is there a God?

[eagle]

  theboywonder said:

  _Rob said:

  scutfargus said:

You can reject Jesus all you wish; but don't pretend that it is based upon reason or based upon something that you spent time thinking about.

You're entitled to your beliefs. But when you present them as being absolute truth and attempt to insult the cognitive abilities of anyone who doesn't believe as you do, don't be surprised at the negative responses you receive. Others are entitled to their beliefs too, without you questioning their ability and willingness to reason or think.

Agreed 100%!!

Excellent response Robbie,

[eagle]

  theboywonder said:

Q: Has ANYONE bothered to read any of the million bible quotations that scut keeps posting?

I have heard them all and killer guys too many times and am not impressed.

I can tell when someone has something to say and quoting verses tells me they have nothing to say

[eagle]

  theboywonder said:

  Misty said:

i'm offering to bye u coffee all u want cuz i like what u posted. :wink:

Muahahahahahaaaaaa, my evil plot has succeeded! My attempt at semi-intellectual dialogue claimed it's first victim :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

so welcome to TFs Satan :evil:

[babyoiy]

  theboywonder said:

Similarly, you can accept Jesus all you wish, but don't pretend or think that is is based on reason. It is not. SIMPLE AS THAT. There is no scientific, OR philosophically SOUND argument for the existance of Jesus/God/Jesus-God. All the arguments (on both sides) have holes.

It comes down to faith.

Stop trying to plant seeds into people's minds here so eventually you might score a conversion. You're even offering to buy people books. Free bibles, anyone? Free bibles here.......

I like it ... based on reason ... u already got coffee from Mod.Misty.. what'd u like to have with coffee? coz of u dont drink .. else I gonna buy u some booze.. 8)

ps* Oh my .... u guys were fighting for more love eh? u keep argue in the thing that u will never know how to find out the right or wrong answer..

one more thing... I kinda like Christianity coz they always say .. love - love - love ... love emenies- love neighbor etc.. but sometime I saw them doing kind of advertising.. saying enter to be Christian and God will be with u.. else u have to go to hell ... and I used to see 2 guys standing and shouting about Christianity around KSR. And sometime when i was in shopping mall.. someone came to me and say something about God.. and try to make me believe them... Thats make me .... :?

I dont get the point of they doing that..... and right im a budhist coz family way.. im not really into religion but I listen to anything that reasonable.

[CocoaBrotha]

I dont get usully get into these type of discussions..but,

I don't like to mix religion and politics. I do understand why a church would speak out to support issues concerning life. However, when a church turns away anyone, it is making a judgment that only God can make. We can try to educate and teach each other, but who are we to tell someone else what is right and wrong? That ultimately must be their decision and God's.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

  2unique said:

  Quote

This biblical ?evidence? is no more convincing that a man rose from the dead than that Bulwer Lytton was able to write a realistic story about the destruction of Pompeii, 1800 years later. Certainly, if anyone wanted to persuade people of impossible things then they would try not to get elementary things wrong. So, it is with the biblical authors. That they knew some battles and some kings should not easily persuade anyone that the supernatural events in these romances actually happened. Only a gullible fool would believe it. ?Any reasonable man? would remain skeptical.

:idea:

[scutfargus]

  johnno said:

hey scutfargus, old chap (is that polite enough loburt?) can you explain something to poor dumb non-mensa member me please?

question.... how come, in a place such as jerusalem and other places mentioned in the bible, all Jesus's friends and acquantances all have lovely english names (joseph, james, john, paul, matthew, mary etc) and others don't? romans have roman names, arabs have arab names. how come in a place that is populated by arabs, romans etc, these english named people existed and are named such?

end of question.

I appreciate an easy question, J. We have all of these sorts of names because of the power of the King James Version. This was the first well-accepted translation of the Bible (it was not accepted at first, but it became accepted). The KJV stood as the English version of Scripture for nearly 400 years. There are fundamentalist pastors who, up until a decade ago, campaigned heavily for universal acceptance of the KJV (they did not like all these new-fangled English versions which came out). In the Greek and the Hebrew, there is actually not a counterpart for our letter j. So, we know all of those names in the English, but in the Greek and Hebrew, they sound very different. But the power of the KJV is so great that, even in Jewish Bible, the Tanakh (an excellent OT translation) we still find the name Joshua, for instance, rather than Yehoshua (pronounced possibly yhoh-SHOE-ah).

[scutfargus]

  funfarang said:

damn , you are such a retarded to believe this crap !!

At the beginning of this thread, people expressed all kinds of opinions. Very different opinions of what they believed in or what they thought about God. I don't recall if you ever commented on them. However, when I present Jesus to you (and to CiaranM), your anger is clear and vitriolic. You may want to actually look inside yourselves and decide, why does Jesus make you so angry, but these other religious views do not?

[scutfargus]

  Misty said:

what u quoted is the vision revealed to paul. not *eyewitnessing the resurrection* as u originally put.

i looked up the dates and found that paul's life overlapped with jesus's. paul never actually met jesus. he converted when he saw the vision in 38 AD. jesus was generally known to be crucified and in 33 AD. the ascension was in the same year.

I consider it an eyewitness and you don't. I can live with that. You believe it was just a religious vision and I believe that Paul saw Jesus. So, from your point of view, only 3 eyewitnesses (who wrote Scripture) rather than 4.

And then there are the other 500 who witnessed Jesus Christ risen from the dead. Don't forget them.

[scutfargus]

  theboywonder said:

  _Rob said:

  scutfargus said:

You can reject Jesus all you wish; but don't pretend that it is based upon reason or based upon something that you spent time thinking about.

You're entitled to your beliefs. But when you present them as being absolute truth and attempt to insult the cognitive abilities of anyone who doesn't believe as you do, don't be surprised at the negative responses you receive. Others are entitled to their beliefs too, without you questioning their ability and willingness to reason or think.

Agreed 100%!!

People have a very weird perception of Who Jesus was. It is typical to ignore what He said or to just pick out a handful of verses that you have heard. Jesus was very dogmatic; after all, as God, I would think He would be entitled to be.

After the sermon on the mount, we read:

Mat 7:28 And it happened, when Jesus had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His doctrine.

Mat 7:29 For He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

Almost everytime I state a point dogmatically, it is usually with Scripture and very little additional commentary. The words of Jesus should make people angry. They did then and they do now.

Now, what I have often wondered is, why do so many people like to speak of Jesus kindly, as a wonderful teacher and great human being, someone they might even follow themselves; and yet, they despise His words. Why not be honest and just reject Jesus completely?

[scutfargus]

  eagle said:

  theboywonder said:

Q: Has ANYONE bothered to read any of the million bible quotations that scut keeps posting?

I have heard them all and killer guys too many times and am not impressed.

I can tell when someone has something to say and quoting verses tells me they have nothing to say

When I say that Jesus claimed to be God, don't you think I should back that up?

When I say that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God, don't you think I should back that up?

[eagle]

  scutfargus said:

  eagle said:

  theboywonder said:

Q: Has ANYONE bothered to read any of the million bible quotations that scut keeps posting?

I have heard them all and killer guys too many times and am not impressed.

I can tell when someone has something to say and quoting verses tells me they have nothing to say

When I say that Jesus claimed to be God, don't you think I should back that up?

When I say that Jesus claimed to be the only way to God, don't you think I should back that up?

Well I guess we pushed your button huh

[scutfargus]

  babyoiy said:

one more thing... I kinda like Christianity coz they always say .. love - love - love ... love emenies- love neighbor etc.. but sometime I saw them doing kind of advertising.. saying enter to be Christian and God will be with u.. else u have to go to hell ... and I used to see 2 guys standing and shouting about Christianity around KSR. And sometime when i was in shopping mall.. someone came to me and say something about God.. and try to make me believe them... Thats make me .... :?

I dont get the point of they doing that..... and right im a budhist coz family way.. im not really into religion but I listen to anything that reasonable.

I will admit that often the worst advertisement for Jesus Christ is a Christian (I know someone will use that against me in a later post).

You can read the messages in this lengthy topic and you can see how much anger and hatred some people have in their heart--some people who claim to be religious in fact. It is our natural state.

[scutfargus]

  2unique said:

This biblical ?evidence? is no more convincing that a man rose from the dead than that Bulwer Lytton was able to write a realistic story about the destruction of Pompeii, 1800 years later. Certainly, if anyone wanted to persuade people of impossible things then they would try not to get elementary things wrong. So, it is with the biblical authors. That they knew some battles and some kings should not easily persuade anyone that the supernatural events in these romances actually happened. Only a gullible fool would believe it. ?Any reasonable man? would remain skeptical.

Just what, as I have asked several times before, is the motivation of the Apostles of Jesus? What did they get out of spreading fables, as many of you to believe?

[cs3602001]

  theboywonder said:

  cs3602001 said:

  theboywonder said:

  khun_lung said:

A god as described in the Bible, Koran, Torah...no.

But each of us has something spiritual inside, if nothing more than to ask, "Why am I the only one who can see through my eyes? I am unique to all other humans on earth because I am ME! And what happens after *I* am the one to die?"

In my view, god comes from within us. He (or she) can be anything we want, but holds the keys to the mysteries of life. Will we ever know, even after death? No one knows.

Agreed!

As we learn more and more about the brain, there is an increasing amount of scientific evidence that shows a biological basis for the belief in god. That is to say (in simple terms), people have something "spiritual" in them, that aids the generation of there being "something more than this reality" / there being a God etc.

This can bounce back and fourth....

Experiments have been carried out on individuals of different religious backgrounds and beliefs by passing a magnetic field through a certain part of the brain, this producing a "spiritual experience" in a high percentage of the sample group. Each "experience" was specific to the religious beliefs taught to that individual when growing up etc....

PET Scans have also been carried out on Tibetan Monks during deep meditation with some interesting results too.

After all is said and done the question then arises why does such an area of the brain exist at all?

Because it exists for to provide another more basic function. I would write more, but I've found discussions with you don't go so well - no offence meant of course. I recommend the book "Why God Won't Go Away : Brain Science and the Biology of Belief" for more information

Well as I said this can bounce back and fourth, there is no definitive conclusion to any of this stuff really, (in my opinion) I have read a fair old bit on this and still do so, it is something I enjnoy..

I read some on neurotheology by Iona Miller, pretty good...a paragraph quoted below....a simple paragraph that explains the debate.

"The relationship between brain physiology and human behavior is notoriously difficult to understand and easy to misapply. Obviously consciousness, subjectivity and human religious experience isn't reducible merely to an explanation of neural pathways. It is a mystery whether our hard-wiring creates the God Experience, or whether God creates our psychophysical wiring"

[eagle]

  hellobarbie said:

you can lead a horse to water....but i doubt you'll convince him it's "holly" just because some guy took a piss in it 2000 years ago.

Hey I didn;t know that, on my knees , now I believe !!

[scutfargus]

  2unique said:

Well if it's easy questions you want;

? Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam?s sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents? sins (Deuteronomy 24:16).

Adam sinned as the federal head of the human race. It is just like when George Bush invaded Iraq, I am a part of that, whether I agree with him or not.

However, we also choose to sin. Even if we removed Adam's imputed sin to us, we would still spent eternity apart from God because we choose to do wrong.

  2unique said:

? Why pray? If it changes God?s mind then he is not sovereign. If it does not change God?s mind then it is superfluous.

Prayer to God reveals our faith in Him. When we pray to God, it is a witness to angelic creation.

  2unique said:

? Where is the justice in punishing Jesus for our sins? If our courts of law were to accept the punishment of someone else in the place of the criminal, we would not say that justice has been done, but that injustice has been added to injustice. Would the church have me believe that two wrongs make a right?

You can pay a fine for someone else. Someone can be fined $50,000 and you can take the money and satisfy the fine. That is true all over the world. They don't refuse the fine because it comes from someone else.

God is perfect righteousness and can only have a relationship with perfect righteousness. I don't know about you, but that lets me out. However, Jesus took the penalty for what I have done wrong upon Himself.

  2unique said:

? Why does the genealogy in Matthew 1 show that Jesus descended through a cursed line (Matthew 1:11-12 + Jeremiah 22:28-30 and 1 Chronicles 3:16 + Jeremiah 36:30 versus Luke 1:32)? Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. How could Jesus possibly be the Messiah, destined to rule forever on the throne of David, if he descended through either of these men?

That is a very good question, but it also tells me you simply pulled these questions off a web site and these are not questions which you are really concerned about. No one on this forum knows the Bible well enough to ask that question.

So, let me ask you a question, when I answer this and the other questions that "you" are asking, how will it change you?

People did this to Jesus all the time. They continually asked him tricky religious questions. They weren't interested in the answers; they only wanted to trip Jesus up. Is that your motivation?

[CiaranM]

  scutfargus said:

However, when I present Jesus to you (and to CiaranM), your anger is clear and vitriolic. You may want to actually look inside yourselves and decide, why does Jesus make you so angry, but these other religious views do not?

u have never ever presented anything to me that i could recognise as jesus. all u have given r a stream of quotes and ur view as to what jesus was.

i believe jesus did live and i believe he was a good man and if we lived by what he preached, rather than ppl's spin on what he preached, the world would be a pretty good place. however, i also feel that what buddha, mohamed and (recently) dala lamai have preached also set out pretty decent guidelines on how ppl should "try" to lead their lives. now as to whether any of the above r god or the son of god is debateable and i suppose a matter of belief/faith.

so in a nutshell jesus does not make me angry and i don't think he ever will make me angry. what does make me angry is ppl trying to force their beliefs down other ppl's throats. again other ppl's religious views do not make me angry, but if ppl were trying to force their beliefs upon me, then yes that would make me angry. but guess what so far no jew, hindu, muslim, buddhist has come on here and tried to preach to the entire website. or if they did i must have been sleeping that day.

i honestly do believe if jesus came back to earth today and saw the crap u were attributting to him, he would be embarressed and ashamed. jesus came across as a very humble, loving and forgiving human being. it's just a pity his followers couldn't adopt some of those characteristics instead of an arrogant and condescending nature. in fact u strike me as the type of individual who would have been calling for the release of barabbas and the crucifixation of jesus a few thousand years ago !!

it never ceases to amaze me how ppl who want to spread the word of jesus end up turning ppl away from his message. maybe it's U who needs to actually look inside urself and ask what r u trying to achieve here. because believe me u r doing neither urself or jesus any favours with ur ranting here.

[Tinian]

  Misty said:

  Tinian said:

The problem I have with scutfargus' words is your absolute certainty that there is nothing remotely problematic with claiming that if one never turns to jesus one will go to hell. Looks like the Dalai Lama is heading for a bit of a downer, and that he'll be joining Gandhi in hell too. What about some geezer in some remote country who's never heard about some bloke called Jesus but who is a very good and charitable person? (Bad luck? Or, hang on, that's what missionaries are for! Shame they didn't manage to get to this guy though... drat... )

i hate quoting too many boxes. but anyways..

if i may add.. ciaran has tackled one of the most ambiguous and debatable issues of christianity, i think.

as far as i've been told by preachers, if u hear but u deny, u'd have a problem. but if u never heard of jesus then it's another issue. u won't go to hell. benefit of the doubt thing, i guess. how they'll be judged is beyond me. however, to my knowledge, this is only one interpretation of the scripture that there's no exact reference mentioned in it. it is ambiguous to me too.

and to confuse myself a little bit more, not sure what'd happen to christians who renounce their beliefs and turn to other religions.. ciaran might wanna add that to #3.

i think some of the issues being raised on this thread need to be addressed by theologians, which again, they're still debating about lots of stuff themselves too.

Thanks for this clarification, misty. Your explanation has helped a lot.

It definitely is a tricky and controversial issue, and is bound to be troubling for christians (though there are lots of issues in all religions that are sticky). But debate, questioning, and ambiguity are all very much part of a spiritual path. What I found amazing about scutfargus' words was a complete lack of nuance or sense of feeling troubled about what is clearly a rather difficult subject. What's wrong with struggling with difficult issues that arise within one's faith? Why adopt simple clearcut answers if the topic is not clearcut?!

[Tinian]

  scutfargus said:

Let me answer you point by point:

  Tinian said:

I've spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue of the 'historical jesus' with people that have studied theology at undergraduate and graduate/doctorate level at university. They all seem pretty clear on the fact that the quest to unearth a historical jesus in the bible is now generally deemed as a lost cause in academic circles.

First of all, let me quote from Cecil Adams, who is not a Christian, and, if anything, is against the notion the Jesus was anything but a man:

  Quote

If what you're looking for is proof positive that Jesus Christ lived and breathed--e.g., library card, baby pictures, etc.--you're out of luck. The big guy left no written records, and no accounts of his life were written while he was still alive. The earliest Gospels date from maybe 70 AD, 40 years after his demise.

Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of whole cloth. Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_275.html (in case you want to read this or any other Cecil's other columns--those who claim to be intellectuals might get a kick out of him)

Will Durant, probably the leading authority on ancient history of the past century, who also does not believe in miracles and does not believe in Jesus as his Savior (last time I checked, anyway) defended the historical accuracy of the Bible (apart from the miracles) and said that it could not be discounted as accurate history (I can dig up the exact quote, if you would like).

Josephus, an historian from that era, put a great deal of trust in the Bible when it came to the record of historical events, as did almost every other historian from that era.

And then, there is the witness of those who actually saw Jesus, men who were willing to die for what they saw (not for what they believed, but for what they saw). So, who am I going to believe, some professors you have chatted with, or Cecil Adams, Will Durant, Josephus and men who actually saw Jesus? You believe whomever you want to believe.

  Tinian said:

No doubt some of the new testament may reflect actual words or events in Jesus' life, but the criteria to determine which bits do and which bits don't are full of landmines. It often ends up being based around subjective opinions as to what one would WANT Jesus to have said and emphasising those bits. And surely you would not assert that EVERYTHING in the gospels is completely pure history? Or would you?

This is rather interesting reasoning. The men who wrote this history did not receive fame, money, recognition, power, or anything else. They were killed for what they wrote and taught. They were willing to die not for what they believed, but for what they saw. If you think they made stuff up, why don't we have books from that era which dispute their facts? If you think they made stuff up, what, pray tell, would have been their motivation? These men were beheaded, stoned to death, hung on crosses, hung upsidedown on crosses, and died as a result of mob vioilence.

To answer your final question there, yes, I believe the Old and New Testament are pure history, apart from any minor errors which have crept into the text (there are certainly some numerical errors in the Old Testament).

  Tinian said:

(This in no way, however, undermines the validity of whether Christian values are 'true' or not; it's solely about whether we can discover a historical jesus in the bible - two utterly separate things. Often people get very worked up because they assume that if one says we can't say much about jesus FROM A HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW. this therefore entails an attack on christianity - the two are not at all the same thing.)

Sorry, YOU don't get to pick and choose from what Jesus said, and deem this worthy and that not worthy.

Jesus Christ, on many occasions, claimed to be God. Now, you might want to pick and choose from his teachings, but you have to contend with this. Was He telling the truth? Was He lying? Yes, I really want to follow the teachings of a man who lies about who He is. Was Jesus insane? Again, does it make sense to follow the teachings of man who is insane? You cannot offer the option that Jesus was a great teacher but He was not God. What great teacher would claim to be God (and Jesus did not claim to be a god, He claimed to be God--in the Greek there is no mistaking what He says)?

  Tinian said:

Importantly, one has to accept that historical veracity probably wasn't high on the list of priorities for the authors that composed the various parts of the new testament.

Again, rather than quote from your friends in academia (which I was a part of at one time), think for yourself here. What would be their motivation to lie? Why would 4 different men who actually saw the resurrected Jesus get from lying about that? Why would they be willing to die for something they just made up on a whim? And why were they ALL willing to die. Remember, these are not simply a group of religious martyrs. These are men who knew what they were saying was either the truth or a lie. They either saw the resurrected Christ or they lied about it. What would be their motivation? They were all persecuted, thrown in jail, and killed. In most cases, all they had to do to get out of it would be to say, "Okay, okay, I just made up this stuff about Jesus. I thought it would be cool to be a religious guy but maybe it isn't." But we do not have any writings or testimonies like that. Had any of the Apostles recounted their testimony, both Romans and religious Jews would have published that. I don't think you have a clue as to how much the Apostles were hated.

  Tinian said:

As in nearly all religious literature of that period, narrative and hagiography play a massive role - that doesn't mean that they don't spell out spiritual truths (in fact, some might argue that the narrative genre actually highlights religious truths better than a factual document), but it does mean that a lot of the time we have to take off our historian's hats and accept that we're dealing with a genre in which questions of history are not always relevant. (In fact, Buddhism has a very similar problem with the life of the Buddha in the Pali canon and the extent to which we can unearth a historical Buddha.)

Hey, I agree that most religious literature is a pile of crap. I have stated several times here and elsewhere some of the reasons that I believe the Bible to be historically accurate.

  Tinian said:

This reflects the academic situation in Britain, and I believe in Europe generally. I don't know if it reflects the academic situation in America. Are these the views of cynics? Do you see this as a temporary academic trend (though it's been around for a good couple of decades now and shows no signs of disappearing....)?

From time immemorial, there are people who oppose Jesus. This is built into our souls. We are against God from the inside out. History is filled with authors, particularly in the past two centuries, of men who have sought to destroy the Bible's credibility with their writings. I have many of those books. Many of those men are dead and gone and I bet you do not even know one author's name from this group (I don't, and I have read their books). But we still have the Bible, 2000 years later. These professors you name and the trends you name? The professors will all die. The trends may or may not continue. The Bible will still be here.

Do you know what book was the first book to be translated into another language? The Bible.

A few responses to this.

1) Note that Cecil Adams is solely talking about whether someone called Jesus lived. He's not talking about whether everything in the gospels is historically accurate (which you want it to be). Two very different things. The first is the bare fact of Jesus' existence, the second is all the details about his life and teachings.

2) No need to resort to petty insults about whether I am or am not thinking for myself. You know nothing about me, my background, or my training, and certainly are in no position to claim that I am simply quoting from someone else without thinking about it myself. I sense, as is unfortunately often the case with fundamentalist christians, a deep antipathy against the value of academic thought and analysis (your reference to 'friends in academia' is all too revealing, as is your bizarre claim that simply because people try to analyse the bible intellectually, they are somehow devil-worshippers who want to dismantle God).

3) Narrative does not equal lies. I never said that those who wrote the gospels are liars. Just because something isn't a factual document doesn't make it a lie. Narrative can be a very powerful way of expressing religious truths. You are not considering the fact that biographies about saints were very widespread as a genre - and have been up until the present date. This doesn't make such literature 'a pile of crap' (as you say). In that case, the Life of the Buddha is just idiotic nonsense. You have to consider the role of symbolism, allegory, metaphor, etc. etc. It's not an issue of whether people are 'making things up' - that's too reductionist and simplistic. It's about modes of expression. And there are several ways of expressing 'truth'.

Historical truth is not the only 'truth'. Why are you so worked up about the need for it all to be historically true?

4) The bible was not the first text to be translated into another language. Off the top of my head, the Pali commentaries were meant to have been translated into Sinhalese in the third century B.C.

[scutfargus]

  Tinian said:

  scutfargus said:

Salvation is in Christ; it is free because He paid for our sins; He broke down the barrier between man and God. Other religions require, in many cases, works and a lifetime commitment. Salvation in Christ requires a few seconds of your life. Nothing more than that.

This may be your view. But you have to accept that it is a very extreme Protestant view which does not necessarily reflect the majority of Christian approaches. It is very characteristic of fundamentalist Protestantism to say that a few seconds of faith is all that matters. It's also a big reason why Protestantism has flopped so badly in northern european countries - because a religion that is based on a few seconds of emotional devotion isn't particularly substantial. I don't think there would be many catholic priests who would agree that a few seconds of faith is all that matters - why bother even trying to practice a Christian life then or to ponder the weighty issues that Christianity offers?

Actually, it never much mattered to me if no one agrees or if thousands of people agree; the truth is much more important than a popularity contest.

True Christianity has been in Scotland, Ireland, Spain and England; however, when that was supplanted, the prosperity of those countries went into the toilet. Spain was, at one time, a premier world power, if not the world power. And then it got engulfed by Catholicism and horrid distortions of the truth, and now it is a third rate country--a beautiful country, but 3rd rate.

England was a great Christian nation at one time, and had great prosperity; but, when the government began to stray and to "enforce" Christianity (which no nation should ever do), its prosperity left.

Right now, the US is the center of Christianity, but no telling how long that will last. But I have digressed.

Anyway, the dogmatic views I expressed were always those views of Jesus Christ, and I always quoted, generally without commentary, support for them.

  Tinian said:

It seems that my post about academia hit a raw nerve. Either you can reply to their analysis or you can't. It's no use replying: 'Man is evil. They always try to undermine pure divinity.' As you well know, there is no possible dialogue to be had in that situation. You're simply using absolutist phrases as a form of rhetoric in order to close all possible argument. If all you can say is: rational argument that contradicts my view is simply an expression of degenerate human behaviour, then it really is end of discussion.

No, your post did not hit a raw nerve. I made the mistake of skimming it and not really addressing your question (my bad). I am pretty sure I have answered it point by point. Sometimes, I do have to sleep and eat as well.

[scutfargus]

  CiaranM said:

  scutfargus said:

  CiaranM said:

i would like scutfargus to answer a couple of very simple questions ..

1. does he believe u must be a christian to get to heaven ?

2. does he believe all non-christians go to hell ?

i don't care what god, jesus or the bible says, just two simple answers to two simple questions.

Now, I know you want to go off on some tangent about everyone else who has not heard the gospel, and what about this or that person who hasn't heard. Even though there are answers for that, you have heard. The only person who can make a decision for you is you. Make up any excuse that you want, but you have a choice to make. I can't make that choice for you, I can only make it clear to you what that choice is.

so basically u didn't answer the f**king question. get a life u sad f**ker !!!

C, you always seem so angry. I did answer the question. I guess you skimmed over that part?

[scutfargus]

  khun_lung said:

A god as described in the Bible, Koran, Torah...no.

But each of us has something spiritual inside, if nothing more than to ask, "Why am I the only one who can see through my eyes? I am unique to all other humans on earth because I am ME! And what happens after *I* am the one to die?"

In my view, god comes from within us. He (or she) can be anything we want, but holds the keys to the mysteries of life. Will we ever know, even after death? No one knows.

What most people do is simply make God in their own image and then worship that image--that's what is going on when you worship the "god inside you." That is both self-worship and idolatry.

[scutfargus]

  2unique said:

  scutfargus said:

  2unique said:

This biblical ?evidence? is no more convincing that a man rose from the dead than that Bulwer Lytton was able to write a realistic story about the destruction of Pompeii, 1800 years later. Certainly, if anyone wanted to persuade people of impossible things then they would try not to get elementary things wrong. So, it is with the biblical authors. That they knew some battles and some kings should not easily persuade anyone that the supernatural events in these romances actually happened. Only a gullible fool would believe it. ?Any reasonable man? would remain skeptical.

Just what, as I have asked several times before, is the motivation of the Apostles of Jesus? What did they get out of spreading fables, as many of you to believe?

Control... ?A truth is only a truth in so far that it is accepted by those it is meant to control?

Just who did they control? All of the Apostles died horrible deaths. They were not popular. Jesus was not popular then, and Jesus as He really is, is not popular today.

[matt_berry]

  Quote

? Where is the justice in punishing us for Adam?s sin? The Bible itself says that children will not be punished for the parents? sins (Deuteronomy 24:16).

A person has to repent to be forgivin of sin, but we can't repent for someone else's sin. If we are being punished for Adam's sin then we are doomed.