NationStates Jolt Archive

I honestly don't see how anybody can push their mind to accept an omnipotent God without toppling over into agnosticism.

If God can do/think/be anything at any time with no restrictions, then there is no possible way that any human mind could ever comprehend ANYTHING about God, including what God might want/think/require from human beings. You can never have any idea what God might want from you, period, and it is laughable that you would ever be so arrogant as to presume that you have the faintest clue what God might think about anything. Therefore, since you cannot possibly ever know anything whatsoever about God, your religious beliefs have nothing to do with God at all...they're just about what YOU are choosing to believe in, which has nothing whatsoever to do with God's wishes or thoughts. Why waste your time lying to yourself and pretending that your religion is about God, when your own stated beliefs disprove that notion?

I suspect you might be right... since it certainly SEEMS that a lot of people that term themselves religious, actually act like they think the concept of God is more of a possibility than a certainty.

That came out much more convoluted than it was in my head...

I think a lot of Christians (not pickin' on the Christians... they are just closest) are fair-weather-agnostics... they REALY believe when they want something, but they are willing to negotiate when times are good.

So, exactly when did God tell you about His "wishes and thoughts"?

I think that's the point... could we even KNOW god's wishes if he told us? How could we comprehend his thoughts?

As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang theory needs a good debunking. I'm not sure how it got quite so bunked in the first place... lack of competition, I imagine.

To me - perpetuity seems more 'logical'.... time is eternal, because I prefer a model of the universe born from the ashes of the prior incarnation of the universe. We can count time back to the origins of our incarnation of the universe, but we can't 'see' any further - thus 'time' APPEARS to start with the formation of 'space'...

Yes, but what you're saying is not outside of the possibility of what the theory describes. It has the universe shrinking down to a singularity. We don't know what the singularity is, what the qualities of the singularity are, where it came from, how it got there, etc? (Ignore the fact that due to our limited language some of my words are spacial or based in time.)

That poster doesn't realize that logic is how we view the world. It has nothing to do with how the world actually works.It can be hard to tell one from the other, I suppose. It does require willingness to admit that things may be radically different from how we concieve them.


As far as I'm concerned, the Big Bang theory needs a good debunking. I'm not sure how it got quite so bunked in the first place... lack of competition, I imagine.

To me - perpetuity seems more 'logical'.... time is eternal, because I prefer a model of the universe born from the ashes of the prior incarnation of the universe. We can count time back to the origins of our incarnation of the universe, but we can't 'see' any further - thus 'time' APPEARS to start with the formation of 'space'...Which Big Bang theory is that?

As far as I know, the Big Bang is simply the theory that the present state of the universe started with an incredibly rapid expansion. While the evidence might not be overwhelming, I can't imagine what sort of alternative scenario it'd fit.

That poster doesn't realize that logic is how we view the world. It has nothing to do with how the world actually works.

It is a convenience.

Like science.

It works while it works, but - maybe that just means we don't have the exceptions, yet.

Yes, but what you're saying is not outside of the possibility of what the theory describes. It has the universe shrinking down to a singularity. We don't know what the singularity is, what the qualities of the singularity are, where it came from, how it got there, etc? (Ignore the fact that due to our limited language some of my words are spacial or based in time.)Exactly. Without spacial dimensions, there's no time.

God is great. God is forgiving. God is powerful. God is loving. God is mercyful. God gives me joy. God is my friend. God protects me. God loves everyone. God understands people even if i dont. God is the creator. God is BIG. God is great. God is holy. God is amazing. God is everywhere. God knows you. God knows your name. God knows what your plans are. God is the planner of your life. God doesnt gives us rule, for he gives us joy and created us to live joyful lives and love him back. God can zap you anytime anywhere. God is mercyful though so dont worry. God gave me eternal life. God is in heaven. God will meet me there. God will judge you one day. Heaven or Hell? Decide today. Its not too late or too early. God is true. God is real. God is real. God is next to you now, believe it. Do you have faith? Think of all the joy in your life....friends, computers, your own life, food, TV, your eyes to see, your ears to hear, your mouth to taste, He gives us love. God is real.

I love God. I love Jesus.

God Bless you.
Timofree

Which Big Bang theory is that?

As far as I know, the Big Bang is simply the theory that the present state of the universe started with an incredibly rapid expansion. While the evidence might not be overwhelming, I can't imagine what sort of alternative scenario it'd fit.

I'm addressing the mass-market ideas. The Happy Meal version.

The model most often touted is the 'as-if-by-magic, the-shopkeeper-appeared' model... where there is nothing... nothing... nothing... then POP... we have a 'singularity', which spawns all of time and space...

I'm just addressing the nothing... nothing... nothing... part - because I don't think the model necessarily has to have a 'start' or 'end'... those are just formalities on the line of the progression.

Maybe.

God is the planner of your life.Remind me to break his foot on judgement day.

I'm addressing the mass-market ideas. The Happy Meal version.

The model most often touted is the 'as-if-by-magic, the-shopkeeper-appeared' model... where there is nothing... nothing... nothing... then POP... we have a 'singularity', which spawns all of time and space...

I'm just addressing the nothing... nothing... nothing... part - because I don't think the model necessarily has to have a 'start' or 'end'... those are just formalities on the line of the progression.

Maybe.
That's not the theory. There is no 'nothing...nothing...nothing... part'. It doesn't speculate on the singularity or what happened 'before' it.

I'm addressing the mass-market ideas. The Happy Meal version.

The model most often touted is the 'as-if-by-magic, the-shopkeeper-appeared' model... where there is nothing... nothing... nothing... then POP... we have a 'singularity', which spawns all of time and space...

I'm just addressing the nothing... nothing... nothing... partOK, I can't say I know that one, but perhaps it's because I'm not American (not intended as a cheap shot). - because I don't think the model necessarily has to have a 'start' or 'end'... those are just formalities on the line of the progression.

Maybe.Starts & ends are rather different from the concept of time. Time is a property of the universe, as it is now. The beginning of time might not have anything to do with what did or didn't go on prior to the big bang. Currently, it's rather useless to speculate about it, because the answer is ultimately that we simply can't know - not in our present situation anyway.

It's almost as useful as debating proof for & against the Biblical God. There just isn't any.

So sure, the shop may just have sprung into existence, for no reason at all. Or something rather elaborate, and perhaps perpetual, may have caused it to happen.

That's not the theory. There is no 'nothing...nothing...nothing... part'. It doesn't speculate on the singularity or what happened 'before' it.

Like I said - I'm addressing the common perception... and the common perception is that there was nothing, then something - even if that is not implicit in the theory.

As to the the 'nature' of the singularity... or even the existence of the singularity - while the singularity is not necessarily consonant with the theoretical model - a singularity is usually suggested as the seed - and some FORM of singularity HAS been attached to the theory (either unofficially or officially) since Georges Lemaître speculated the "primeval atom".

Does a cyclical universe contest the actual specifics of the 'official' version of the Big Bang theory? No - but it would be in opposition to the perceptions of most people discussing the Big Bang theory.

But - you know this - you've seen the same arguments used whenever God versus Big Bang falls into the debate.

OK, I can't say I know that one, but perhaps it's because I'm not American (not intended as a cheap shot).


No cheap shot inferred. I'm not an American, either.

Actually the title I coined for the theory, there... is unlikely to mean anything to almost ANY of the people on this forum, since it is a line from a Children's television program, in the UK, about 20-something years ago.

It just seems appropriate. :)


Starts & ends are rather different from the concept of time. Time is a property of the universe, as it is now. The beginning of time might not have anything to do with what did or didn't go on prior to the big bang. Currently, it's rather useless to speculate about it, because the answer is ultimately that we simply can't know - not in our present situation anyway.

It's almost as useful as debating proof for & against the Biblical God. There just isn't any.

So sure, the shop may just have sprung into existence, for no reason at all. Or something rather elaborate, and perhaps perpetual, may have caused it to happen.

But, we assume that time and space are linked (a reasonable assumption)... and that time and space 'started' a while back, with this Big Bang thingy. I'm just saying... 'started' might be a relative term.

If I had said "No", then the vote would have been perfectly split 50/50.
Wow.

Does any nation really have faith in God?
Or is it just a clever tool to sway the masses?

I'd say the masses need to be swayed sometimes, and if religion and faith in God is the way to do it, then as long as the masses aren't being swayed to stand on the front lines of a war, then so be it.

As to the the 'nature' of the singularity... or even the existence of the singularity - while the singularity is not necessarily consonant with the theoretical model - a singularity is usually suggested as the seed - and some FORM of singularity HAS been attached to the theory (either unofficially or officially) since Georges Lemaître speculated the "primeval atom".It is, at least, implied as the point of origin of the expansion. Just keep in mind that singularities are little more than a set of properties. Thus, the singularity that set off the rapid expansion of the universe, may not have been very similar to the one at the center of our galaxy. It was still a singularity though, because it didn't occupy any space.Does a cyclical universe contest the actual specifics of the 'official' version of the Big Bang theory? No - but it would be in opposition to the perceptions of most people discussing the Big Bang theory.I don't think you're right, and I don't know what you base that assumption on.

Still, a cyclical universe seems unlikely, given our current understanding of the universe as it presently is. Most likely, our universe is expanding too rapidly to ever collapse on itself. Heat death seems a more likely outcome.. If that can truely be called an outcome.But - you know this - you've seen the same arguments used whenever God versus Big Bang falls into the debate.Well.. I remember Neo Rogolia's rants about uncaused first causes & such, but other than that.. Not really, no.
What happened to her anyway - was she dragged off to an asylum, or did she marry Faldwell?

Does any nation really have faith in God?
Or is it just a clever tool to sway the masses?
Nations are a sort of faith in themselves, really. I suppose they could have a faith, but it would probably be a very unusual one, to be sure.

I think that's the point... could we even KNOW god's wishes if he told us? How could we comprehend his thoughts?
No, I don't think that was the point and I do believe that Bottle got caught with her pants down?

There is scripture that purports to tell us what God wants. The rest is up to the individual as to whether they think that those are truly "God's wishes", which leads us back to whether we have faith and belief in God.

No, I don't think that was the point and I do believe that Bottle got caught with her pants down?

There is scripture that purports to tell us what God wants. The rest is up to the individual as to whether they think that those are truly "God's wishes", which leads us back to whether we have faith and belief in God.
Yes, but which scripture should you believe? The Jew's, the Christian's, the Muslim's, the Hindu's? That scripture doesn't bring you any further in that regard.

It is, at least, implied as the point of origin of the expansion. Just keep in mind that singularities are little more than a set of properties. Thus, the singularity that set off the rapid expansion of the universe, may not have been very similar to the one at the center of our galaxy. It was still a singularity though, because it didn't occupy any space.


I think the current 'best guess' is a 'gravitational singularity' - which I assume is an infinitely large gravity well, caused by an infinitely large mass in an infinitely small space... a kind of Ultimate Black Hole (tm).

Still, a cyclical universe seems unlikely, given our current understanding of the universe as it presently is. Most likely, our universe is expanding too rapidly to ever collapse on itself. Heat death seems a more likely outcome.. If that can truely be called an outcome.Well.. I remember Neo Rogolia's rants about uncaused first causes & such, but other than that.. Not really, no.
What happened to her anyway - was she dragged off to an asylum, or did she marry Faldwell?

I'm, not entirely convinced by the 'heat death' model. I don't find the idea fatally flawed, I just think it relies too much on attenuation. In a universe in which the borders are defined BY the outermost particles, all mass must be within the borders... with a likely progression towards greater concentration as you head inwards... which means, the centre of mass will always be more central, and more dense, than any other point in the arrangement.

It just seems to me that - once the kinetic energy of the universe runs down, you might be left with shedloads of (gravitational) potential energy, which will express itself, eventually. To start with... maybe an imperceptible deceleration effect, because of the attenuation.... but even the smallest decelerating effect can cause a halt if it is applied long enough... and then, the mass is still sitting there, 'gravitating'...

But, we assume that time and space are linked (a reasonable assumption)... and that time and space 'started' a while back, with this Big Bang thingy. I'm just saying... 'started' might be a relative term.Yea, we assume space & time are linked. That's what that EineKleineSteine guy got so famous for.
And like I said, beginnings & ends are not necessarily to do with time at all. They're simply conceptual things, like logic is it. In uviversal terms, the moment the rapid expansion started, was THE beginning. In intellectual terms, that particular beginning might concievably have been the last in a neverending line of similar beginnings... Still, that sort of requires an explanation for how one goes from one beginning to the next, and we're in no position to even speculate about that.

I think a more likely explanation is that if this topic gets locked, there'll be a part II moments later.

To prove myself right:You already did, but repeating it doesn't make it true.If you'd shown "clear evidence", there'd be no question of believing it. As it is, you've shown no evidence at all.Omnipotence conflicts with free will. Omnipotence conflicts with omniscience. Omniscience conflicts with free will. Omnipresence conflicts with the idea of hell. Omnipotence conflicts with the idea of the devil.


When you've sorted out those problems, you can start concentrating on where exactly your invisible friend commanded you to discriminate against non-Christians & Christians with views different from your own.Yea.. Fundamentalism & orthodoxy is extremely offensive & rude.Well.. If the Bible can't convince Christians to abandon their faith, it's unlikely anything can. I won't speculate on what drives people to religion.Remember that feeling, when you offend those who don't share your faith.If I'm among them, then I'm inclined to apologise, as I think it's a disservice to you.. Still, if you don't insist on imposing your values on those who don't share them, I suppose it's all good.

If I've shown any evidence is an opinion and in my opinion I have shown. God is Omnipotent and gives us free will, so I can't see where your statment exactly fits.

There aren't any problems to solve. My 'invisible friend' didn't command me to do anything and I didn't discriminate against anyone, there were offenses from both sides, from their side and my side, but no discriminations from both sides. The thing that drives people to religion is that they want to have some sort of sense in life, not die in bed and then nothing.
I didn't particulary offend anyone of any faith, those I offended mostly were because they offended me,or because I lost my temper as many others have done in this Thread.
I haven't imposed my beleifs on anyone, I just tried to make them see it from my point of view.
Thirdly I am no fundemantilist, I don't believe that people who aren't Christian/Catholic/Orthodox shall go to hell, as it seems you are trying to imply. There were some rude comments from both sides, but the rudest I would have to say came from a particular ' monkey' if you know what I am trying to say, not from me or anybody else. Thank you.
P.S. Try to understand more properly what I write, many of my messages may actually be somewhat distorted by my language skills.

No, I don't think that was the point and I do believe that Bottle got caught with her pants down?


Bottle got caught with her pants down? I should have stayed in this thread... :(


There is scripture that purports to tell us what God wants. The rest is up to the individual as to whether they think that those are truly "God's wishes", which leads us back to whether we have faith and belief in God.

There are thousands of scriptures that purport to tell us what god wants... and most of them disagree.

I sincerely believe that Bottle may have been heading more in a 'why do we anthropomorphosise God' direction... we honestly seem to think we COULD understand God's wishes... which is a leap of faith I can't even envision.

This post is such an improvement I can hardly believe it's the same poster. Are you sure you're not you're older brother or something? Anyway, I'm glad to see you putting a little more effort in your posts. I think you'll find a different level of response almost immediately.

As to the text of it, I leave you with Similized's responses.

Why are you asking me if I am older? Same content as before. Well yes, I have tried to improve structuring and language, and temper, and a bit less passion in the posts.

Yea, we assume space & time are linked. That's what that EineKleineSteine guy got so famous for.
And like I said, beginnings & ends are not necessarily to do with time at all. They're simply conceptual things, like logic is it. In uviversal terms, the moment the rapid expansion started, was THE beginning. In intellectual terms, that particular beginning might concievably have been the last in a neverending line of similar beginnings... Still, that sort of requires an explanation for how one goes from one beginning to the next, and we're in no position to even speculate about that.

I think we can speculate about it - just so long as we bear in mind it IS speculation. Ideas are not the problem... it's when ideas become so entrenched that people get hurt because of them.

The thing that drives people to religion is that they want to have some sort of sense in life, not die in bed and then nothing.

Unfortunately, however... what we 'want' tends to have little impact on the universe. Reality is mercilessly intransigent where our 'desires' are concerned.

Unfortunately, however... what we 'want' tends to have little impact on the universe. Reality is mercilessly intransigent where our 'desires' are concerned.

What are you trying to say here in simple english please.

I think the current 'best guess' is a 'gravitational singularity' - which I assume is an infinitely large gravity well, caused by an infinitely large mass in an infinitely small space... a kind of Ultimate Black Hole (tm).I haven't read up on it recently, but AFAIK, you're right. Still, the gravity bit is not known, just inferred from similar phenomena in the universe.



I'm, not entirely convinced by the 'heat death' model. I don't find the idea fatally flawed, I just think it relies too much on attenuation. In a universe in which the borders are defined BY the outermost particles, all mass must be within the borders... with a likely progression towards greater concentration as you head inwards... which means, the centre of mass will always be more central, and more dense, than any other point in the arrangement.That explains a great deal. Problem is, your impression of the universe is not entirely accurate.

The reason people believe the origin of the expansion was a singularity, is because only a singularity would be able to disperse matter/energy evenly, throughout the universe.

As it is, matter isn't spread entirely evenly in the universe, but enough to rule out a conventional explosion. The assumed explanation (which isn't proven) for the irregularities, is the presence of either hot or cold dark matter particles, or a combination of both. They're supposed to excersise enough of a gravity pull to influence how got dispersed.

There's no lesser or greater concentration of matter, as you progress in any direction in the universe. There's the occational "veins", which the dark matter theories may explain, but that's it.It just seems to me that - once the kinetic energy of the universe runs down, you might be left with shedloads of (gravitational) potential energy, which will express itself, eventually. To start with... maybe an imperceptible deceleration effect, because of the attenuation.... but even the smallest decelerating effect can cause a halt if it is applied long enough... and then, the mass is still sitting there, 'gravitating'...How do you propose this kinetic energy is halted? Gravity has limited reach, and unless it acts on something, it doesn't impact the kinetic movement.

Why are you asking me if I am older? Same content as before. Well yes, I have tried to improve structuring and language, and temper, and a bit less passion in the posts.

No, still passionate, and as I told you before better structuring and language can make all the difference. It's a very impressive improvement. Much better arguments. You got jumped all over earlier so I think it's appropriate to let you know that I think you deserve credit for what you've done.

What are you trying to say here in simple english please."Whish all you want, the universe don't give a toss" - Did that help?

The Yes votes have secured a majority for the first time, it's a miracle! :eek:

What are you trying to say here in simple english please.

The point was - people may be drawn to religion, because they WANT something to look forward to, or some meaning in their life.

MY point was - you can WANT it all you want... that doesn't make it any more real. The universe either has meaning or it doesn't... and it isn't going to be swayed by our WANT for meaning.

What are you trying to say here in simple english please.

He means, you made an argument based on what we want (relating to dying alone in bed) and that wanting something doesn't make it real.

You can't argue that God exists because we want him to.

The thing that drives people to religion is that they want to have some sort of sense in life, not die in bed and then nothing.

The point was - people may be drawn to religion, because they WANT something to look forward to, or some emaning in their life.

MY point was - you can WANT it all you want... that doesn't make it any more real. The universe either has meaning or it doesn't... and it isn't going to be swayed by our WANT for meaning.

Aw, come on. I wanted to explain it.

"Whish all you want, the universe don't give a toss" - Did that help?

That's about it. :)

Thanks for condensing. I have an unfortunate tendency to allow my mouth free-rein.

Aw, come on. I wanted to explain it.

Actually - Similization beat us both to it. :)

And condensed it into only 10 words, too.... :D

"Whish all you want, the universe don't give a toss" - Did that help?

Yes, of course it did help, because now it can confirm what I have said much earlier.
Before I said that many people don't beleive because they want to do what they want, not follow some 'ancient old book filled with lies' as they say. And that is the reason why they ask more questions, so they don't have to admit what is true and what is not.
Case Closed, my friend.

Actually - Similization beat us both to it. :)

And condensed it into only 10 words, too.... :D

But... but... dang it.

Yes, of course it did help, because now it can confirm what I have said much earlier.
Before I said that many people don't beleive because they want to do what they want, not follow some 'ancient old book filled with lies' as they say. And that is the reason why they ask more questions, so they don't have to admit what is true and what is not.
Case Closed, my friend.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. You made an argument that what we want is evidence of God. It's not. It can't be. It does not relate in ANY way to it being evidence against God or why Atheists are Atheists. It simply points to the flaw in your argument.

Actually - Similization beat us both to it. :)

And condensed it into only 10 words, too.... :DHehe, so sorry both of you. I couldn't help it :p

The point was - people may be drawn to religion, because they WANT something to look forward to, or some meaning in their life.

MY point was - you can WANT it all you want... that doesn't make it any more real. The universe either has meaning or it doesn't... and it isn't going to be swayed by our WANT for meaning.

I wasn't talking on me. I believe because I know its real, and God talks to me in various ways, not because I created some 'god' for my satisfaction'.
I was referring to a reason why people with doubts in God's existence believe in him because they want sense in their life.
That was my point.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. You made an argument that what we want is evidence of God. It's not. It can't be. It does not relate in ANY way to it being evidence against God or why Atheists are Atheists. It simply points to the flaw in your argument.I'm so glad you're on hand. I dodn't even understand the argument :(

By the way, why do you capitalize "atheists"?

Sorry, but I have to disagree. You made an argument that what we want is evidence of God. It's not. It can't be. It does not relate in ANY way to it being evidence against God or why Atheists are Atheists. It simply points to the flaw in your argument.

I was reffering to what Simplify was saying not what Grave_and_Idle was saying, I have given another response to that.

I'm so glad you're on hand. I dodn't even understand the argument :(

By the way, why do you capitalize "atheists"?

Same reason I capitalize Christians.

I wasn't talking on me. I believe because I know its real, and God talks to me in various ways, not because I created some 'god' for my satisfaction'.
I was referring to a reason why people with doubts in God's existence believe in him because they want sense in their life.
That was my point.

The point was unclear initially. But that's a fair point and probably accurate.

That explains a great deal. Problem is, your impression of the universe is not entirely accurate.

The reason people believe the origin of the expansion was a singularity, is because only a singularity would be able to disperse matter/energy evenly, throughout the universe.

As it is, matter isn't spread entirely evenly in the universe, but enough to rule out a conventional explosion. The assumed explanation (which isn't proven) for the irregularities, is the presence of either hot or cold dark matter particles, or a combination of both. They're supposed to excersise enough of a gravity pull to influence how got dispersed.

There's no lesser or greater concentration of matter, as you progress in any direction in the universe. There's the occational "veins", which the dark matter theories may explain, but that's it.How do you propose this kinetic energy is halted?


You say my "of the universe is not entirely accurate...." Yet, what you are actually saying, is that I simply do not agree with the official version.

We don't KNOW what the 'accurate' model is. I, for one, am very skeptical of the whole Dark Matter concept.

As for the necessity for a singularity versus a conventional explosion... perhaps it is too early to say... maybe it only looks that way, because the universe is still so young?

Gravity has limited reach, and unless it acts on something, it doesn't impact the kinetic movement.

I'm not sure I can accept the idea that "Gravity has limited reach", either. I think the effect gets smaller with distance, but I'm not sure I can comprehend a model that claims an actual 'limit', rather than a point at which the effect is attenuated until it is negligible.

I was reffering to what Simplify was saying not what Grave_and_Idle was saying, I have given another response to that.I'm guessing I'm Simplify?

Did you mean that the reason I'm not Christian, is because I'd rather question than blindly obey?

If that's the case, I almost want to say you're dead on. Almost, because I suppose you could have been. Only, I never believed in anything supernatural, so there's no "want" involved.

You say my "of the universe is not entirely accurate...." Yet, what you are actually saying, is that I simply do not agree with the official version.Sorry, I simply assumed you weren't up to date on what's known & what's been based on that knowledge.We don't KNOW what the 'accurate' model is. I, for one, am very skeptical of the whole Dark Matter concept.Which model? We do know a great deal about how visible matter is distributed in the universe. But the dark matter theories aren't exactly solid, yet.As for the necessity for a singularity versus a conventional explosion... perhaps it is too early to say... maybe it only looks that way, because the universe is still so young?And from extrapolating on the known properties, a singularity's still needed. Besides, what makes you think that relative youth matters, when the distribution of content doesn't match the proposed method of distribution?I'm not sure I can accept the idea that "Gravity has limited reach", either. I think the effect gets smaller with distance, but I'm not sure I can comprehend a model that claims an actual 'limit', rather than a point at which the effect is attenuated until it is negligible.Take a peanut & a glass of water. Don't drop the peanut in it, but simply press it lightly against the surface of the water. The surface area immediately beneath & around the peanut, will be displaced. The rest of the surface won't be affected (yes well.. It's a glass of water, so bear with me).

The point is, gravity doesn't exactly "pull" stuff. It distorts space inside a limited area. It's not like conventional radiation that just keeps going.

Regardless, this is completely off topic, and you are, of course, free to contest popular theories as much as you like. I'm no astrophysicist, so I simply try to keep up with what the most widely recognised theories are.

Sorry, I simply assumed you weren't up to date on what's known & what's been based on that knowledge.Which model? We do know a great deal about how visible matter is distributed in the universe. But the dark matter theories aren't exactly solid, yet.And from extrapolating on the known properties, a singularity's still needed. Besides, what makes you think that relative youth matters, when the distribution of content doesn't match the proposed method of distribution?Take a peanut & a glass of water. Don't drop the peanut in it, but simply press it lightly against the surface of the water. The surface area immediately beneath & around the peanut, will be displaced. The rest of the surface won't be affected (yes well.. It's a glass of water, so bear with me).

The point is, gravity doesn't exactly "pull" stuff. It distorts space inside a limited area. It's not like conventional radiation that just keeps going.

Regardless, this is completely off topic, and you are, of course, free to contest popular theories as much as you like. I'm no astrophysicist, so I simply try to keep up with what the most widely recognised theories are.

Okay - we'll let it rest, before we get modslapped for gratuitous hijacking... :)

Okay - we'll let it rest, before we get modslapped for gratuitous hijacking... :)You could make another thread, if you want. Could probably be interesting :)

I find it quite interesting that someone could be a great person, do good works constantly, and still end up in hell/purgatory.

I must ask, are you prepared to damn Buddha, the Dali Lama, and Gandhi all to hell?
To be honest no. They have done good work in the eyes of the lord and for the people of the earth. I'm not excatly sure, where they'll go. They didn't believe in God to an extent, i'm not sure, they did have respect for other religions though.

Remind me to break his foot on judgement day.
things happen for a reason my friend and for the better good dispite you may not realize it. Thank him for your life no matter how bad it was. It won't be easy but it'll be worth it.

No evidence either way really.

..... theres a lot of evidence proving the bible wrong.

I say no.

things happen for a reason my friend and for the better good dispite you may not realize it. Thank him for your life no matter how bad it was. It won't be easy but it'll be worth it.If you're trying to make me see the light, my recent accident is not the right way to go about it. Trust me, if your deity was responsible for the state of my foot, it'd speak volumes about its agenda (and make a creepy sort of sense).

Anyway.. The other post of yours; you said Buddha etc. were good in the eyes of your deity, regardless of their lack of belief. How can you be sure?
And if they're not tortured for eternity, why should I be? Is my "crime" not the same?

...Seveteen hundred people...eesh...And a tie?! *gasp*

I beleive in God because I have seen prayers answered. I have had a hard life. I was abused and spent most of my childhood in fear. However, I don't blame God for what happened. I blame my father. I think that people are too quick to blame God for what happens instead of blaming the people who do it. We live in a fallen world and becasue of that bad things happen. I prayer that people will see that and reach to God for help instead of blaming him for problems. :cool:

Okay, God is omniscient. He knows who he sent Jesus for and what will happen. He knows ALL. So are you claiming that God didn't know that the many of the lost sheep would reject him? Funny, because Jesus said that many would reject him. He said that many would fight. Jesus predicted the future but couldn't predict the lost sheep would reject him in part? Then why did he prophesy about them rejecting him?

You make out like our omniscient God simply made an effort and because the desired result did not happen changed his mind. He knew the result from the beginning. It was prophesied, remember. That means Jesus already knew the outcome when he made the statement I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal. How do you rectify an omniscient God, a Savior that predicts his death long before it occurs, a condemnation that was prophesied before Jesus, and a sudden change in direction that YOU claim is a result of the rejection they ALL knew was coming. If he was sent to save all of humanity as so many now claim, why did Jesus claim otherwise.

It was God who sent him and he only sent him once, so either he was sent for all of humanity or he wasn't. He can change who he saves but he cannot change why he was sent after the fact. So was Jesus correct that he was sent for ONLY the lost sheep of Isreal, was he lying or was he wrong?

I hold that he was correct. Jesus was not sent for other than the lost sheep. However, according to the actions of Jesus, faith can save even Gentiles. That still doesn't change who he was sent for and it WAS NOT Gentiles.
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/little-dogs.html
Actually Jocabia, I do stand corrected. Jesus was sent only to the house of Isreal. however, he did not begrudge healing nor turn away any Non Isrealite who showed faith in God.

The Canaanite woman was granted healing for her daughter, so were Roman Soliders as well. Jesus was sent to preach only to the Isreals but then they and all others were also charged by "The Great Commission" (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/great-commission.html) to spread that word out to all the world. Not just to Isreal but to every nation.

Jesus was sent only to Isreal to teach Isreal and then they are to go forth and teach the word to all other nations.

I beleive in God because I have seen prayers answered. I have had a hard life. I was abused and spent most of my childhood in fear. However, I don't blame God for what happened. I blame my father. I think that people are too quick to blame God for what happens instead of blaming the people who do it. We live in a fallen world and becasue of that bad things happen. I prayer that people will see that and reach to God for help instead of blaming him for problems. :cool:

This is actually a big problem for me, though.... the evils of man are divested, because we are 'fallen'.

Effectively, because of this spiritual 'war'... we can't HELP overselves... we do evil BECAUSE we are fallen.

I won't accept that model. People are good, and people are evil. But, they are all just people.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/little-dogs.html
Actually Jocabia, I do stand corrected. Jesus was sent only to the house of Isreal. however, he did not begrudge healing nor turn away any Non Isrealite who showed faith in God.

The Canaanite woman was granted healing for her daughter, so were Roman Soliders as well. Jesus was sent to preach only to the Isreals but then they and all others were also charged by "The Great Commission" (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/great-commission.html) to spread that word out to all the world. Not just to Isreal but to every nation.

Jesus was sent only to Isreal to teach Isreal and then they are to go forth and teach the word to all other nations.

*Hats off to JuNii*

You don't often see an admission of fault. I salute you.

I think that's the point... could we even KNOW god's wishes if he told us? How could we comprehend his thoughts?
thats the sad and scary part.

if god exists (and i firmly believe that he doesnt) we really CAN'T know for sure what he wants from us, if anything. religion is our best guess. we make up a story, organize rituals and go with it.

we fervently HOPE that god is good, loving, just, allpowerful. we HOPE that he cares for us. we HOPE we arent the dust mites in the couch of existence. but there's no way to know for sure.

we have faith that god will make it right in the end. but in the end, we might find out that we werent the point of creation at all. we cling to hope, crediting every unlikely good thing that happens to the grace of god but its just hope.

No, you're not. You are redefining the statement because you want it to say something else. Speaking to all nations is not the same as speaking to everyone in every nation even if you wish for it to say that really, really badly.

Let's see.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all nations (to speak to the lost sheep there)."
My explanation of all nations, no contradiction.

"I am sent only to the lost sheep of Isreal"
"Take my message to all people."
Your explanation of all people, contradiction.and you are also adding and redefining the statements. he did not say to speak only to Isrealites.

while He was sent to the children of Isreal, he commissioned them to go out and spread the word to everyone. Why else would God assist the Disciples as they preached to non-Jews. baptizing them in the name of the holy trinity.

And GnI while yes, you can speak to all nations without speaking to everyone, how can you speak to all nations while only talking to one nation? you cannot switch definitions within one word.

"And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen. " (Matthew 28:18-20).

While Jesus did teach and converse only with Isreal, he did not begrudge those teachings nor healing to anyone else. God's intent was to spread the word and Isreal was the tool to do so.

thats the sad and scary part.

if god exists (and i firmly believe that he doesnt) we really CAN'T know for sure what he wants from us, if anything. religion is our best guess. we make up a story, organize rituals and go with it.

we fervently HOPE that god is good, loving, just, allpowerful. we HOPE that he cares for us. we HOPE we arent the dust mites in the couch of existence. but there's no way to know for sure.

we have faith that god will make it right in the end. but in the end, we might find out that we werent the point of creation at all. we cling to hope, crediting every unlikely good thing that happens to the grace of god but its just hope.

Indeed. Every so often, I get a mental image:

God, leaning over his 'ant-farm'. Sometimes he waves his magnifying glass around... sometimes to look, sometimes to torch some unlucky drone.

Every so often, he drops a tiny book into the ant-farm, and watches as the different 'nests' wage their little ant-wars on one another - each CONVINCED that they book he dropped on them was truer than all the others, and that he really HAS chosen them as the 'one true ant-people'...

*Hats off to JuNii*

You don't often see an admission of fault. I salute you.
I'm only Human and I believe this isn't my first and I know it won't be my last. :)

However, it doesn't affect my Faith.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/little-dogs.html
Actually Jocabia, I do stand corrected. Jesus was sent only to the house of Isreal. however, he did not begrudge healing nor turn away any Non Isrealite who showed faith in God.

The Canaanite woman was granted healing for her daughter, so were Roman Soliders as well. Jesus was sent to preach only to the Isreals but then they and all others were also charged by "The Great Commission" (http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/great-commission.html) to spread that word out to all the world. Not just to Isreal but to every nation.

Jesus was sent only to Isreal to teach Isreal and then they are to go forth and teach the word to all other nations.

I mentioned the Canaanite women for that very point. Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep. You can tell ONLY applies to the lost sheep and not Isreal because of other instructions he gives about Gentiles and non-Hebrew towns. It is not contradictory to say that Jesus came to save the Jews of all nations. It is contradictory to say that Jesus came to save all man. It contradicts the very edict given by Jesus.

You've not shown in any way how all nations refers to other than Jews. I still wait for that proof.

While Jesus did teach and converse only with Isreal, he did not begrudge those teachings nor healing to anyone else. God's intent was to spread the word and Isreal was the tool to do so.

I'm pretty sure I could find verses in Matthew, where he EXPLICITLY begrudges ministering to anyone else, actually...

I'm only Human and I believe this isn't my first and I know it won't be my last. :)

However, it doesn't affect my Faith.

I should hope not. A faith that could be shaken by the wording of a book would be a scary faith to have, I think.

I mentioned the Canaanite women for that very point. Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep. You can tell ONLY applies to the lost sheep and not Isreal because of other instructions he gives about Gentiles and non-Hebrew towns. It is not contradictory to say that Jesus came to save the Jews of all nations. It is contradictory to say that Jesus came to save all man. It contradicts the very edict given by Jesus.

You've not shown in any way how all nations refers to other than Jews. I still wait for that proof.
read the links I provided.

Atheists, to the best of my knowledge, only makes for some 2-4% of the global population. We are, however, mostly found among the highly educated. But with so few of us, that really doesn't say a whole lot.

Now to something completely different; JuNii, what on Earth compelled you to claim I blamed the pope for the actions of Hilter?!

I think this is the first time I've ever felt tempted to bitch to a mod, but I'll give you a chance to explain just what that gross lie is supposed to mean.
that was during the discussion where I believe we were mis-understanding each other. so that was a faulty argument baised off of a mis-understanding. I forgot to retract that. Appologies.

and you are also adding and redefining the statements. he did not say to speak only to Isrealites.

while He was sent to the children of Isreal, he commissioned them to go out and spread the word to everyone. Why else would God assist the Disciples as they preached to non-Jews. baptizing them in the name of the holy trinity.

He didn't?

Let's see what JESUS said. Remember this is what JESUS said.

"Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel."


24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

25The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

26He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.


He calls a Gentile by a slur, dogs.

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

Again. Note this, do not give to dogs what is sacred. That doesn't sound like Jesus is trying to convince his followers to preach to the Gentiles. It sounds like he's encouraging them to pass their teachings to the Jews, unless you don't Jesus' teachings are sacred.

Now, again, he does save the Canaanite woman. That proves that with great faith ALL can be saved, but Jesus was and his message were for the Jews and he made that VERY clear throughout his life.

Can you quote him ever, EVER saying go to the Gentiles or do you only have examples that COULD be taken that way so long as we ignore that he said the opposite?

read the links I provided.

I did. The only remotely compelling part is where it says in Mark 16 to teach to all creation. However, are you claiming the Jesus was sent to the mice and fish?

Meanwhile, you reference the added passage that most scholars agree was not part of the original book and does not resemble the writing of the rest of the book. It looks like an afterthought. I do not believe it to be a part of Mark. However, even if it is, I don't believe Jesus contradicted himself, it would make him either wrong or a liar and I cannot rectify that with the Jesus I worship. Can you?

that was during the discussion where I believe we were mis-understanding each other. so that was a faulty argument baised off of a mis-understanding. I forgot to retract that. Appologies.OK, apology accepted. I just prefer having myself to blame for making people think I'm an idiot.. And somehow, your apology assures me that I definitly don't need help with it.

I'm pretty sure I could find verses in Matthew, where he EXPLICITLY begrudges ministering to anyone else, actually...

It should be noted that he wasn't talking about Isrealites. He was talking about Jews. He makes the explicit note to mention the lost sheep of Isreal. Those are the Jews. All Jews are supposed to be from Isreal regardless of where they are located. However, there were Isrealites who were not Jewish but they were not the lost sheep. It's clear this is not about the nation of Isreal but about the PEOPLE, people who are Jewish. The same when he says all nations he means the specific people in those nations he was sent to.

I find it quite interesting that someone could be a great person, do good works constantly, and still end up in hell/purgatory.

I must ask, are you prepared to damn Buddha, the Dali Lama, and Gandhi all to hell?
it is not our place to damn anyone, not even Hitler, to hell.

That is a right and power that only God can do. we can only council, advise and witness, but we should never force.

post #6672 and still going. :D

No, the point he makes is pertinent... you can't define the omnipotence of god by semantic arguments.

If what he says is true, then there isn't a point to debate this. This will continue forever. His whole argument consists of God basicly saying " I'm God, nothing applies to me, I can do what I want, yet you mortals can not understand me because you just can't." And this makes it very convenient for the believer. All the believer has to say is that since we're human we unable to understand...and someone like me can't counter because it's the ultimate of excuses. Since we can't understand his power, from your view, you automatically win the argument, without proving a damn thing.

As I've said before, all this is, is blind faith. All God is, is blind faith. And I for one don't like to believe in, or follow something I've never seen, never witnessed its power, or something that is supposedly omnipotent, but allows for a woman with breast cancer(topic creator's post) to die...a death that solved nothing, a death from which nothing was gained. And that's why I'll never believe.

If what he says is true, then there isn't a point to debate this. This will continue forever. His whole argument consists of God basicly saying " I'm God, nothing applies to me, I can do what I want, yet you mortals can not understand me because you just can't." And this makes it very convenient for the believer. All the believer has to say is that since we're human we unable to understand...and someone like me can't counter because it's the ultimate of excuses. Since we can't understand his power, from your view, you automatically win the argument, without proving a damn thing.

As I've said before, all this is, is blind faith. All God is, is blind faith. And I for one don't like to believe in, or follow something I've never seen, never witnessed its power, or something that is supposedly omnipotent, but allows for a woman with breast cancer(topic creator's post) to die...a death that solved nothing, a death from which nothing was gained. And that's why I'll never believe.

No, it doesn't. You prove you're not listening. It has nothing to do with what God says or can do. It has to do with the fact that logic is not a real world limitiation. What exists or does not and it's properties is not defined by logic in ANY way. That is true of everything. Logic is the way we understand the world around us.

It's not a rule or a limitiation of the world at all. If you find logical flaws it only proves that we don't understand something it has no effect on the properties of that thing.

We happen to be talking about God, but you aren't actually exposing a limitation of God. You're exposing a limitation in how we view all things. It's not surprise that it's difficult for us to fathom because we do not exist in the realm of such possibilities.

I did. The only remotely compelling part is where it says in Mark 16 to teach to all creation. However, are you claiming the Jesus was sent to the mice and fish?

Meanwhile, you reference the added passage that most scholars agree was not part of the original book and does not resemble the writing of the rest of the book. It looks like an afterthought. I do not believe it to be a part of Mark. However, even if it is, I don't believe Jesus contradicted himself, it would make him either wrong or a liar and I cannot rectify that with the Jesus I worship. Can you?

My "Goodspeed Parallel New Testament" says:

The Gospel According to Mark: "stops abruptly at the end of 16:8 in the two best and oldest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, and a few others; also in the Sinaitic Syriac and in a few manuscripts of the Georgian, Armenian and Ethiopic versions..."

If what he says is true, then there isn't a point to debate this. This will continue forever. His whole argument consists of God basicly saying " I'm God, nothing applies to me, I can do what I want, yet you mortals can not understand me because you just can't." And this makes it very convenient for the believer. All the believer has to say is that since we're human we unable to understand...and someone like me can't counter because it's the ultimate of excuses. Since we can't understand his power, from your view, you automatically win the argument, without proving a damn thing.

As I've said before, all this is, is blind faith. All God is, is blind faith. And I for one don't like to believe in, or follow something I've never seen, never witnessed its power, or something that is supposedly omnipotent, but allows for a woman with breast cancer(topic creator's post) to die...a death that solved nothing, a death from which nothing was gained. And that's why I'll never believe.

The thing about the 'semantic' proofs is NOT that god is beyond our comprehension, although that is a good argument. Or even that god can 'paradoctor' his own paradox, although that is ANOTHER good argument.

The argument against 'semantic' proofs, is that we are trying to imprison God in a box of our OWN making.

What IS black? What IS white? They are OUR definitions... OUR concepts. They are just words, for the way WE perceive.

So - to say God could never make black = white, it to say god FIRST has to agree to OUR semantic distinction... the box of OUR making. We are trying to snare omnipotence in a web of words.

I'm guessing I'm Simplify?

Did you mean that the reason I'm not Christian, is because I'd rather question than blindly obey?

If that's the case, I almost want to say you're dead on. Almost, because I suppose you could have been. Only, I never believed in anything supernatural, so there's no "want" involved.

No, I was reffering to what you said, not you personally.

Of course - one must bear in mind my sparkling Atheist credentials, but - I find it hard to credit that an omnipotent creator, is going to be too tightly bound by a rulebook he is supposed to have written.

If there IS a god, I personally think it more likely he sketches out a 'best policy' rulebook, but doesn't limit HIMSELF to it when making his choices.
and he doesn't, with Jesus's sacrifice, he made it easier to enter Heaven (if you equate Heaven to being a club) instead of having to do all these rituals that were once required to be necessary to get in, He made it simpler.

and now you have people saying that even those simple rules are "too hard" without most of them even trying.

and he doesn't, with Jesus's sacrifice, he made it easier to enter Heaven (if you equate Heaven to being a club) instead of having to do all these rituals that were once required to be necessary to get in, He made it simpler.

and now you have people saying that even those simple rules are "too hard" without most of them even trying.

I'd say 'simpler' depends on your persepctive.

At least the Hebrews had a god that 'kept in touch'...

If the Christian version is true - God has since decided to take himself out of the picture, and yet require people to believe something they cannot see.

Faced with the choice between gutting a chicken, and believing in something I can find no evidence for - there is no contest which is 'simpler'. Indeed - I CAN do one of those things, and I can NOT do the other... and yet, allegedly, I'll burn for all eternity because I can't pass a test I can't pass.

Were are still getting bogged down on the specifics, though.

During the earthly ministry - he DENIES the Gentiles. Explicitly. Flat out. He says he ONLY came for the Jews.and yet you cannot deny that he heals Romans, as well as other non Jews.

And, therein lies the rub. HE says ONLY the Jews, and then he (allegedly) says everyone.nope, he only said the HE was here for the Lost sheep of Isreal. not that what he taught was only for the Lost sheep of Isreal.

If his mission was everyone - he lied about ONLY the Jews. If his mission was ONLY the Jews, he lied about also saving Gentiles.but he saved Gentiles as well, he proclaimed that a Centurion's faith was stronger than most he's encountered in Isreal and deserved to sit next to the Father among Abraham, Issac and Jacob. doesn't sound like he's denying any non Gentile their place... nor their faith.

haha...well, I've been confronted several times by this whole "you're going to hell" from the innocent idea of "I'll pray for you" right up to the fun little conflict tonight...but I have never understood it. And every time I get it again, I try to understand it, usually getting no where. So maybe this time I'll make a bit of progress, eh?
I'm also a bit in shock that it came from this woman of all people, who tends to regard me highly.
when anyone says "You're going to Hell" then respond with Mathew 7:1-2
1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

as for the "I'll pray for you" just say "Thanks." :D

and yet you cannot deny that he heals Romans, as well as other non Jews.


Which isn't the same as bringing his ministry to them.

It certainly isn't the same as commissioning his followers to do so.

If He was the Christ, he can heal as he chooses, that doesn't equate to what the apostle can do.


nope, he only said the HE was here for the Lost sheep of Isreal. not that what he taught was only for the Lost sheep of Isreal.


Now you seem to be arguing it both ways. He DOES explicitly forbid his followers from ministering to the heathen.

If he refuses to bring the message to the Gentiles... even admonishes against it... how can it fololw that it is okay for the apostles to spread that message in his name?


but he saved Gentiles as well, he proclaimed that a Centurion's faith was stronger than most he's encountered in Isreal and deserved to sit next to the Father among Abraham, Issac and Jacob. doesn't sound like he's denying any non Gentile their place... nor their faith.

I'm not sure he says what you say he says... you mean Matthew 8, right?

Matthew 8:5-13 "And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, [so] be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."

Indeed - as I se it, the Centurion is used as REPROACH... a testament AGAINST Israel and her lost sheep.

He doesn't say the Centurion deserves or shall receive anything... except the healing which WAS going to be by hand, and is passed by word.

I'm not saying Gentiles didn't believe him... I'm just saying the scripture of the earthly ministry doesn't show that it did them any eternal good.

as for the "I'll pray for you" just say "Thanks." :D

Or: "I'll ask my coven to make a sacrifice in your name..."

So, exactly when did God tell you about His "wishes and thoughts"?
For me, Yesterday. my Internet connection kept breaking for some no reason, but it did allow me to rethink several arugments and see where I was wrong.

when I saw my errors and corrected them, the feeling of relief came upon me, even tho I still had to apologize to those I erred with.

Well.. I remember Neo Rogolia's rants about uncaused first causes & such, but other than that.. Not really, no.
What happened to her anyway - was she dragged off to an asylum, or did she marry Faldwell?I know she came back for a short while... but then dissapeared again.

Yes, but which scripture should you believe? The Jew's, the Christian's, the Muslim's, the Hindu's? That scripture doesn't bring you any further in that regard.post 6768... getting caught up... :D

Here's a kicker... what if the messages that god wants people to follow is in all of them and that it's the nuances, the details that each book gives that mucks it up?

Why are you asking me if I am older? Same content as before. Well yes, I have tried to improve structuring and language, and temper, and a bit less passion in the posts.
it's meant as a compliment to your success in structuring your post and the improvement of the tone as well as your command of the language. ;)

What are you trying to say here in simple english please.
"Whish all you want, the universe don't give a toss" - Did that help?
or "You don't always get what you want."

For me, Yesterday. my Internet connection kept breaking for some no reason, but it did allow me to rethink several arugments and see where I was wrong.

when I saw my errors and corrected them, the feeling of relief came upon me, even tho I still had to apologize to those I erred with.

Jolt is an agent of God?

Jolt is an agent of God?
No, silly. Jolt IS God. Haven't you figured that out by now? :p

I'm pretty sure I could find verses in Matthew, where he EXPLICITLY begrudges ministering to anyone else, actually...
yes, but don't forget how the Gentiles and the Jews were treating each other in the NT. It could've been (and still researching this so take it with a grain of salt) that the Disciples were not ready to confront those who are not even aquainted with God.

yes, but don't forget how the Gentiles and the Jews were treating each other in the NT. It could've been (and still researching this so take it with a grain of salt) that the Disciples were not ready to confront those who are not even aquainted with God.

You make it sound like Gentiles are an homogenous group....

No, silly. Jolt IS God. Haven't you figured that out by now? :p

Aha! That explains everything!...Somehow!

You are not a 'believer', are you my friend?

Not meant to be an insult or anything - It's just that I think I've seen another example of 'line-crossing' in the same debate... :)
haha...nope, not a believer...

I have crossed back and forth over the line dozens of times in this debate...the reason? Well, this debate is a very weird one. In order to debate anything beyond does god exist, we have to assume that he does, or it doesn't work in this threads context. So while I don't believe, I'm willing to move into a bit of devils advocate territory. Add to it the fact that I am attempting to really understand some of this stuff, and there you have Sarky...jumping back and forth over the line.

when anyone says "You're going to Hell" then respond with Mathew 7:1-2


as for the "I'll pray for you" just say "Thanks." :D
it's weird. "I'll pray for you" throws me of SO much more than "you're going to hell" when used in an argument. When someone tells me I'm going to hell, I can just laugh at them, drop a line or two about the compassion of God and Jesus and the whole "may he among us without sin be the first to condemn". "I'll pray for you" is kinda like saying "you're probably going to hell, but I'll see if I can pull some strings". I usually just laugh nervously and change the subject:D

I did. The only remotely compelling part is where it says in Mark 16 to teach to all creation. However, are you claiming the Jesus was sent to the mice and fish?

Meanwhile, you reference the added passage that most scholars agree was not part of the original book and does not resemble the writing of the rest of the book. It looks like an afterthought. I do not believe it to be a part of Mark. However, even if it is, I don't believe Jesus contradicted himself, it would make him either wrong or a liar and I cannot rectify that with the Jesus I worship. Can you?
well, jocabia, if you need word-for-word, exact detail on what God expects and What Jesus says, then the bible isn't for you. I would suggest you read the thousands of books that have interpretations on the bible and select the book that best explains everything to you.

I however, will take the spirit in which the lessons of Jesus was given and with prayer, I will follow what God reveals in my heart.

Aha! That explains everything!...Somehow!
See? Doesn't everything make so much more sense now?

btw, the poll is DEAD even. :eek:

The thing about the 'semantic' proofs is NOT that god is beyond our comprehension, although that is a good argument. Or even that god can 'paradoctor' his own paradox, although that is ANOTHER good argument.

The argument against 'semantic' proofs, is that we are trying to imprison God in a box of our OWN making.

What IS black? What IS white? They are OUR definitions... OUR concepts. They are just words, for the way WE perceive.

So - to say God could never make black = white, it to say god FIRST has to agree to OUR semantic distinction... the box of OUR making. We are trying to snare omnipotence in a web of words.
for some reason, a Quote from "Gobal Frequency" comes to mind. "The Universe doesn't have to make sense to you or I, it just has to make sense." the same is true for God. :)

See? Doesn't everything make so much more sense now?

btw, the poll is DEAD even. :eek:

It's creepy. They've been sneaking in somehow...

I'd say 'simpler' depends on your persepctive.

At least the Hebrews had a god that 'kept in touch'...

If the Christian version is true - God has since decided to take himself out of the picture, and yet require people to believe something they cannot see.

Faced with the choice between gutting a chicken, and believing in something I can find no evidence for - there is no contest which is 'simpler'. Indeed - I CAN do one of those things, and I can NOT do the other... and yet, allegedly, I'll burn for all eternity because I can't pass a test I can't pass.
While I cannot say if you can or cannot pass that test, since there are those who profess to be christians yet I wonder if they truly are...

My only solution, if you are truely concerned about such matters, is not to argue it here on a forum, but to seek out a Priest, Reverend, Rabbi, or Minister (doesn't have to be Catholic) and talk with them. they would be a better source for answering your questions.

Or: "I'll ask my coven to make a sacrifice in your name..."
thanks. ;)

You need another option: "Maybe" for us Agnostics. In addition the topic title is "Do you have faith in God" but the poll asks if there is a God, which are two totally different principles.

it's weird. "I'll pray for you" throws me of SO much more than "you're going to hell" when used in an argument.Agreed, though for slightly different reasons. "I'll pray for you" what's it supposed to mean? That they'll pray I'll give up my (presumably God-given) free will & change my heathen ways - like the victim of some sort of remote control?

Or is it that they think "Yea, it's wrong of my God to torture that random bloke for a few billion few billion millenia, so I'm gonna ask Him to make an exception"?

- It's especially the thought of the latter that gets me. I mean, how bloody horrible for the poor heathen bastards who didn't have to good fortune of making fun of religious people on NSG.

*Shudder*

haha...nope, not a believer...

I have crossed back and forth over the line dozens of times in this debate...the reason? Well, this debate is a very weird one. In order to debate anything beyond does god exist, we have to assume that he does, or it doesn't work in this threads context. So while I don't believe, I'm willing to move into a bit of devils advocate territory. Add to it the fact that I am attempting to really understand some of this stuff, and there you have Sarky...jumping back and forth over the line.

:)

I've been doing the same, and I've seen some of counterparts in the religious camp doing similar. I take it as a mark of how 'good' this thread has been, that some of the key players on each 'team' occassionally 'switch jerseys' for a play...

for some reason, a Quote from "Gobal Frequency" comes to mind. "The Universe doesn't have to make sense to you or I, it just has to make sense." the same is true for God. :)

Works for me... maybe it's another of the 'Golden Truths'.

(Like: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "An' it harm none, do as thou wilt".)

:)

I've been doing the same, and I've seen some of counterparts in the religious camp doing similar. I take it as a mark of how 'good' this thread has been, that some of the key players on each 'team' occassionally 'switch jerseys' for a play...
It has definatly been an interesting thread...alot of the regular people have stopped arguing for just their side, and have taken to attacking any argument they see flaws with, even if they agree with the flaws.

I gotta say, it is amusing seeing someone with the name "Grave n idle" make an argument for god;)

You need another option: "Maybe" for us Agnostics. In addition the topic title is "Do you have faith in God" but the poll asks if there is a God, which are two totally different principles.

Actually, he probably doesn't need the option. Or wouldn't, if his poll question fit with the title question.

While I cannot say if you can or cannot pass that test, since there are those who profess to be christians yet I wonder if they truly are...

My only solution, if you are truely concerned about such matters, is not to argue it here on a forum, but to seek out a Priest, Reverend, Rabbi, or Minister (doesn't have to be Catholic) and talk with them. they would be a better source for answering your questions.

I don't think so... organised religions have formula to follow, and a vested interest. An honest pursuit of truth can petition such sources for their thoughts (and I have), but cannot expect any of them to be a mouthpiece for god.

Arguing it on the forum is as good a route to truth as any... I've certainly gained far more insight through this forum, than through any other single source.

thanks. ;)

;)

Works for me... maybe it's another of the 'Golden Truths'.Depends on what's meant by making sense, I s'pose. If it's whether there's some point to it all, then I doubt our inability to fathom it, means it does.

It has definatly been an interesting thread...alot of the regular people have stopped arguing for just their side, and have taken to attacking any argument they see flaws with, even if they agree with the flaws.

I gotta say, it is amusing seeing someone with the name "Grave n idle" make an argument for god;)

:)

Given my maternal Jewish lineage, even more amusing to see me make an argument for God-as-portrayed-by-Christianity...

Which isn't the same as bringing his ministry to them.True, but there is no evidence that in the "Multitude" that came to his lessions, he didn't weed them out.
It certainly isn't the same as commissioning his followers to do so.Researching that, so no comment as of yet.
If He was the Christ, he can heal as he chooses, that doesn't equate to what the apostle can do."do as I say and not as I do?"

That also doesn't make sense.

Now you seem to be arguing it both ways. He DOES explicitly forbid his followers from ministering to the heathen.

If he refuses to bring the message to the Gentiles... even admonishes against it... how can it fololw that it is okay for the apostles to spread that message in his name?part of what I'm researching, will get back when I find the answer.


I'm not sure he says what you say he says... you mean Matthew 8, right?

Matthew 8:5-13 "And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this [man], Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth [it].

When Jesus heard [it], he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, [so] be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour."

Indeed - as I se it, the Centurion is used as REPROACH... a testament AGAINST Israel and her lost sheep.

He doesn't say the Centurion deserves or shall receive anything... except the healing which WAS going to be by hand, and is passed by word.

I'm not saying Gentiles didn't believe him... I'm just saying the scripture of the earthly ministry doesn't show that it did them any eternal good.
yes it does, he states that the sons of the Kingdom (Isreal) would find themselves cast out while those of the East and West will sit with the other prophets in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Yes, he used the Centurion as a reproach, but it was for those children of Isreal that didn't believe.

it didn't show the Gentiles any good... It doesn't show any Jews reaping anything extra either.

they witnessed the same miracles, yet more faith was shown by people not of the Jewish faith.

Depends on what's meant by making sense, I s'pose. If it's whether there's some point to it all, then I doubt our inability to fathom it, means it does.

But, equally - it's 'making sense' wouldn't depend on OUR ability to comprehend it...

Jolt is an agent of God?
dunno about Jolt's status, I couldn't even get out to my homepage.

You need another option: "Maybe" for us Agnostics. In addition the topic title is "Do you have faith in God" but the poll asks if there is a God, which are two totally different principles.

Exactly. You can believe that God exists. Doesn't mean you have to be on speaking terms.

Yes, I believe that in some form or another, there's some sort of god. But seeing as how I'm of the "God is a sadistic moron that tears the wings off helpless flies" variety of believer, no, I don't "have faith" in Him.

Besides, I really hate organized religion.

:)

Given my maternal Jewish lineage, even more amusing to see me make an argument for God-as-portrayed-by-Christianity...
ahh...I only have the paternal lineage. Moms Episcopalean. Well, atleast was raised such...

Exactly. You can believe that God exists. Doesn't mean you have to be on speaking terms.

Yes, I believe that in some form or another, there's some sort of god. But seeing as how I'm of the "God is a sadistic moron that tears the wings off helpless flies" variety of believer, no, I don't "have faith" in Him.

Besides, I really hate organized religion.
that line made me laugh.

You make it sound like Gentiles are an homogenous group....
I use Gentiles as how it was used in the bible. to people not of Isreal.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/G/GENTILES/

dunno about Jolt's status, I couldn't even get out to my homepage.

Hmm...This only supports my faith in Debrism...:D

True, but there is no evidence that in the "Multitude" that came to his lessions, he didn't weed them out.


No - but he didn't necessarilly address THEM either.

Matthew 5:1-2 "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying..."

Jesus shuns the multitude. The Sermon on the Mount is for the ears of the Apostles, not the multitude.


"do as I say and not as I do?"
That also doesn't make sense.


Matthew 10:5-8 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give".

Jesus expressly forbids going among the Heathen, while he gives a list of required 'ministries'. And yet, he carries out those same ministries on Jew AND Gentile.

Whether or not it makes sense, ""do as I say and not as I do" is very much part of the lesson.


yes it does, he states that the sons of the Kingdom (Isreal) would find themselves cast out while those of the East and West will sit with the other prophets in the Kingdom of Heaven.


Which - as has been pointed out, may be a reference to conversion to Judaism.

But - regardless - it doesn't say WHO will come from East and West...


Yes, he used the Centurion as a reproach, but it was for those children of Isreal that didn't believe.

it didn't show the Gentiles any good... It doesn't show any Jews reaping anything extra either.


It is a LESSON for the Jews. The Centurion is a tool. The Jews would gain their benifit from learning the lesson. The Gentiles were just an accessory to that end.


they witnessed the same miracles, yet more faith was shown by people not of the Jewish faith.

Which doesn't mean the message was FOR them, or could help them.

One other thought: Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come..." seems to strongly suggest that the restriction of ministry to the Jews, is intended to last until the Second Coming.

I use Gentiles as how it was used in the bible. to people not of Isreal.

http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/G/GENTILES/

But - not all of the Gentiles were treating the Jews in the same way...

I don't think so... organised religions have formula to follow, and a vested interest. An honest pursuit of truth can petition such sources for their thoughts (and I have), but cannot expect any of them to be a mouthpiece for god.

Arguing it on the forum is as good a route to truth as any... I've certainly gained far more insight through this forum, than through any other single source.true, but they studied the bible longer and more in depth than I do.

I would rather someone with more knowledge then this semi-blind person leading anyone... :D

But - not all of the Gentiles were treating the Jews in the same way...
and the relationship between the Jew and Gentiles are different between OT and NT.

true, but they studied the bible longer and more in depth than I do.

I would rather someone with more knowledge then this semi-blind person leading anyone... :D

Well - I've got a couple of decades of studying the Bible behind me, also...

Some representative of some church MAY have decades of 'expertise'... but their expertise is shaded by their sect. The Baptist will read scripture with 'being a Baptist' in mind. Discussing with an 'amateur' is all well and good, discussing with a 'professional' means weighing through all the extra baggage that goes with it being 'their job'.

As to the 'semi-blind'... maybe there are some things that are BETTER seen, with blind eyes?

and the relationship between the Jew and Gentiles are different between OT and NT.

This is true... as your source says, the Jews were much more equitable with MOST Gentiles in the Old Testament times. Or, at least, they claim they were in their histories... :)

But, in New Testament times - not all Gentiles are an equal value. I think Jesus preaches differently about Rome than about other heathens...

No - but he didn't necessarilly address THEM either.

Matthew 5:1-2 "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying..."

Jesus shuns the multitude. The Sermon on the Mount is for the ears of the Apostles, not the multitude.that can be inferred, but it also doesn't state that what he spoke was only for the Disciples.

also, 'Them' can also mean to be the multitude as well.


Matthew 10:5-8 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into [any] city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give".

Jesus expressly forbids going among the Heathen, while he gives a list of required 'ministries'. And yet, he carries out those same ministries on Jew AND Gentile.

Whether or not it makes sense, ""do as I say and not as I do" is very much part of the lesson.and as I said, I am currently researching this.



Which - as has been pointed out, may be a reference to conversion to Judaism. may or may not. it's all what the reader wants to gain from it.

But - regardless - it doesn't say WHO will come from East and West...the Faithful.



It is a LESSON for the Jews. The Centurion is a tool. The Jews would gain their benifit from learning the lesson. The Gentiles were just an accessory to that end.he used everyone and everything as a lesson. including the Jewish Spritual Leaders.

Which doesn't mean the message was FOR them, or could help them.and you haven't shown that he excluded anyone from HIS teachings and lessions.

One other thought: Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come..." seems to strongly suggest that the restriction of ministry to the Jews, is intended to last until the Second Coming.or it can mean to stay alive and keep ministering until the second coming.

Corny, you've still not really answered the question. He said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep. You say he was sent to all. Was he wrong or was he lying?

Neither. I already said that. I guess you just want to pick a fight and i will no longer bite.

Your reply avoids the question entirely and then when I replied you dropped the argument again. What's it take to get an answer to this one?

I answered it already. I guess you did not like my answer.

Neither. I already said that. I guess you just want to pick a fight and i will no longer bite.



I answered it already. I guess you did not like my answer.

I'm not picking a fight. I'm just explaining why it doesn't make sense. Did he or did not say he was ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal? Of course, he did. Okay, but you claim he was actually sent to all of mankind. So the question one MUST ask was how could he have been sent to everyone if he said otherwise. The answer is either he wasn't, which you denied, or he was wrong/lying when he said it. It can't be both.

Let's say a present a hypothesis - Jesus was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal.

In order to falsify that hypothesis one would have to give only one example of someone he was sent to that was not among the lost sheep. See the point. You claim he was sent to everyone and thus either you are wrong or he was wrong/lying. It cannot be neither as the two statements are contradictory.

You are ignoring the argument because you don't have an answer for it. I'm not being mean, I'm being logical.

wow... 50/50...

*sniff* I'm soo happy.

wow... 50/50...

*sniff* I'm soo happy.
*sniffs JuNii* I don't get it...:confused:

*sniffs JuNii* I don't get it...:confused:
*Looks at poll* Oh! :eek:

and yet you cannot deny that he heals Romans, as well as other non Jews.

Yes, but he says when he does it that it is for other reasons, even before he heals the Canaanite woman, he says he was not sent for her. He says it explicitly and refers to her derogatorily.

You are countering the expressed intent of Jesus by adding context to events and deciding it changes his message. Are you really this willing to amend the words of the Savior? I'm not.

nope, he only said the HE was here for the Lost sheep of Isreal. not that what he taught was only for the Lost sheep of Isreal.

Hmmm... do not give what is sacred to dogs (what Jews called Gentiles). Hmmm... was what Jesus taught sacred? Meanwhile, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus was not a Savior sent to all mankind. He was sent to the Lost Sheep, ONLY the Lost Sheep. Faith can still save you, but he did not come for you. He is not your Savior.

but he saved Gentiles as well, he proclaimed that a Centurion's faith was stronger than most he's encountered in Isreal and deserved to sit next to the Father among Abraham, Issac and Jacob. doesn't sound like he's denying any non Gentile their place... nor their faith.
He doesn't deny them their place with the fatherl. He simply says he is not there for them. He came to save the Lost Sheep.

that can be inferred, but it also doesn't state that what he spoke was only for the Disciples.

also, 'Them' can also mean to be the multitude as well.


It's a mountain, right? You don't separate off your followers and go climb a mountain with them, to preach to the assembled people below.

I think the passage is pretty clear that the disciples are the audience, and the multitude are just... there.


may or may not. it's all what the reader wants to gain from it.


So - there is no truth in scripture? It all comes down to personal opinion?


the Faithful.


A prevarication. The 'faithful' are not specified.


he used everyone and everything as a lesson. including the Jewish Spritual Leaders.


Yes. This is true.


and you haven't shown that he excluded anyone from HIS teachings and lessions.


Similarly, you haven't shown that he taught everyone. Some people are tangental to his ministering to the Jews - but that doesn't mean they received the lesson.


or it can mean to stay alive and keep ministering until the second coming.

He could have said that - but if you read the passage, he is STILL specifying Israel. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come".

well, jocabia, if you need word-for-word, exact detail on what God expects and What Jesus says, then the bible isn't for you. I would suggest you read the thousands of books that have interpretations on the bible and select the book that best explains everything to you.

I however, will take the spirit in which the lessons of Jesus was given and with prayer, I will follow what God reveals in my heart.

I couldn't agree with that more. As I say, the lesson of the Canaanite woman is an important one. I am a matrilineal Jew so I'll admit I have less issue with the fact that it says explicitly that Jesus was sent for the Jews. I am a lost sheep of Isreal. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

More importantly, I am a man. I cannot answer anything for you that faith cannot. You mentioned later that you are going to seek out experts. I suggest you do what you propose here with much more vigor than seeking out men to teach you about God. There is not father, no rabbi, no teacher, we are all brothers. Do not forget that message. Your relationship with God is personal.

Yes, but he says when he does it that it is for other reasons, even before he heals the Canaanite woman, he says he was not sent for her. He says it explicitly and refers to her derogatorily.

You are countering the expressed intent of Jesus by adding context to events and deciding it changes his message. Are you really this willing to amend the words of the Savior? I'm not.I'm not either, but you're the one saying that he is consistently not favoring anyone else except the jews. I'm saying he's not. He sends out his disciples but tells then not to preach to the Gentiles? why? not because the Gentiles are not worthy, but I believe/think that the Disciples were not ready to preach to a group of people of differeing faiths. thus, as he was assending to heaven, he gave the great commission to make disciples of all nations. no matter how you look at All Nations, it will include everyone. just as people learned from the sermon on the Mount (weather or not Jesus was talking to them or to the Disciples matters not since the teachings were spread.) so can the word spread as long as there is someone listening.



Hmmm... do not give what is sacred to dogs (what Jews called Gentiles). Hmmm... was what Jesus taught sacred? Meanwhile, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus was not a Savior sent to all mankind. He was sent to the Lost Sheep, ONLY the Lost Sheep. Faith can still save you, but he did not come for you. He is not your Savior.actually that is a very rough (Ruff) translation of what Jesus called her. but the woman still proved her faith by showing her humility towards Jesus.


He doesn't deny them their place with the fatherl. He simply says he is not there for them. He came to save the Lost Sheep. actually, he came to Teach to the Lost Sheep. Because it seems that his purpose was to strengthen Isreal so that they could go out and spread the word.

to raise an army, one starts with a small group and slowly expands outward. The Isrealites were chosen as that small starting group.

God is great. God is forgiving. God is powerful. God is loving. God is mercyful. God gives me joy. God is my friend. God protects me. God loves everyone. God understands people even if i dont. God is the creator. God is BIG. God is great. God is holy. God is amazing. God is everywhere. God knows you. God knows your name. God knows what your plans are. God is the planner of your life. God doesnt gives us rule, for he gives us joy and created us to live joyful lives and love him back. God can zap you anytime anywhere. God is mercyful though so dont worry. God gave me eternal life. God is in heaven. God will meet me there. God will judge you one day. Heaven or Hell? Decide today. Its not too late or too early. God is true. God is real. God is real. God is next to you now, believe it. Do you have faith? Think of all the joy in your life....friends, computers, your own life, food, TV, your eyes to see, your ears to hear, your mouth to taste, He gives us love. God is real.

I love God. I love Jesus.

God Bless you.
Timofree
You know, this post helped me make a little mini-break through.

I really think one of the reasons I specifically dislike Christianity is because of the utter lack of imagination. There are some imaginative Christians, to be sure, but the vast majority really seem to feel like it is profound or convincing or worthwhile to recite the exact same list of soundbites over and over and over. Hearing "God is love" or "I like Jesus" is like hearing somebody say "gezuntight"...it has the flavor of a trained reflex, like a puppy who's been taught to "speak."

I couldn't agree with that more. As I say, the lesson of the Canaanite woman is an important one. I am a matrilineal Jew so I'll admit I have less issue with the fact that it says explicitly that Jesus was sent for the Jews. I am a lost sheep of Isreal. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

More importantly, I am a man. I cannot answer anything for you that faith cannot. You mentioned later that you are going to seek out experts. I suggest you do what you propose here with much more vigor than seeking out men to teach you about God. There is not father, no rabbi, no teacher, we are all brothers. Do not forget that message. Your relationship with God is personal.
and I do consider it personal. but when discussion turns away from faith and more onto the meanings and purposes behind scripture, I will admit my failings and seek wisdom from others. What I may find may prove me wrong (more often then not) or may prove that I am in the right direction but did not go far enough. and while these forums do provide a vast source of knowledge and wisdom, it is not the only source of knowledge and Wisdom.

I'm not either, but you're the one saying that he is consistently not favoring anyone else except the jews. I'm saying he's not. He sends out his disciples but tells then not to preach to the Gentiles? why? not because the Gentiles are not worthy, but I believe/think that the Disciples were not ready to preach to a group of people of differeing faiths. thus, as he was assending to heaven, he gave the great commission to make disciples of all nations. no matter how you look at All Nations, it will include everyone. just as people learned from the sermon on the Mount (weather or not Jesus was talking to them or to the Disciples matters not since the teachings were spread.) so can the word spread as long as there is someone listening.

You keep saying that, but when someone comes to him for healing he turns her away for not being a Jew. What does that have to do with his disciples not being ready? You keep guessing at what Jesus was doing and adding context that doesn't exist, but he expressly contradicts your statements.

You keep claiming "no matter how you look at all nations" but you've seen several people in this thread look at all nations so it doesn't mean all people. Your claim is falsified. Please stop making that argument.

Again, you amend the words of Jesus. The incidental spread of the Word is not the same as Jesus encouraging it. He seems to do exactly the opposite and with the exception of very questionable additions to the Gospels or questionably creating meaning, from various events, that contradicts the expressed words of Jesus. Only the Jews. No matter how you slice it, Jesus said it. I suspect he meant it.

actually that is a very rough (Ruff) translation of what Jesus called her. but the woman still proved her faith by showing her humility towards Jesus.

Yes, the actually word was closer to puppies, but it still uses the slur in a way that was considered slightly less offensive. He wasn't trying to insult her or Gentiles, in my opinion, but he was talking of them as on a lower level than the lost sheep. That part is very clear.

actually, he came to Teach to the Lost Sheep. Because it seems that his purpose was to strengthen Isreal so that they could go out and spread the word.

Then he was lying when he said ONLY. Otherwise, he would have been sent to the lost sheep initially. Again, you make up context to explaing what you want to be true. I would not be so anxious to amend the words of Jesus.

to raise an army, one starts with a small group and slowly expands outward. The Isrealites were chosen as that small starting group.
Not the Isrealites. The Jews. The lost sheep means that it is not enough to reside in Isreal. One must be Jewish.

I'll tell you what. Show a passage, any passage quoting Jesus in his life stating that he was here to help ANYONE that was not among the lost sheep. He does help on occasion, but usually reluctantly or to correct the inappropraite actions of his disciples (like the Roman ear).

It's a mountain, right? You don't separate off your followers and go climb a mountain with them, to preach to the assembled people below. and a mountain cannot hold a multitude (also realize that not all mountains are craggs and cliffs but can be as gentle as hills.)

I think the passage is pretty clear that the disciples are the audience, and the multitude are just... there.if that is how you interpreted it. I got the sense that Jesus sat down and as the disciples gathered around him he spoke. Now here's the question. what were the Disciples doing when Jesus headed up towards the mountain? If they truly did not care about the multitude, wouldn't they be already walking next to Jesus? what would've delayed them from keeping up with Jesus? unless they were seeing to the people in the Multitude, making sure that the people were set.

and of course Jesus spoke to the Disciples. they were also there to learn... with the great number of people.

So - there is no truth in scripture? It all comes down to personal opinion?I've always maintained that what one gets from the bible is what one wants to get from the bible. people who want justification for procecuting Homosexuals can easily twist the meanings around to find their cause. same as those who are both For and Against Abortion. the best thing to do is to pray when reading the scriptures.



A prevarication. The 'faithful' are not specified.
just as you implied that Jesus was still restraining the Disciples as well as the rest of the faithful from approaching non Jews in the Great Commission, It can easily be applied that those coming from the East and the West are the Faithful. after all, in that same chapter, Jesus was talking about people with strong faith


Similarly, you haven't shown that he taught everyone. Some people are tangental to his ministering to the Jews - but that doesn't mean they received the lesson.considering when this was written, I don't think anyone went around handing out tests. in fact, as you read between the written works of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, you'll also notice discrepencies within the details of their accounting. does that mean none of them paid attention? on one can truely say what was learned by who. but the opportunities were there.

He could have said that - but if you read the passage, he is STILL specifying Israel. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come".you know, I recall Israel being referred to as not only a nation, but also as an Ideal. need to look that up tho.

You keep saying that, but when someone comes to him for healing he turns her away for not being a Jew. What does that have to do with his disciples not being ready? You keep guessing at what Jesus was doing and adding context that doesn't exist, but he expressly contradicts your statements. and the Caanaite woman proved her faith... who else was turned away?

You keep claiming "no matter how you look at all nations" but you've seen several people in this thread look at all nations so it doesn't mean all people. Your claim is falsified. Please stop making that argument.

Again, you amend the words of Jesus. The incidental spread of the Word is not the same as Jesus encouraging it. He seems to do exactly the opposite and with the exception of very questionable additions to the Gospels or questionably creating meaning, from various events, that contradicts the expressed words of Jesus. Only the Jews. No matter how you slice it, Jesus said it. I suspect he meant it.
I've also seen people admit that all nations can be either Geographical/political bounderies, OR ethnical bounderies. the fact eveyone agrees with is that it does mean to go and spread the word. to whom is what you're arguing.

and if that is what you suspect and adamantly claims to have meant, then there is nothing short of Jesus returning to personally talk to you that would make you think otherwise. I would rather look at his actions as well as his teachings and draw my conclusions there.

Yes, the actually word was closer to puppies, but it still uses the slur in a way that was considered slightly less offensive. He wasn't trying to insult her or Gentiles, in my opinion, but he was talking of them as on a lower level than the lost sheep. That part is very clear.except sheperds rely on dogs to help guard and heard sheep. Why would he use racial epitaths? I won't even begin to guess, tho you already have judged him to being racist.

Then he was lying when he said ONLY. Otherwise, he would have been sent to the lost sheep initially. Again, you make up context to explaing what you want to be true. I would not be so anxious to amend the words of Jesus.no he wasn't He said HE WAS SENT ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISREAL. not that the word of God and his Teachings were only for the LOST SHEEP OF ISREAL.
he does make mention about tossing the choice and valued parts of bread to the smallest puppy of which the woman replied even the smallest puppy gains the crumbs that fall from the table. metaphorically speaking, that could also show Jesus that she, a Caanaite woman wasnt a puppy that would waste what was thrown to her.


Not the Isrealites. The Jews. The lost sheep means that it is not enough to reside in Isreal. One must be Jewish.agreed and not argued.


I'll tell you what. Show a passage, any passage quoting Jesus in his life stating that he was here to help ANYONE that was not among the lost sheep. He does help on occasion, but usually reluctantly or to correct the inappropraite actions of his disciples (like the Roman ear).only if you promise not to keep 1) an open mind and 2) not be so literal.

and the Caanaite woman proved her faith... who else was turned away?

You dropped the point there. THe Canaanite woman was turned away initially. She was turned away because He was not there for her. You assume that Jesus was simply gearing up to help other than the lost sheep, but if that were so, why turn the woman away? Obviously, he turned her away because it wasn't about his disciples being ready. It was about the FACT that he said he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep. Adding context he never said or even really indicated to make it mean something else requires more evidence than you've shown. I am not willing to read things into Jesus' statements that are not there, and I certainly won't do so based on speculation that is unsupported by the teachings.

I've also seen people admit that all nations can be either Geographical/political bounderies, OR ethnical bounderies. the fact eveyone agrees with is that it does mean to go and spread the word. to whom is what you're arguing.

Yes, it says to spread the word to all nations. It doesn't say that it doesn't mean that it was only to spread the word the lost sheep that reside in each of those places, the descendents of Jews, the chosen people. That's the point. The people who were debating whether it was ethnic boundaries were doing so because not all people agree that all nations = all peoples. That's the point. Ask GnI why he was arguing it. He'll tell you. Or go back and read it. Most clearly stated that all NATIONS =/= all PEOPLE.

and if that is what you suspect and adamantly claims to have meant, then there is nothing short of Jesus returning to personally talk to you that would make you think otherwise. I would rather look at his actions as well as his teachings and draw my conclusions there.

You aren't talking about his actions. You are talking about what YOU draw from his actions. There is nothing about his actions or his words that indicate he intended to come to help more than the Jews. Yes, he helped people who had enough faith, but he always explained why he did so and made it clear, very clear who he was there for. There is no question. I will not amend the words of Jesus.

except sheperds rely on dogs to help guard and heard sheep. Why would he use racial epitaths? I won't even begin to guess, tho you already have judged him to being racist.

No, I didn't. It wasn't racist. It was an ethnic term and the word puppy and dog were in common usage. It refered to all people who were not Jewish. It's not so much that he was 'racist', it was that he didn't try to change such attitudes. That suggests that he wasn't trying to alter their view of the Gentiles as you've suggested several times.

Where is your evidence that he was trying to change those things. There is no indication that he intended to change the attitude toward Gentiles. It's just something you've inserted into his actions.

no he wasn't He said HE WAS SENT ONLY FOR THE LOST SHEEP OF ISREAL. not that the word of God and his Teachings were only for the LOST SHEEP OF ISREAL.
he does make mention about tossing the choice and valued parts of bread to the smallest puppy of which the woman replied even the smallest puppy gains the crumbs that fall from the table. metaphorically speaking, that could also show Jesus that she, a Caanaite woman wasnt a puppy that would waste what was thrown to her.

As she said, even the puppies get the crumbs. She was asking for crumbs. He gave them to her. Again, why so anxious to amend the expressed words of Jesus with things you've decided MUST be true?

agreed and not argued.


only if you promise not to keep 1) an open mind and 2) not be so literal.

I am open-minded. I am NOT taking assumptions and laying them over his words, however. He teaches. He clearly teaches. Why would one argue he was such a poor teacher that his words would contradict what he intended to teach?

Sorry about the late reply. Didn't notice it until just now.If I've shown any evidence is an opinion and in my opinion I have shown.Evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Evidence) isn't the word you're looking for. Evidence would be some sort of fact or facts, that support that your particular religion's got it right. Opinion has nothing to do with it.God is Omnipotent and gives us free will, so I can't see where your statment exactly fits.Well, your deity isn't just a physical impossibility, its also a logical impossibility. Still, that never stopped anyone (important) from believing in it, so carry on.There aren't any problems to solve.Riddle me this; if your deity knows everything there is to know, then how can it possibly be up to me whether I convert to Christianity tomorrow or not?My 'invisible friend' didn't command me to do anything and I didn't discriminate against anyone, there were offenses from both sides, from their side and my side, but no discriminations from both sides.Oh, how wrong you are! Now kindly remember I haven't accused you personally, I accuse your religion. Christians all across the western hemisphere are getting more & more focused on denying equal rights, for people they think the Bible tells them are "Sinners". Homosexuals are a perfect example.The thing that drives people to religion is that they want to have some sort of sense in life, not die in bed and then nothing.But can religion actually do that? Let's for a moment assume all religions are wrong & there really is no afterlife. Do you think the ~5 billion religious people on Earth who believe in it, will magically be bestowed life after death, just because they thought there'd be one? - I seriously doubt things work like that.I haven't imposed my beleifs on anyone, I just tried to make them see it from my point of view.I'm not so sure I agree. Imagine for a moment, that when confronted with religious posters, I'd tell them: "You shouldn't write stuff like that. You'll end up getting hurt.. BADLY!". It sounds a whole lot like I'm trying to intimidate people, right?

Now try to imagine how us heathens feel when you & others merrily condemn us to eternal torment, for not sharing your beliefs. Sounds like you're trying to intimidate people, doesn't it?Thirdly I am no fundemantilist, I don't believe that people who aren't Christian/Catholic/Orthodox shall go to hell, as it seems you are trying to imply.All I can say, is thatyt on the one hand, I truely hope you think all us billions of hell-bound people truely deserve eternal torment, because it must be a nightmare to believe in something that evil, if you aren't yourself.
On the other hand, I really don't hope you feel we all deserve to be tortured.P.S. Try to understand more properly what I write, many of my messages may actually be somewhat distorted by my language skills.Eh.. I really am trying. Language barriers works both ways. If you're having trouble expressing yourself, chances are I'm having just as much trouble correctly interpreting your intentions. Patience is a virtue & all that ;)

I'm not either, but you're the one saying that he is consistently not favoring anyone else except the jews. I'm saying he's not. He sends out his disciples but tells then not to preach to the Gentiles? why? not because the Gentiles are not worthy,


Conjecture.

Based on the way he describes the Gentile, it would be entirely fitting to assume that the Gentiles ARE not worthy.


but I believe/think that the Disciples were not ready to preach to a group of people of differeing faiths. thus, as he was assending to heaven, he gave the great commission to make disciples of all nations.


The problem being that the 'spiritual' part is often not included in oldest and best scripture... everything in Mark from the end of 16:8 onwards, for example.

no matter how you look at All Nations, it will include everyone. just as people learned from the sermon on the Mount (weather or not Jesus was talking to them or to the Disciples matters not since the teachings were spread.) so can the word spread as long as there is someone listening.


There is no reason to suspect 'the multitude' heard a word of the Sermon on the Mount. The disciples may have spread the word, and others may have spread it from those who heard disciples... but Jesus preached TO his followers.

Interesting. It seems the number of people who need there to be a god and the number of people who don't is close to even. With over 1700 voters, can this be considered to reflect the split of humanity across the board?

You know, this post helped me make a little mini-break through.

I really think one of the reasons I specifically dislike Christianity is because of the utter lack of imagination. There are some imaginative Christians, to be sure, but the vast majority really seem to feel like it is profound or convincing or worthwhile to recite the exact same list of soundbites over and over and over. Hearing "God is love" or "I like Jesus" is like hearing somebody say "gezuntight"...it has the flavor of a trained reflex, like a puppy who's been taught to "speak."

I think it's actually spelled gesundheit or sommat like that, but I do agree that the repetitive soundbites in Christian circles get old, just like they do in politics and popular culture.

Regarding the issue of Hebrews vs. Gentiles:
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: "Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God." Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed,
from the tribe of Reuben 12,000,
from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
from the tribe of Asher 12,000,
from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000,
from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
from the tribe of Simeon 12,000,
from the tribe of Levi 12,000,
from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000,
from the tribe of Joseph 12,000,
from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000.
Well, if you want to take the whole Bible literally, then you better start scouring your family tree for a Jew in there somewhere, because according to John, nobody else has a chance.

However, Jesus seems to gotten the crazy idea into his head that his message is intended for "all nations."
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
" 'My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"
"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations.

To say that "all nations" refers to "all those of Semitic ancestry" is downright farcical. More than that, it contradicts the idea of monotheism-- that there is one God who is everybody's God.

Interesting. It seems the number of people who need there to be a god and the number of people who don't is close to even. With over 1700 voters, can this be considered to reflect the split of humanity across the board?

Doubtful. Internet discussion forums, especially those with the kind of political atmosphere that NS General has, tend to select for atheists. I'm surprised it's not skewed even more toward atheism than it is.

Doubtful. Internet discussion forums, especially those with the kind of political atmosphere that NS General has, tend to select for atheists. I'm surprised it's not skewed even more toward atheism than it is.

It used to be. Recent god-people influx.

It used to be. Recent god-people influx.

Oh, I noticed. It's been pretty consistently a 48-52 kind of split, though, on average.

It actually took me a while to figure out which way to vote, considering the way the OP was worded and the nature of the subsequent discussion.

It used to be. Recent god-people influx.Yups. Last time I saw one of these polls, the god-crowd made up for some 20-25%.

Oh, I noticed. It's been pretty consistently a 48-52 kind of split, though, on average.

It actually took me a while to figure out which way to vote, considering the way the OP was worded and the nature of the subsequent discussion.

Nah, I mean before this thread. God-peoples were like, 25% at best when I showed up.

Nah, I mean before this thread. God-peoples were like, 25% at best when I showed up.

Ohhh, thanks for the clarification. Indeed. I think that probably has something to with how long this thread has been going. It's been essentially a staple of the forum's first page for a while now, so I figure more people who otherwise wouldn't bother with these threads may have had a look out of pure curiousity and cast their vote.

To say that "all nations" refers to "all those of Semitic ancestry" is downright farcical. More than that, it contradicts the idea of monotheism-- that there is one God who is everybody's God.

Misunderstanding... the suggestion was that ALL nations means all nations... but that it would only be the JEWS in all nations, that would be ministered to.

Ohhh, thanks for the clarification. Indeed. I think that probably has something to with how long this thread has been going. It's been essentially a staple of the forum's first page for a while now, so I figure more people who otherwise wouldn't bother with these threads may have had a look out of pure curiousity and cast their vote.

I think people might be confused by the title, also... since the title and the poll question do not necessarily mean the same thing.

burning for eternity? I think one would get bored just screaming in flaming pits of whatever. And wouldn't one run out of breath? And let it be known (if not stated already) the terriorists of 9/11 and osama bin laden worship god also. Same monothesiestic god

I think people might be confused by the title, also... since the title and the poll question do not necessarily mean the same thing.

Also true, GnI. The question itself also has a decidedly Abrahamic or, at the very least, monotheistic slant to it. Of course, you can't really expect discussion forum polls to be immaculately worded, can you?

The way I see it is how it is laid out in Exodus. The Christian God is the only God; all others are idols. But then Jesus is the Messiah and He has to be accepted in order to reach Heaven. Ummm......yeah. There is no such thing as a TRUE religion, all religions are the same

Also true, GnI. The question itself also has a decidedly Abrahamic or, at the very least, monotheistic slant to it. Of course, you can't really expect discussion forum polls to be immaculately worded, can you?

Just a shame, though, not enough information... as Dinaverg (I think) said - these polls USUALLY refelct a much bigger slant, usually towards the negative... so - what is it about THIS poll that is so different?

Just a shame, though, not enough information... as Dinaverg (I think) said - these polls USUALLY refelct a much bigger slant, usually towards the negative... so - what is it about THIS poll that is so different?

"It's them there agnostics what don't like bein' atheists, yarrr"

Or at least I assume. Those are just the people that annoy me. It's probably just all the nooblets that show up for like, a day, are God-peoples.

Just a shame, though, not enough information... as Dinaverg (I think) said - these polls USUALLY refelct a much bigger slant, usually towards the negative... so - what is it about THIS poll that is so different?

Hmm, I'm not sure really. As I mentioned somewhere above, it may have something to do with just how long this thread has been active. Also, with the other polls, at least the one's I've seen, they are often divided up into different religions (including "Atheist" which, without fail, causes much wailing and gnashing of teeth from our atheist friends :D) whereas this is much closer to being "Theist or Atheist."

With the other polls, "atheist" or "none" is often the leading the category, but adding up every other (theistic) religion mentioned in the polls, I've noticed it still tends to balance out much the same as it has here, with the atheists or "nones" having a slight majority over all the theistic religions added up.

I think, perhaps, it's just a bit more blatant here.

and a mountain cannot hold a multitude (also realize that not all mountains are craggs and cliffs but can be as gentle as hills.)

if that is how you interpreted it. I got the sense that Jesus sat down and as the disciples gathered around him he spoke. Now here's the question. what were the Disciples doing when Jesus headed up towards the mountain? If they truly did not care about the multitude, wouldn't they be already walking next to Jesus? what would've delayed them from keeping up with Jesus? unless they were seeing to the people in the Multitude, making sure that the people were set.

i googled it

there are no mountains in gallilee. luke puts the sermon on the mount on a plain

heres a link to some suggested spots where it might have taken place.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/mtbeatitudes.htm

Regarding the issue of Hebrews vs. Gentiles:

Well, if you want to take the whole Bible literally, then you better start scouring your family tree for a Jew in there somewhere, because according to John, nobody else has a chance.

However, Jesus seems to gotten the crazy idea into his head that his message is intended for "all nations."





To say that "all nations" refers to "all those of Semitic ancestry" is downright farcical. More than that, it contradicts the idea of monotheism-- that there is one God who is everybody's God.

Yes, farcical. I wonder if there is any evidence to that contrary. I've searched and searched and there's just none. I mean, so long as one ignores the fact that he said he was sent to the Jews. As long as we ignore that, then it's definitely farcical.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Yep, listening to the very words of Jesus is downright farcical.

Yes, farcical. I wonder if there is any evidence to that contrary. I've searched and searched and there's just none. I mean, so long as one ignores the fact that he said he was sent to the Jews. As long as we ignore that, then it's definitely farcical.

Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Yep, listening to the very words of Jesus is downright farcical.

So that means if we are not Jewish, we cannot be saved?

"It's them there agnostics what don't like bein' atheists, yarrr"

Or at least I assume. Those are just the people that annoy me. It's probably just all the nooblets that show up for like, a day, are God-peoples.
I think it's the weather making people god-crazy. I don't remember such a large crop of god nuts in the winter. It must be the summer. *nods*

i googled it

there are no mountains in gallilee. luke puts the sermon on the mount on a plain

heres a link to some suggested spots where it might have taken place.

http://www.bibleplaces.com/mtbeatitudes.htm

The problem is - both Matthew and Luke allude to a mountain. It is all very well saying 'they probably mean a small rise'... but why assume that?

Luke says: "He went out into a mountain to pray" (6:12); "he called unto him his disciples" (6:13); "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain" (6:17).

There is certainly no doubt that Luke is speaking of a mountain.

Matthew, is similarly certain "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them..." (5:1 and 5:2)


Personally - I think one of two things is happening here:

1) The story is misplaced. It should have taken place somewhere else, but has been recorded in the wrong geography, at the wrong point in the history.

2) And I think this more likely - the mountain is entirely symbolic, as are the multitudes. I think this is two authors trying to impart 'meaning' of a special kind... Matthew, by making the story a parallel of the Mosaic englightenment, Luke - by showing Jesus as 'coming down among the people' - to reinforce the humanity of the lesson.

After all - Luke only records the Beatitudes... which are fairly... socialistic? So - Jesus coming down to be 'one of the workers' certainly fits.

Have you ever stolen anything (no matter how small or value)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a thief.

Have you ever lied?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a liar.

Have you ever looked upon a person with lust (which is the same as adultery in the heart)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a murderer.

Have you ever hated anyone (which is the same as committing murder in your heart)?
If you answer yes, then that would make you a murder.

Have you ever dishonored your Father and Mother?
If you answered yes to any of the above they you have.

The Bible says that it is appointed once a man to die and after the judgement. So when you die you will be judged if you have lied, stolen, murdered, and dishonored your parents and you will be sentenced to suffer eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. But there is good news, there is a way to not spend eternal life in the Lake of Fire and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I challenge you to take a month to read the Book of John in the Bible it will change your life.

Respectfully,

Have you ever stolen anything (no matter how small or value)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a thief.

Have you ever lied?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a liar.

Have you ever looked upon a person with lust (which is the same as adultery in the heart)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a murderer.

Have you ever hated anyone (which is the same as committing murder in your heart)?
If you answer yes, then that would make you a murder.

Have you ever dishonored your Father and Mother?
If you answered yes to any of the above they you have.

The Bible says that it is appointed once a man to die and after the judgement. So when you die you will be judged if you have lied, stolen, murdered, and dishonored your parents and you will be sentenced to suffer eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. But there is good news, there is a way to not spend eternal life in the Lake of Fire and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I challenge you to take a month to read the Book of John in the Bible it will change your life.

Respectfully,

That was so plagarized from a pamphlet.

So that means if we are not Jewish, we cannot be saved?

No, it does not. It means he was not sent to save those who are not Jewish. It is not the same thing. In Matthew we see him turn away a Canaanite for being a Canaanite. However, when she shows a great faith, he heals her anyway and says her faith has saved her.

No, it does not. It means he was not sent to save those who are not Jewish. It is not the same thing. In Matthew we see him turn away a Canaanite for being a Canaanite. However, when she shows a great faith, he heals her anyway and says her faith has saved her.

Basically, he doesn't want to save non-Jews, but if he really has to...

Actually no, it was plagarized, it is the out of my head and its what I tell people all the time when I witness to them of the Good News that Jesus Christ is God and died for our sins so that we can have a relationship with him.

2 Peter 3:9 (King James Version)


9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Have you ever stolen anything (no matter how small or value)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a thief.

Have you ever lied?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a liar.

Have you ever looked upon a person with lust (which is the same as adultery in the heart)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a murderer.

Have you ever hated anyone (which is the same as committing murder in your heart)?
If you answer yes, then that would make you a murder.

Have you ever dishonored your Father and Mother?
If you answered yes to any of the above they you have.

The Bible says that it is appointed once a man to die and after the judgement. So when you die you will be judged if you have lied, stolen, murdered, and dishonored your parents and you will be sentenced to suffer eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. But there is good news, there is a way to not spend eternal life in the Lake of Fire and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I challenge you to take a month to read the Book of John in the Bible it will change your life.

Respectfully,
ROFLMAO!!!!! Thanks for the laughs. :D

Actually no, it was plagarized, it is the out of my head and its what I tell people all the time when I witness to them of the Good News that Jesus Christ is God and died for our sins so that we can have a relationship with him.

Do you always make mistakes in that 'witnessing'? You should reread what you wrote.

Actually no, it was plagarized

*sccccrkktch* No, it was? Eh?

The problem is - both Matthew and Luke allude to a mountain. It is all very well saying 'they probably mean a small rise'... but why assume that?

Luke says: "He went out into a mountain to pray" (6:12); "he called unto him his disciples" (6:13); "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain" (6:17).

There is certainly no doubt that Luke is speaking of a mountain.

Matthew, is similarly certain "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: and he opened his mouth, and taught them..." (5:1 and 5:2)


Personally - I think one of two things is happening here:

1) The story is misplaced. It should have taken place somewhere else, but has been recorded in the wrong geography, at the wrong point in the history.

2) And I think this more likely - the mountain is entirely symbolic, as are the multitudes. I think this is two authors trying to impart 'meaning' of a special kind... Matthew, by making the story a parallel of the Mosaic englightenment, Luke - by showing Jesus as 'coming down among the people' - to reinforce the humanity of the lesson.

After all - Luke only records the Beatitudes... which are fairly... socialistic? So - Jesus coming down to be 'one of the workers' certainly fits.

i think that the liklihood is that whoever wrote the gospels never went to galillee at all. that they thought the idea of a mountain seemed "cool" so they put it in. that kind of embroidery wasnt considered in any way wrong back then. they had no way to know that there were no mountains in gallilee (not that it probably would have mattered to them) so they went with it.

Have you ever stolen anything (no matter how small or value)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a thief.

Have you ever lied?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a liar.

Have you ever looked upon a person with lust (which is the same as adultery in the heart)?
If you answered yes, then that would make you a murderer.

Have you ever hated anyone (which is the same as committing murder in your heart)?
If you answer yes, then that would make you a murder.

Have you ever dishonored your Father and Mother?
If you answered yes to any of the above they you have.

The Bible says that it is appointed once a man to die and after the judgement. So when you die you will be judged if you have lied, stolen, murdered, and dishonored your parents and you will be sentenced to suffer eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. But there is good news, there is a way to not spend eternal life in the Lake of Fire and that is to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior. I challenge you to take a month to read the Book of John in the Bible it will change your life.

Respectfully,

Oh lordy - you have a disease!

You can't see it, of course... but I can, because I have special powers!

There's only ONE way to treat THIS disease... first, you have to admit you've got it (though you still can't see it), then you have to by MY snake-oil...

Only mine works on THIS disease...

I apologize if I made a mistake and misspelled a word, it doesn't change the reality of the importance of it.

If I saw a blind man about to walk off the cliff, would it wrong for me to stop and warn him...or should I just let him walk off the cliff to his death?

Oh lordy - you have a disease!

You can't see it, of course... but I can, because I have special powers!

There's only ONE way to treat THIS disease... first, you have to admit you've got it (though you still can't see it), then you have to by MY snake-oil...

Only mine works on THIS disease...

New and Improved Cure-all! (patented by Pudd'nHead Wilson)

That should have said, "No, it was NOT plagarized(sp?)." Sorry.

Oh lordy - you have a disease!

You can't see it, of course... but I can, because I have special powers!

There's only ONE way to treat THIS disease... first, you have to admit you've got it (though you still can't see it), then you have to by MY snake-oil...

Only mine works on THIS disease...

I don't have special powers. I am only human. Just looking out for your eternal future.

I apologize if I made a mistake and misspelled a word, it doesn't change the reality of the importance of it.

If I saw a blind man about to walk off the cliff, would it wrong for me to stop and warn him...or should I just let him walk off the cliff to his death?
1) use the edit button if you made typos/spelling or grammar errors.
and
2) WTF? Are we just asking random questions now? I'll go next: what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

i think that the liklihood is that whoever wrote the gospels never went to galillee at all. that they thought the idea of a mountain seemed "cool" so they put it in. that kind of embroidery wasnt considered in any way wrong back then. they had no way to know that there were no mountains in gallilee (not that it probably would have mattered to them) so they went with it.

I think the idea is that both stories are based on events recorded in "Q" - so they likely DO embroider an 'earlier version'.

Not as deception... just as emphasis. The problem is, of course... where do you draw your specific data from, then?

Matthew suggests they climbed a mountain to escape the hordes, and sat down for a little tete-a-tete... Luke suggests they'd BEEN on a mountian, and they came down to hang with the homies.

Two very different implications.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict your heart. If you want talk privately about this, I don't mind. Its not my job to beat anybody over the head, its my job to present it and let God do the work.

God Bless You.

I don't have special powers. I am only human. Just looking out for your eternal future.

On the contrary, you are claiming a special power... a knowledge of my condition - of some nebulous concept you might call my 'soul' or some such.

Admittedly, you claim this special power is imbued in you through a magic item (your 'talisman', the scripture)... and you similarly claim to have the magical power to cure this disease I can't see, with the same talisman.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict your heart. If you want talk privately about this, I don't mind. Its not my job to beat anybody over the head, its my job to present it and let God do the work.

God Bless You.

I'll make a sacrifice for you to each of the powers: Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali and Inana... and ask them to make an intercession for you.

If you wish to come to one of our esbats or sabbats, I don't mind.

It isn't my job to 'convert' you, just to open your eyes and let Astarte and Cernunnos work on your soul.

Regarding the issue of Hebrews vs. Gentiles:

Well, if you want to take the whole Bible literally, then you better start scouring your family tree for a Jew in there somewhere, because according to John, nobody else has a chance.

However, Jesus seems to gotten the crazy idea into his head that his message is intended for "all nations."





To say that "all nations" refers to "all those of Semitic ancestry" is downright farcical. More than that, it contradicts the idea of monotheism-- that there is one God who is everybody's God.

Well said. Well said indeed.

Misunderstanding... the suggestion was that ALL nations means all nations... but that it would only be the JEWS in all nations, that would be ministered to.

And yet he always said all nations. Not all jews. Ironic.

burning for eternity? I think one would get bored just screaming in flaming pits of whatever. And wouldn't one run out of breath? And let it be known (if not stated already) the terriorists of 9/11 and osama bin laden worship god also. Same monothesiestic god

But it is only through Christ our Lord that we can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

And yet he always said all nations. Not all jews. Ironic.

And yet, he specifically imprecates AGAINST Gentiles elsewhere... and categorically fails to say all PEOPLES in all nations, here... ironic?

And yet he always said all nations. Not all jews. Ironic.

Yeah, he only said ONLY jews in other parts. Perhaps he forgot he said that? I love how badly you guys want to take that statement out of the context of his life. He said he was sent ONLY to the Jews. He said it repeatedly and sent his apostles out to ONLY the Jews. Pretending that didn't happen is what's farcical.

Let's say I spend my whole life saying I want to improve the condition of white people and ONLY white people. I repeat that message throughout my life. Then after I die, someone says I appeared to them and said now go out and preach my message to all nations (without suggesting at any point that they change the message). Wouldn't it be a bit nonsensical to believe that A) my ghost appeared and did a complete 180 and B) that I would forget that I told them my focus was white people and that the focus on white people was PART OF MY MESSAGE?

I'm not so quick to determine that Jesus was prone to such mistakes and oversights. I am also not eager to amend his words.

I'll try to be helpful here.

Firstly i do believe there is a God. That may or may not be because of my home environment, and being brought up in a religious family. Even so i have seen AND heard about evidence to suggest the presence of at least some kind of ethereal being which has obviously strengthened my belief.

According to the bible, the reason death exists is as a punishment for our sin. This doesn't mean however that a criminal will die before a devout christian sharing their birthday, or anything like that. All it means is that death IS inevitable since nobody is entirely without sin. Christians believe that Jesus was, and his death was brought about to absolve mortals of their sins in order that they may share the perfection of heaven after death.

Cancer is quite simply horrific and i have lost close friends and relatives to it, as well as having a number who have survived it. Although it is true to say that it significantly reduces the standard of living of anyone afflicted with it, would you be questioning the existence of God if your friend had died naturally in her sleep? Would that have provoked the strong feelings you now have on the matter? Inevitably you would have felt the same sense of loss, but would you have the same feelings of bitterness?

Unfortunately there is no clear answer on whether there is a God or not. There is no scientific "proof" that can fully confirm the presence of God, but at the same time:

"Knowing everything may well rule out some possibilities, but it doesn't provide a moral framework for human life or a purpose for existence."

This is a quote from a physics text book by Steve Adams and Jonathan Allday. Religion often attempts to achieve what science cannot, and therefore it is merely spurious conjecture to attempt to prove or justify one with the other.

Nobody will "know" the answer of whether God or gods exist until after death, religion is founded on faith for as long as mortal life exists. Your beliefs are your own and you should follow them with complete conviction, whilst being open to other thoughts on the matter.

The last thing i will say is that i would be interested to know your views on euthanasia. If you think it should be legal then would you have recommended your friend to take it when it became apparent that cancer was destroying her life? Her death was just as natural as heart failure in one's sleep, if more distressing for all involved. If you ever return to a belief in a God or an afterlife, then take comfort in the fact that your friend is now in a better place. If not, then at least you know she is no longer suffering.

I hope this hasn't offended anyone. I also hope it has made you think and has been of some use...

According to the bible, the reason death exists is as a punishment for our sin. This doesn't mean however that a criminal will die before a devout christian sharing their birthday, or anything like that. All it means is that death IS inevitable since nobody is entirely without sin. Christians believe that Jesus was, and his death was brought about to absolve mortals of their sins in order that they may share the perfection of heaven after death.


Surely - if death is the result of sin, and Jesus was without sin.... he COULN'T die?

Also - if death is the result of sin, and Jesus was without sin... if they HADN'T killed him... would he still be here today? If so - he would have looked really old - because the scripture describes him as a man - so we have to assume he aged normally....

But it is only through Christ our Lord that we can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.
What's the next address over?

Surely - if death is the result of sin, and Jesus was without sin.... he COULN'T die?

Also - if death is the result of sin, and Jesus was without sin... if they HADN'T killed him... would he still be here today? If so - he would have looked really old - because the scripture describes him as a man - so we have to assume he aged normally....

That's the whole point of his sacrifice. Jesus was without sin and therefore was exempt from the natural progression of sin leading to death. As such, that made Jesus the only person capable of taking the sins of all mankind onto himself in order that we may enter into heaven. As soon as he took on the mortal frame of a man, he became bound by all the laws of nature that we now live under. He could be killed, but he wouldn't have died due to HIS sin...

In Greek mythology, when immortals became involved in wars for their chosen nations, they were subject to injury as well... This was because they were conducting themselves in a mortal world. Whilst i disbelieve the theory of multiple gods, i think that may help explain it a little? Correct me if im wrong...

If there wasn't an inevitability of his crucifixion, then he wouldn't have been sent to earth as a sacrifice to redeem mankind. Jesus was sent so that the free will of man would not result in our eternal damnation... If there was no need for him to come, he wouldn't have, therefore i cannot guess at his appearance now...

*snip*
Wait wait wait. So if Jesus took all of the sin of mankind away, doesn't that mean we don't have to die anymore? I'm immortal?????!!!!! :eek:

I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict your heart. If you want talk privately about this, I don't mind. Its not my job to beat anybody over the head, its my job to present it and let God do the work.

God Bless You.

Convict is basically saying you want his heart to be eternally damned... Methinks you didn't mean to say that... If you want God to work in people's lives, as i do, then make sure you don't go saying unhelpful comments like that... It makes people less open to suggestion...

That's the whole point of his sacrifice. Jesus was without sin and therefore was exempt from the natural progression of sin leading to death. As such, that made Jesus the only person capable of taking the sins of all mankind onto himself in order that we may enter into heaven. As soon as he took on the mortal frame of a man, he became bound by all the laws of nature that we now live under. He could be killed, but he wouldn't have died due to HIS sin...

In Greek mythology, when immortals became involved in wars for their chosen nations, they were subject to injury as well... This was because they were conducting themselves in a mortal world. Whilst i disbelieve the theory of multiple gods, i think that may help explain it a little? Correct me if im wrong...

If there wasn't an inevitability of his crucifixion, then he wouldn't have been sent to earth as a sacrifice to redeem mankind. Jesus was sent so that the free will of man would not result in our eternal damnation... If there was no need for him to come, he wouldn't have, therefore i cannot guess at his appearance now...

But - if Death ONLY follows from Sin... then how could Jesus die? Even WITH external pressure.

We die, because we sin... but we die even if we don't?

I pray that the Holy Spirit will convict your heart. If you want talk privately about this, I don't mind. Its not my job to beat anybody over the head, its my job to present it and let God do the work.

God Bless You.

May God bless you as well my Christian Friend.

But - if Death ONLY follows from Sin... then how could Jesus die? Even WITH external pressure.

We die, because we sin... but we die even if we don't?

Because he came with the express purpose of taking the sin of man away from us... When he died, he bore the sins of all mankind... whilst he himself did not sin, he bore other people's sins at the time... He rose again because they were not his own sins, and therefore he could not be condemned by them... Equally neither are we in quite the same way, we have the choice...

I think even if you were completely without sin, a guy blasting away at point blank with a Spas12 would finish you off... Biology tends to play its part... The idea is that Jesus is the only man never to have sinned, and he came to bear ours away. If there are any other sinless men out there who haven't been blown to pieces then they're not gonna die... But at the same time, that is not possible according to Christian teaching, because Jesus is the only sinless being on Earth EVER...

And yet, he specifically imprecates AGAINST Gentiles elsewhere... and categorically fails to say all PEOPLES in all nations, here... ironic?

He also doesn't disuade all people when he says all nations. We can go back and forth on this all day but frankly...I do not have the time to do so.

May God bless you as well my Christian Friend.

Supporting fellow Christians is great, but there is a crucial flaw in methuselah's statement, as i have already pointed out... If you're praying for somebody to be convicted, then you're not really helping the cause a great deal...

An unwitting word out of place can do more harm than good...

Make sure you don't give anyone ammunition to rubbish your beliefs because of an inappropriate word...

He also doesn't disuade all people when he says all nations. We can go back and forth on this all day but frankly...I do not have the time to do so.

No, but he does dissaude all people in other parts of his ministry. The burden is on you to show that he was wrong when he said he was only here for the Jews initially. Yes, out of context, it can mean what you say it means, but in context one cannot reach that conclusion unless Jesus was either wrong or lying when he initially placed the restriction. You've given no indication it was lifted or why it would have been. In absense of that, one must remain convinced it is not lifted.

Wait wait wait. So if Jesus took all of the sin of mankind away, doesn't that mean we don't have to die anymore? I'm immortal?????!!!!! :eek:

No. Sin still results in mortal life ending. Christian belief is that Jesus bearing our sins means our souls no longer have to be condemned to hell after our mortal lives are ended... In a way, part of you is immortal... But it is not the part which is bound to Earth's existence...

Supporting fellow Christians is great, but there is a crucial flaw in methuselah's statement, as i have already pointed out... If you're praying for somebody to be convicted, then you're not really helping the cause a great deal...

An unwitting word out of place can do more harm than good...

Make sure you don't give anyone ammunition to rubbish your beliefs because of an inappropriate word...

"Convicted" as in - 'receive conviction', rather than 'become a convict'.

"To attain surety in belief...". yes?

I apologize if I made a mistake and misspelled a word, it doesn't change the reality of the importance of it.

If I saw a blind man about to walk off the cliff, would it wrong for me to stop and warn him...or should I just let him walk off the cliff to his death?

Let's make this analogy a little more accurate:

If I saw a blind man living a lifestyle that I believed would eventually result in his walking off of a possibly existing cliff in a different universe, would it be wrong for me to stop and warn him, even if scores of others have conflicting advice that's just as valid... or should I just let him walk off this alleged cliff to his death?

Because he came with the express purpose of taking the sin of man away from us... When he died, he bore the sins of all mankind... whilst he himself did not sin, he bore other people's sins at the time... He rose again because they were not his own sins, and therefore he could not be condemned by them... Equally neither are we in quite the same way, we have the choice...

I think even if you were completely without sin, a guy blasting away at point blank with a Spas12 would finish you off... Biology tends to play its part... The idea is that Jesus is the only man never to have sinned, and he came to bear ours away. If there are any other sinless men out there who haven't been blown to pieces then they're not gonna die... But at the same time, that is not possible according to Christian teaching, because Jesus is the only sinless being on Earth EVER...

If one can die JUST because someone shoots us - then death is purely biological.

If sin is the cause of death, then it shouldn't matter if you disintegrated Jesus into his component atoms... he would still be physically alive.

Unless the 'sin/death' connection is just propaganda.

"Convicted" as in - 'receive conviction', rather than 'become a convict'.

"To attain surety in belief...". yes?

Yeah, but that wasn't made completely clear in the original statement...

Which was my point, if it's not clear then don't say it in case somebody comes up with a different interpretation which is essentially damaging to your own argument...

I feel that "God" (in any form) gave us the day to do with as we choose. Complete free will, whether it be to build a utopia or to doom ourselves to a nuclear winter.

No, but he does dissaude all people in other parts of his ministry. The burden is on you to show that he was wrong when he said he was only here for the Jews initially. Yes, out of context, it can mean what you say it means, but in context one cannot reach that conclusion unless Jesus was either wrong or lying when he initially placed the restriction. You've given no indication it was lifted or why it would have been. In absense of that, one must remain convinced it is not lifted.

And yet he does more works with the gentiles than he does for his own people.

As I said, we can continue this all day.

But at the same time, that is not possible according to Christian teaching, because Jesus is the only sinless being on Earth EVER...

What have babies who died in childbirth done?

No. Sin still results in mortal life ending. Christian belief is that Jesus bearing our sins means our souls no longer have to be condemned to hell after our mortal lives are ended... In a way, part of you is immortal... But it is not the part which is bound to Earth's existence...
What if I don't believe in heaven, hell, or the soul? According to you, my soul would still be condemned to hell even though I don't believe it exists?

Also, just out of curiosity, how did the Bible describe heaven?

there is no god .





end off story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

If one can die JUST because someone shoots us - then death is purely biological.

If sin is the cause of death, then it shouldn't matter if you disintegrated Jesus into his component atoms... he would still be physically alive.

Unless the 'sin/death' connection is just propaganda.

Yeah, don't really know why i said that. Didn't make the point i was aiming for. Actually opened myself up to the criticisms i suggested of methuselah's posts... My bad!:p

Discount what i said earlier bout Spas12s will you please?

Jesus was subjected to a mortal death because of bearing mortal sins for mankind. By my belief, there is no way that one could disintegrate Jesus simply because even death itself could not hold him... Convenient as it may sound, there is therefore no need to enter into conjecture on that topic.

One problem though: Read this definition of propaganda:

Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

I am not intending to benefit in any way from this. I have my views and you evidently have conflicting ones which i fully respect. Others may seek to benefit a hidden agenda from the use of such forums but i have no desire to. I just think people should take care to question fully their own beliefs and think about them, hence my posts... Otherwise what is the point of their belief? I'm happy with my beliefs, i just want to make sure people don't live under false illusions about the content of Christian teachings. If i'm helping then great, if not then i'm sorry...

What have babies who died in childbirth done?
I have heard it said that they are tainted by original sin. Because of original sin, being human condemns you to a lifetime of sucking up to god to make up for it and if you die before you get the chance, oh well, tough shit. Hope you enjoy suffering.

Of course, not all Christians believe this, but original sin is one of the main reasons I decided I could not buy into the Christian faith.

What if I don't believe in heaven, hell, or the soul? According to you, my soul would still be condemned to hell even though I don't believe it exists?

Also, just out of curiosity, how did the Bible describe heaven?

That's as far as my interpretation can take it... I don't know all the answers cos i'm only a human, like you. You've used your free-will to discount any belief in Heaven and Hell etc.

Read Revelation in the bible... There's too much to condense into a forum post. And if i tried then i'd just do a bad job. Sorry can't help more on that one.

I have heard it said that they are tainted by original sin. Because of original sin, being human condemns you to a lifetime of sucking up to god to make up for it and if you die before you get the chance, oh well, tough shit. Hope you enjoy suffering.

Of course, not all Christians believe this, but original sin is one of the main reasons I decided I could not buy into the Christian faith.
But didn't Jesus die to erase this original sin, or am I just misunderstanding everything?

If one can die JUST because someone shoots us - then death is purely biological.

If sin is the cause of death, then it shouldn't matter if you disintegrated Jesus into his component atoms... he would still be physically alive.

Unless the 'sin/death' connection is just propaganda.
Perhaps, if you weren't steeped in sin, you wouldn't have people pointing guns at you in the first place. The whole sin/death thing sounds like some kind of warped misunderstanding of karma.

What have babies who died in childbirth done?

To be totally honest i won't know til i get to heaven, if indeed that ever happens. Personally i believe that since babies have no perception of Right or Wrong, they cannot wilfully commit sin. As such that makes them sinless, and therefore they will end up in heaven.

I may be wrong, that's just my interpretation. I don't agree with the concept of "original sin" however, i've also never heard any Christian teaching which mentions that.

But didn't Jesus die to erase this original sin, or am I just misunderstanding everything?
Yeah, the inconsistencies are another reason I couldn't buy into that religion.

But didn't Jesus die to erase this original sin, or am I just misunderstanding everything?

Muravyets isn't a Christian...

I don't think there is such a thing as original sin. Babies are unaware of the concepts of right and wrong therefore those that die in childbirth have had no opportunity to sin, which was where Muravyets' response grew from...

Yeah, don't really know why i said that. Didn't make the point i was aiming for. Actually opened myself up to the criticisms i suggested of methuselah's posts... My bad!:p

Discount what i said earlier bout Spas12s will you please?

Jesus was subjected to a mortal death because of bearing mortal sins for mankind. By my belief, there is no way that one could disintegrate Jesus simply because even death itself could not hold him... Convenient as it may sound, there is therefore no need to enter into conjecture on that topic.

One problem though: Read this definition of propaganda:

Any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.

I am not intending to benefit in any way from this. I have my views and you evidently have conflicting ones which i fully respect. Others may seek to benefit a hidden agenda from the use of such forums but i have no desire to. I just think people should take care to question fully their own beliefs and think about them, hence my posts... Otherwise what is the point of their belief? I'm happy with my beliefs, i just want to make sure people don't live under false illusions about the content of Christian teachings. If i'm helping then great, if not then i'm sorry...

The propaganda isn't yours... you are just repeating it.

I'm not sure how you justify Jesus 'dying for' the sins of others. The sacrificial lambs didn't 'die for' anyone - they were an offering of appeasement.

So - I don't buy Jesus being able to 'acquire' my sin... if he died, he must have sinned. IF sin is cause of death.

To be totally honest i won't know til i get to heaven, if indeed that ever happens. Personally i believe that since babies have no perception of Right or Wrong, they cannot wilfully commit sin. As such that makes them sinless, and therefore they will end up in heaven.

I may be wrong, that's just my interpretation. I don't agree with the concept of "original sin" however, i've also never heard any Christian teaching which mentions that.
You've been lucky, then. I've heard it. I grew up hearing it. Fortunately for me, I also grew up hearing other Christians argue against it. All that arguing turned me off the religion, but not off Christians as a whole. It just made me aware and wary of fundamentalism.

Yeah, the inconsistencies are another reason I couldn't buy into that religion.

If you're looking to create inconsistencies, then you'll find them... Unsurprising then that you can't "buy into" it...

If you're looking to create inconsistencies, then you'll find them... Unsurprising then that you can't "buy into" it...

Which would be preferable... looking at the scripture willing to read what it actually says - even if that contradicts - or looking at it with a refusal to see contradiction?

You've been lucky, then. I've heard it. I grew up hearing it. Fortunately for me, I also grew up hearing other Christians argue against it. All that arguing turned me off the religion, but not off Christians as a whole. It just made me aware and wary of fundamentalism.

One of the many problems with Christianity as a whole... Different people claim to be preaching "the word of God" when it seems completely wrong. The arguing irritates me a lot as well... Just look at the religious conflicts in Northern Ireland (if you know anything about that)... It's sad really. Fundamentalism is wrong in any religion, but fundamentalists DO NOT make up the majority of believers in any religion.

Importantly, Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists, though their aims may be different and they tend not to be associated with terrorism...

Glad to hear you don't bear grudges against Christians.

The propaganda isn't yours... you are just repeating it.

I'm not sure how you justify Jesus 'dying for' the sins of others. The sacrificial lambs didn't 'die for' anyone - they were an offering of appeasement.

So - I don't buy Jesus being able to 'acquire' my sin... if he died, he must have sinned. IF sin is cause of death.

Your opinion. I disagree.

Muravyets isn't a Christian...
Is it that obvious? ;)

(I know, I just finished saying it. I'm playing with you.)

I don't think there is such a thing as original sin. Babies are unaware of the concepts of right and wrong therefore those that die in childbirth have had no opportunity to sin, which was where Muravyets' response grew from...
Actually, what I said is precisely what I heard from certain hardline, conservative, American Catholics and other Catholics who swore they got it from their priests and parochial school teachers. I got to hear this, among many other points of view, because my family was a mix of RC, Congregationalist, agnostic and atheist, and in my neighborhood growing up, the RC church and the Congregationalist church were across the street from each other, with the Lutherans, Methodists, and Unitarians around the corner, and the synagogue and yeshiva a couple of blocks over in the Jewish neighborhood. So all my little friends and I and our families were pretty much an ecumenical enclave.

Which would be preferable... looking at the scripture willing to read what it actually says - even if that contradicts - or looking at it with a refusal to see contradiction?

The danger comes when you look with a specific aim of finding contradiction. If you WANT to find something that isn't there, then you will. It is important to question elements of any belief, but counter-productive to attempt to CREATE an inconsistency. Then you are just fooling yourself into believing what you want, which surely is just as bad as "looking at it with a refusal to see contradiction"...

Muravyets isn't a Christian...

I don't think there is such a thing as original sin. Babies are unaware of the concepts of right and wrong therefore those that die in childbirth have had no opportunity to sin, which was where Muravyets' response grew from...
No, but I've heard the theory she talked about from a lot of Christian friends. You cannot deny the blatent inconsistency in many sects of Christianity and even frequently in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Loose Booty
If you're looking to create inconsistencies, then you'll find them... Unsurprising then that you can't "buy into" it...
Which would be preferable... looking at the scripture willing to read what it actually says - even if that contradicts - or looking at it with a refusal to see contradiction?
If one is "looking" for one external source to rely on for everything, then I guess the latter would be preferable.

Your opinion. I disagree.

How is it opinion?

1) The wages of sin is death.

2) Jesus died:

Therefore:

3) Jesus MUST have sinned, or

4) The wages of sin and death are NOT connected.


How is it opinion?

If you're looking to create inconsistencies, then you'll find them... Unsurprising then that you can't "buy into" it...
Inconsistencies are not created, they are pointed out. When there are this many inconsistencies and contradictions in a religion, you can't help but question the validity of it.

One of the many problems with Christianity as a whole... Different people claim to be preaching "the word of God" when it seems completely wrong. The arguing irritates me a lot as well... Just look at the religious conflicts in Northern Ireland (if you know anything about that)...
Yes, dear, I have heard of it.

It's sad really. Fundamentalism is wrong in any religion, but fundamentalists DO NOT make up the majority of believers in any religion.

Importantly, Christian fundamentalists are just as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists, though their aims may be different and they tend not to be associated with terrorism...
Near total agreement on that, except that, when I see certain American fundamentalists bombing clinics, targeting doctors and calling for the assassination of public figures, I tend to think all fundamentalists are alike.

Glad to hear you don't bear grudges against Christians.
You have to earn the right to be my enemy. Just belonging to a group isn't good enough.

Is it that obvious? ;)

(I know, I just finished saying it. I'm playing with you.)


Actually, what I said is precisely what I heard from certain hardline, conservative, American Catholics and other Catholics who swore they got it from their priests and parochial school teachers. I got to hear this, among many other points of view, because my family was a mix of RC, Congregationalist, agnostic and atheist, and in my neighborhood growing up, the RC church and the Congregationalist church were across the street from each other, with the Lutherans, Methodists, and Unitarians around the corner, and the synagogue and yeshiva a couple of blocks over in the Jewish neighborhood. So all my little friends and I and our families were pretty much an ecumenical enclave.

HEHE! ;)

Well in which case i'm very sorry. It seems a bizarre message to preach, given that Christianity is based on the fact that God loves everyone and therefore wants as many people to accept him and enter heaven as possible.

It strikes me as a little contradictory to suggest God would apply an "original sin" to a baby with no knowledge of it, as this would exclude them from heaven...

I can see how you would have grown up being a little confused! I've often wondered as to why there are so many different denominations when, theoretically, a Christian is a Christian, no matter what denomination... The problems arise when conflicting messages are spread by each denomination...

The danger comes when you look with a specific aim of finding contradiction. If you WANT to find something that isn't there, then you will. It is important to question elements of any belief, but counter-productive to attempt to CREATE an inconsistency. Then you are just fooling yourself into believing what you want, which surely is just as bad as "looking at it with a refusal to see contradiction"...

Couldn't ALL the same things be said about reading scripture without looking for inconsistency?

I mean - one doesn't have to be LOOKING for inconsistency to see Jesus cannot be Messiah, because of the Curse of Jeconiah... one just has to be willing to read what is there in black-and-white.

Yes, dear, I have heard of it.


Near total agreement on that, except that, when I see certain American fundamentalists bombing clinics, targeting doctors and calling for the assassination of public figures, I tend to think all fundamentalists are alike.


You have to earn the right to be my enemy. Just belonging to a group isn't good enough.

Fundamentalism is wrong in all forms, and damaging to whichever religion the fundamentalists claim to represent.

HAHA! Result!!! :p

HEHE! ;)

Well in which case i'm very sorry. It seems a bizarre message to preach, given that Christianity is based on the fact that God loves everyone and therefore wants as many people to accept him and enter heaven as possible.

It strikes me as a little contradictory to suggest God would apply an "original sin" to a baby with no knowledge of it, as this would exclude them from heaven...

I can see how you would have grown up being a little confused! I've often wondered as to why there are so many different denominations when, theoretically, a Christian is a Christian, no matter what denomination... The problems arise when conflicting messages are spread by each denomination...
Yeah, I wonder where they get all those conflicting messages... Oh, right, from the Bible, which is so ... inconsistent...?

Personal anecdote in illustration of a point:

I created a work of art for a themed exhibition a couple of years ago (I'm an artist). The theme was censorship and bookburning. I decided to explore the mindset of censorship. I asked, why do some people think a book like, for instance, Huckleberry Finn, is great literature, while others think it's an abomination that should be banned -- and some of those say it's racist, while others say it's not racist -- while yet others are unimpressed either way? I mean they're all reading the same book, right? I speculated that the disconnect is in the minds of the readers. I tested this hypothesis by reading a book. I selected a book about medicine because it is arguably the world's most controversial subject (running neck and neck with religion on that). I read it, and as I read, I copied down on a pad every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph that particularly struck me for any reason, in the order I came across them. When I was done, I read what I had copied. I found that I had written down a cogent narrative that was completely different in subject and meaning from the book I had been reading.

My brain had focused not on what the author was saying, but on my own thoughts and biases, and that is what I read in his book -- or rather, extracted from it.

So I took what I had copied and made a new book, illustrated with original art, and put it in the exhibition together with the original book so people could see the difference for themselves.

My point is, each man's Bible is the one writing itself in his own head. You can't even start to reach the truth until you become aware of this.

Fundamentalism is wrong in all forms, and damaging to whichever religion the fundamentalists claim to represent.

HAHA! Result!!! :p
Now we are in 100% agreement. :)

How is it opinion?

1) The wages of sin is death.

2) Jesus died:

Therefore:

3) Jesus MUST have sinned, or

4) The wages of sin and death are NOT connected.



Just because sin results in death does not necessarily mean that death is the direct result of sin in one's lifetime. Jesus committed no sin until he accepted the sin on the cross--at which point God could no longer look upon him as His perfect son (ref "eli eli lama sabachthani"--"father, father, why have you forsaken me"). Jesus sinned only upon the cross so that he could descend into Hell and thus conquer Death, thereby providing the pathway to reuniting us natural sinners with the kingdom of Heaven.

Couldn't ALL the same things be said about reading scripture without looking for inconsistency?

I mean - one doesn't have to be LOOKING for inconsistency to see Jesus cannot be Messiah, because of the Curse of Jeconiah... one just has to be willing to read what is there in black-and-white.

Just reading is pointless if you don't understand... This is a Jewish site - ie rejects Jesus as the messiah, but read what it says....

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

Yeah, I wonder where they get all those conflicting messages... Oh, right, from the Bible, which is so ... inconsistent...?

Personal anecdote in illustration of a point:

I created a work of art for a themed exhibition a couple of years ago (I'm an artist). The theme was censorship and bookburning. I decided to explore the mindset of censorship. I asked, why do some people think a book like, for instance, Huckleberry Finn, is great literature, while others think it's an abomination that should be banned -- and some of those say it's racist, while others say it's not racist -- while yet others are unimpressed either way? I mean they're all reading the same book, right? I speculated that the disconnect is in the minds of the readers. I tested this hypothesis by reading a book. I selected a book about medicine because it is arguably the world's most controversial subject (running neck and neck with religion on that). I read it, and as I read, I copied down on a pad every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph that particularly struck me for any reason, in the order I came across them. When I was done, I read what I had copied. I found that I had written down a cogent narrative that was completely different in subject and meaning from the book I had been reading.

My brain had focused not on what the author was saying, but on my own thoughts and biases, and that is what I read in his book -- or rather, extracted from it.

So I took what I had copied and made a new book, illustrated with original art, and put it in the exhibition together with the original book so people could see the difference for themselves.

My point is, each man's Bible is the one writing itself in his own head. You can't even start to reach the truth until you become aware of this.

Isn't that the beauty of it, though? God comes to each us in our own way, and the Bible, being the Word of God, and the ultimate truth, is truth to each individual person because of how they write it in their head.

Yeah, I wonder where they get all those conflicting messages... Oh, right, from the Bible, which is so ... inconsistent...?

Personal anecdote in illustration of a point:

I created a work of art for a themed exhibition a couple of years ago (I'm an artist). The theme was censorship and bookburning. I decided to explore the mindset of censorship. I asked, why do some people think a book like, for instance, Huckleberry Finn, is great literature, while others think it's an abomination that should be banned -- and some of those say it's racist, while others say it's not racist -- while yet others are unimpressed either way? I mean they're all reading the same book, right? I speculated that the disconnect is in the minds of the readers. I tested this hypothesis by reading a book. I selected a book about medicine because it is arguably the world's most controversial subject (running neck and neck with religion on that). I read it, and as I read, I copied down on a pad every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph that particularly struck me for any reason, in the order I came across them. When I was done, I read what I had copied. I found that I had written down a cogent narrative that was completely different in subject and meaning from the book I had been reading.

My brain had focused not on what the author was saying, but on my own thoughts and biases, and that is what I read in his book -- or rather, extracted from it.

So I took what I had copied and made a new book, illustrated with original art, and put it in the exhibition together with the original book so people could see the difference for themselves.

My point is, each man's Bible is the one writing itself in his own head. You can't even start to reach the truth until you become aware of this.

Agreed. Problems arise in conflicting messages because people disregard what is really there and instead preach what they wish was there... Hence the truth is often distorted...

Just reading is pointless if you don't understand... This is a Jewish site - ie rejects Jesus as the messiah, but read what it says....

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah
Jews for Jesus aren't a Jewish site - it's a site run by fundie Christians who want to convert Jews to Christianity.

Just because sin results in death does not necessarily mean that death is the direct result of sin in one's lifetime. Jesus committed no sin until he accepted the sin on the cross--at which point God could no longer look upon him as His perfect son (ref "eli eli lama sabachthani"--"father, father, why have you forsaken me"). Jesus sinned only upon the cross so that he could descend into Hell and thus conquer Death, thereby providing the pathway to reuniting us natural sinners with the kingdom of Heaven.

Good work dude. Explained it better than i did.

Good work dude. Explained it better than i did.

Actually I just had this explained to me recently, how the holy trinity was two at one time--when Jesus sinned.

Jews for Jesus aren't a Jewish site - it's a site run by fundie Christians who want to convert Jews to Christianity.

Ok fine. Didn't know that. Unlikely to be fundamentalist Christians... But regardless of who wrote it, the points in there explain the Curse of Jeconiah, which was all i really wanted Grave_n_Idle to read it for...

Actually I just had this explained to me recently, how the holy trinity was two at one time--when Jesus sinned.

Cool. Thanks anyway, i tried to explain that earlier but didn't quite get it right...

And yet he does more works with the gentiles than he does for his own people.

As I said, we can continue this all day.

No, he doesn't. Again, you are reading things in that aren't actually said in the text. You add context because you want it to be true. And all of it requires one to ignore that we don't have to guess. If we want to know who Jesus came to save, let's ask him.

"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Isreal"

That's not something I read into the text. Those are the words of the Savior. Again, don't be so eager to amend His words with words of your own.

Your argument doesn't address the point. He could have worked with the Gentiles frequently and still have not considered them to be a part of his purpose. What instructions did he give the Apostles. To go to the lost sheep. What did he say when a non-Jew asked for help. Sorry, but I'm ONLY here for Jews. Her faith saved her, but Jesus expressly told her he was not there for her.

Ok fine. Didn't know that. Unlikely to be fundamentalist Christians... But regardless of who wrote it, the points in there explain the Curse of Jeconiah, which was all i really wanted Grave_n_Idle to read it for...
Why would that be unlikely?

Is it that obvious? ;)

(I know, I just finished saying it. I'm playing with you.)


Actually, what I said is precisely what I heard from certain hardline, conservative, American Catholics and other Catholics who swore they got it from their priests and parochial school teachers. I got to hear this, among many other points of view, because my family was a mix of RC, Congregationalist, agnostic and atheist, and in my neighborhood growing up, the RC church and the Congregationalist church were across the street from each other, with the Lutherans, Methodists, and Unitarians around the corner, and the synagogue and yeshiva a couple of blocks over in the Jewish neighborhood. So all my little friends and I and our families were pretty much an ecumenical enclave.

which is why catholics believe in infant baptism and why a good catholic nurse will sometimes surreptitiously baptise a newborn that isnt going to survive the night (and sometimes a newborn who didnt survive the birth "just in case")