt at it then that is all I ask.

Josephus confirms nothing? I would not say that... at the minimum I'd say that even when Josephus was writing ... I do not have the numbers on hand but taking 90AD as the year where Josephus wrote what he did about Jesus... This confirms 2 things... That in 90 AD Jesus was not only beleived to have existed but also to be of an enough stature to warrant a mention in a ROMAN history book... wether or not it is Primary in this instance is inconsequential...
Josephus was a Jew, not a Roman (I'm not sure if he became a Roman citizen, like Paul, but he fought against the Romans in the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD). He was writing about the Jews, so it is hardly surprising that he would make a brief mention (and it is only brief) of a new and growing sect. Yes, it proves that Christians existed by 90 AD, but that's all it proves. But at least part of what he wrote is strongly believed to be a later addition by Christian apologists.

I would suggest you at least read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) do so with an open mind not only allowing the possibility of them being primary sources but at least attempt to leave biases behind when you start reading.... Read them through and determine only from what you read if they are Primary or Secondary... If you do give a serious attempt at it then that is all I ask.
I have read them, several times, and with an open mind, but not so open that I suspend my critical faculties : suspension of skepticism is the road to gullibility. I would be be betraying my historical training if I were to use only the Gospels to determine their status as evidence : to do so would be bad history and bad analysis.

Have you read much history (particularly from non-Christian sources) of first century Palestine, with an open mind and without pre-judgements about the validity of religious traditions? It simply isn't possible to get a realistic picture of the Gospels without some independent knowledge of the history, culture and ideas of the time. The same applies to any historical text.

Something I can't help doing because of my nature. It's like saying I should go to jail for eating. "Oh, you aren't being punished for being hungry, you're punished for eating".

No, it's something that you can help, because of your nature.

By nature you're inclined to sin.... But posessing free agency, you've got the capacity to act against your own nature.

Unlike the majority of the animal kingdom, mankind is capable of acting in opposition to their own "instinct" [nature].

What you're saying, is that you should not be held accountable for your failure to execute your capacity as a free agent. And that "inclination" and "desire" are excuses for bad decisions...

Your sin, I have never sinned

I Jn. 1:8-10

Christianity is about believing that one has a personal relationship with god, but there's no reliable evidence to show that it isn't just an illusion in one's own mind, and there is growing evidence that it is just an illusion.

I'd like to see this "growing evidence". If its what I think it is (IE extremely vague medical evidence of a need of euphoria gratified by religion) then I am not impressed.