is there a God?

[scutfargus]

I hate myself for engaging in this debate but I am too weak to resist.

Which came first, the bible or the church?

What is the pillar of truth? (1 Tim. 3:15)

The answer to both of these is the church.

The bible was written as a manual for the early church.- NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA-it was used along with liturgy and orally transmitted Tradition of the church fathers. Of course we are talking about the historical church of the seven ecumenical councils.

In fact until the last 3 to 400 years or so most of people could not get books or even read them. Were they less Christian than fundamentalist neo Christians? I don't think an early Christian of the first 1000 years would even recognize a modern protestant church as a church. It would seem rather bland and to be more of a lecture hall than a place of Bhakti Yoga (devotion to Creator).

I see the bible as metaphor. Its myths are just Christianized Greek mythology. The virgin, the martyr, the Son/Sun God, the Mother of god, etc...

Follow your bliss

We have manuscripts of the Bible older than "the historical church of the seven ecumenical councils." You know there are over 24,000 manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts of the New Testament alone. Oral tradition? Get real. If we have that many today, can you even imagine how many were available then?

However, mythology is based upon fact, which is why some of the mythological legends are so similar. They are not accurate, but they do have some basis in fact. Gen. 6 gives the actual historic account.

[scutfargus]

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?

You present a well-reasoned argument without having to use the f word? You could have knocked me over with a feather, C.

u have never ever presented anything to me that i could recognise as jesus.

You are absolutely correct, because you do not know who Jesus is. You have made Jesus into your own image. Whatever things you believe in, you have, to some degree attributed those things to Jesus.

You seem to forget, that Jesus was so unpopular because of what He said that He was crucified.

all u have given r a stream of quotes and ur view as to what jesus was.

I gave streams of quotes in order to back up what I said. If I am going to present a different Jesus to you, then I should back up what I say, right? I can't help it if you skim over most of what I write.

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.

Let us assume for just an instant that Jesus was a good man, and that is all He was. Would a good man lie about Who He is? Would a good man be condemning people to hell? Would a good man say He is the only way to salvation? Obviously you do not believe that Jesus is God, so that means he is either a liar or he is insane. Those are the only 3 logical alternatives.

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.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with morality. That is what these men taught and societies tend to prosper when they are moral. However, morality does not earn you anything with God.

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.

It is good we can agree on something.

Even though we humans like to arrogantly think that most of what we think is a matter of empiracism or rationalism, most of what we know is actually based upon faith. Our most fundamental values, good, bad, screwed up, accurate, whatever, are a matter of faith. It is estimated that 75-95% of everything we know is based upon faith.

This is the key to a relationship with God. You have to be intelligent to follow a well-reasoned argument; you have to have the right experiences to be able to know things from empiracism. However, everyone has the ability to believe and everyone can choose to believe what they want to believe.

God made certain that salvation was completely free to us. Eph. 2:8-9: For by grace you are saved through faith, and that salvation is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it does not come from works, so that no man should boast.

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 have presented the truth to you dogmatically. I could no more force the truth down your throat than I could wave a magic wand and make you a Christian. Only you can do that, and I have made that clear over and over again. It is a matter of your free will.

What I did notice when I read a few posts that people here would make occasionally references to Jesus and use Him to rubber stamp their own ideas. This is why I have been careful to quote the Bible and to quote Jesus for every assertion that I have made.

Jesus was dogmatic. Again, Jesus made people so mad with the things that He said, he was crucified. I don't think you know that Jesus. Like most people here, I think you know a handful of quotations, often misunderstood, taken out of context, or misapplied, and that is who Jesus is to you. This is how some people can take the quotes "Turn the other cheek" and "You will not kill" and believe that Jesus taught that we should not apply the death penalty.

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 !!

Do you have a clue as to why Jesus was crucified? Do you know how Jews could call out for his crucifixion instead of that of Barabbas, who was a known criminal. Jesus did nothing but heal and teach. But what he taught made people so angry as to want to kill Him. I think you are missing that fact for your view on Jesus.

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.

Over and over again, I have quoted the words of Jesus. Look back at my posts. If you want to call that ranting, then so be it. But don't patronize Jesus by saying He is a good man, and on the other hand say, He rants.

Jesus: "I am the way the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

Joh 14:8 Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us."

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you such a long time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. And how do you say, Show us the Father?"

If you want to spend eternity with Jesus, you'll have to believe in Him. If you don't, then keep thinking that He is just a good man.

[CiaranM]

how do U know jesus rose from the dead ?? any scientific proof of this ? or r u basing this on word of mouth from ohhhhhh 2,000 years ago.

who says jesus is god. can u prove this in any way ??

why don't u piss off to some street corner and preach to the winos and hookers and leave us alone.

there is NO evidence to prove god exists and no evidence to prove that jesus was god. if u want to believe that fine, but quit preaching to us and get a f**king life.

C, you seem so mad all of the time. But, you want evidence, I will give you evidence:

First of all, we have the evidence of 4 eyewitness historians: Matthew, John, Peter, and Paul. Secondly, we have no literature from that time period which disputes the resurrection of Jesus. Christians were hated and martyred in those days, and logic, although it had its heyday a few hundred years previous, was still being practiced. This would have been a perfect opportunity for an ancient historian or an ancient religious type to dispute the resurrection of Jesus. However, even though we have a huge number of documents from that general time period, we have NO ONE from that time period which disputes the claim of the Apostles, that Christ rose from the dead.

Then we have the psychological witness of the Apostles. These Apostles were not known for their bravery. When Jesus Christ was arrested, they all (except for John and Peter) ran off, afraid for their lives. Peter later verbally rejected Christ, and walked off, disgusted with himself.

All of the Apostles died martyr's deaths. Now, you will counter, "Every religion has its martyrs." Not the same thing. These men saw the risen Christ. They were willing to die in the name of Jesus. Do you think these men are all lying about what they saw? Do you think they are all willing to die for what they know is a lie? It does not fit their psychological profile to be willing to die for a cause in the first place; must less for a cause they know to be false. The only other reasonable explanation is, they died for what they knew to be true.

now u claim this answers my questions when it obviously doesn't. it ignores the questions i asked and answered the questions u wish i'd asked. do u notice the use of the term "scientific proof" ?

i also notice u use the vague term "documents from that general time period". well the new testaments didn't surface at their earliest until approximately 100 years after the death of jesus. so the claim that jesus rose from the dead didn't get prominence until 100 years after the event supposedly took place. and plenty have since disputed this claim after it was published.

now when u talk about all the apostles dying martyr's deaths, u claim this proves the validity of their cause and proves they must be right as they were willing to die for what they believed in. funny this seems exactly the same claim the suicide bombers are making in the present day. just proves there aren't islamic extremists, jewish extremists, christian extremists .... they're just f**king extremists !!

[WiCKeDBiRD]

.... yawning

Just woke up...

Errrrr excuse me.... ?

" Is today... errrr.. Sunday morning ??? "

[scutfargus]

? 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?

There are two lines to Jesus Christ, the legal line through Joseph and the bloodline through Mary. If memory serves (and I haven't thought about the Coniah curse for a long long time), the legal line is what we find in Matthew. This is the line of the Coniah curse. It does not reach Jesus, as Joseph was not the father of Jesus.

The line of Mary is found in Luke (she is not mentioned, which is a convention of that time); this line is not the line of Coniah.

Let me ask you two questions: since not 1 out of 10,000 people even know about the Coniah curse and how it relates to the line of Matthew; and even fewer actually care about it, why do you care about it?

Second question: since you have a Roman Catholic background, do you know why we have a virgin birth? There's more to it than just being a fulfilment of a prophecy in Isaiah.

? Why did Jesus, by his own admission, break the Sabbath law (John 5:16-18)? Jesus plainly said that he was working, in violation of the Sabbath law. If he was not really working, then he lied. This refutes the belief that the perfect Jesus fulfilled the whole Law, and therefore was a suitable unblemished sacrifice for our sins.

Jesus broke the Jewish laws about the Sabbath. It has been so long since I took a course in Jewish history, but it seems like the Jews had developed about 600 laws which pertained to keeping the Sabbath. That is what Jesus disobeyed--Jewish ordinances, not OT law.

? How can being mauled by a bear possibly be a just punishment for name-calling (2 Kings 2:23-24)? Doesn?t this contradict God?s own edict of the time: ?an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth?"

I don't know if you have ever been surrounded by a gang of thugs, but that is what was going on here. Even though it does not state what is in their hearts, I think we can reasonably assume that they were going to do more than call Elisha names. Of course, we could attribute it to a natural mauling, but I don't personally believe that is what happened. I think it was just a matter of God protecting His own.

? Why does the church trail rather than lead in social reforms (the rise of capitalism, the rise of the scientific method and critical thinking, the abolition of slavery, the eradication of Nazism, women?s suffrage, the civil rights of African Americans after the abolition of slavery)? And why does the church dishonestly claim leadership in these reforms after the fact?

An interesting question. There is nothing in Scripture indicating that we need to improve society. We face society as it is and present the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is why Paul, even though he was occasionally persecuted by the Roman government, taught that we should obey our governments (the only exception, which Peter gives in the book of Acts, is when the government says we cannot evangelize).

Isn?t it blasphemous to call the Bible ?God?s Word,? when it libels him so? Or is it that God is not a good God, and is laughing up his sleeve at those who think he is despite his confessions to the contrary in His Holy Book.

I don't believe the Bible libels God, so that makes this a difficult question to answer. Maybe if you restated it, I'll take another crack at it.

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Ya MONEY .

awwwwwww my money sweetheart Cutie Pie :shock:

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Well... today is surely Sunday... morning :shock:

Hehehhe..

Well then... better back in bed for a few decent shag-s. 8) :wink:

BRB :arrow:

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Well... today is surely Sunday... morning :shock:

Hehehhe..

Well then... better back in bed for a few decent shag-s. 8) :wink:

BRB :arrow:

May the lord be with u

Thank you... :oops:

so, There is -God- ... afterall 8) :wink:

[WiCKeDBiRD]

and so is the -Toothfairy- 8) :wink:

I have loads of proofs too that she is existing

< for instance... loads of times... there were money under my pillow ... :shock:>

[cs3602001]

and so is the -Toothfairy- 8) :wink:

I have loads of proofs too that she is existing

< for instance... loads of times... there were money under my pillow ... :shock:>

But that money always "appeared" after a night time visitor had departed in the morning??? :twisted:

Back to topic please.

[CiaranM]

Yes I believe there is a GOD. I was born and raised Roman Catholic.

However, Debating about Religion is pointless and endless. Let us just respect each others opinion and their belief. P E A C E .

yes vixen, but even though u think u believe in jesus according to scutfurgas and his ilk u believe in the wrong one (or else don't believe in him properly can't remember which it is). so unless u mend ur ways very quickly indeed u will burn in hell with the rest of us "unbelievers". how about that, even though u believe in god and u believe jesus is the son of god u r still not a proper christain, f**king crazy isn't it !!!

that is what U believe scutfurgas isn't it ??

and is this one question u could just give a yes or no answer to ??

just as an aside vixen it's just a pity some so-called christians couldn't adopt some of ur respect for other ppl's beliefs !!!

[CiaranM]

u have never ever presented anything to me that i could recognise as jesus.

You are absolutely correct, because you do not know who Jesus is. You have made Jesus into your own image. Whatever things you believe in, you have, to some degree attributed those things to Jesus.

You seem to forget, that Jesus was so unpopular because of what He said that He was crucified.

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.

Over and over again, I have quoted the words of Jesus. Look back at my posts. If you want to call that ranting, then so be it. But don't patronize Jesus by saying He is a good man, and on the other hand say, He rants.

Jesus: "I am the way the truth and the life; no man comes to the Father but by Me."

once again ur blinkered arrogance takes my breath away. u believe u know jesus, but the rest of us don't. what enables U to do this ? divine inspiration ?

u r not quoting jesus. u r quoting stuff attributed to jesus. must of it written and documented 100 to 400 years after his death. and please don't patronise me my trying to put words into my mouth. pls show me one instance where i have said jesus rants ?? i find it hard to understand how someone as humble, loving and forgiving as jesus can have followers as despicable and arrogant as urself. as i have said b4 i am sure if jesus came back to earth he would be embarressed by what is being in preached in his name by ppl like U.

[robbie36]

Cieran,

You are wasting your time. You see Scutfargus has 'faith'. And faith is the great cop out - it is a great excuse to evade the need to think, listen to rational argument or evaluate evidence.

People are free to believe what they want but dont ask me to respect those beliefs.

Scartfargus's blind faith and religious fundamentalism is no different from the Muslim martyrs. I cant see how the religious indoctrination that he has been subjected to can be a good thing.

[Sukhumvit_Farang]

Is there a God? The short answer: Obviously not.

The long answer is a bit more complicated (although the conclusion is of course the same):

Throughout history, mankind has sought to explain the unexplainable. Long ago, even the simplest things were mysteries. What causes the sun to rise? It must be the sun god. Or so thought our primitive ancestors. Nowadays we know more about what causes the sun to rise so we look back at earlier sun god worshipers and laugh at their ignorance. As mankind evolves further, the same thing will happen to the current crop of gods: People will look back and laugh at what was worshipped in our times.

So, to sum it up, people invent gods to explain those things that they cannot themselves explain.

Religions develop around these gods in order to give people rules about how to live. Or, more precisely, to give the makers of the rules control over the followers of the rules ? but that?s another matter.

Even though there is no god, there is no real harm in pretending to yourself that there is. If believing in a god makes you a better person, then it can be a good thing.

The problems start, however, when people are not satisfied that THEY have a god of their own. There is something about human nature that makes people feel the need to impose their god on others. My feeling is that this is the result of insecurity. People whose foundation is based on something as shaky as faith find strength in numbers. If they can just convince other people to join the faith, then maybe they are right after all.

And things get even worse when believers even feel justified in using violence to either convert ? or eliminate ? non-believers, or different-believers. (How many atheists go around killing other people for believing in their gods? And what does that say about who is morally superior?)

So, while there is of course no god, that is not the important point. More important is how we live ? and how we treat others ? for whatever reason we choose to do so. And if it takes the belief in a god to make some people feel the need to be nice, then I won?t stand in the way of their beliefs. Just don?t try to convert me to your beliefs just because of YOUR insecurity!

[Loburt]

Cieran,

You are wasting your time.

No he's not. Ciaran likes to fight.

[eagle]

Ya MONEY .

Awww yes the true God of western civilization brought to you by the Goddesss from Manhatton :wink:

[eagle]

There are two lines to Jesus Christ, the legal line through Joseph and the bloodline through Mary.

The line of Mary is found inLuke (she is not mentioned, which is a convention of that time); this line is not the line of Coniah.

If the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary and not Joseph, then why does it list Joseph in the line rather than Mary? Why is no other genealogy of a woman recorded anywhere else in scripture? And if this is Mary?s genealogy, then Jesus descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus?s claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary?s cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?

As to why we have a virgin birth at all I could blithely say that Christianity plagiarizes mythology see the story of Mithras (Persian) and also of Horus (Egyptian). Both shepherds and fisher's of men born of virgin births.

The virgin Birth was a common theme of the time. Seems Virginity ( angels singing ahhhhhhhh) was very important back then. I personall perfer more experience

[scutfargus]

Before I start, Tinian, let me apologize if I said anything to cause you to be offended. You have always been courteous to me and I appreciate that. When I said, "think for yourself" it was not meant as an insult or a dig. You have just indicated that you were listening to your friends in academia and I suggested think about this logically, that is all. I meant nothing more than that.

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.

Although I have answered this, let me restate it. We have 4 eyewitness accounts--people who saw the risen Jesus. We can trust their accounts for several reasons:

1) They are in agreement with one another (their are very minor differences which can usually be ironed out with little difficulty).

2) These accounts do not present the Apostles in a favorable light. This indicates that the Apostles were objective in what they wrote.

3) These Apostles were willing to die for what they either knew to be true or false. Given society's very negative view of Christianity at that time (times don't change much, do they?), they would have had to have all been crazy to die for something they knew was false.

Surely you don't suggest that I worship a Jesus that someone from the 21st century decides to invent? Based upon what? Their vivid imagination? The historical records of Jesus are the gospels; we know He exists from other records, but know very little from those records which give us any kind of insight to Who He was. We only know Who Jesus is from the gospels. So, if someone decides to reject them, then where does he go to find Jesus?

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).

I did not intentionally insult you. I have a lot of respect for you, Tinian. I taught at both a high school and a college. I went to several universities. Now, certainly I have run into great arrogance in these universities, but that is how man is. I run into it here. It is everywhere. That is the nature of man.

Furthermore, I have never denigrated anyone at anytime for examining Scripture critically. What I find most of the time with people is there is no examination at all. A good example of this are those who have said mean things about me, and yet barely skim my posts and do not read the Scripture which I provide to back up what I say.

In so-called Christian seminaries they pretend to examine the Bible critically and come up with the weirdest theories (like the JPED theory). I believe in letting Scripture speak for itself.

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'.

I know I will catch heat for this, but I believe that Satan is the father and/or inspiration of all religion and religious literature falls into that domain.

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

If the writers of Scripture lie about a simple historical fact, then what would they not lie about?

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.

This is roughly the time the OT was translated into Greek. Furthermore, when the Jews were taken out of the land to Assyria, which was later a part of the Persian empire, it would be reasonable to suppose some translating into Aramaic also occurred at that time (as that had become the language of the people as well).

[scutfargus]

On p. 17, both of these individuals make very dogmatic statements, yet, I would venture to say that no one will jump all over them for making these statements. I mention this because, over and over again, I have been told that people attack me for making dogmatic statements.

People attack me because I quote the words of Jesus. People did not like it when Jesus spoke these words 2000 years ago and they do not like it today, even though most everyone here acts as though they think Jesus is great.

Do you know who talked about hell fire more than anyone else in the Bible?

Just take a wild guess.

[scutfargus]

now u claim this answers my questions when it obviously doesn't. it ignores the questions i asked and answered the questions u wish i'd asked. do u notice the use of the term "scientific proof" ?

i also notice u use the vague term "documents from that general time period". well the new testaments didn't surface at their earliest until approximately 100 years after the death of jesus.

We have manuscript fragments which go back as far as 100 years of His death, burial and resurrection. That would indicate that these manuscripts were written considerably earlier (although most historians agree that the gospels were written about 30-40 years after the crucifixion).

so the claim that jesus rose from the dead didn't get prominence until 100 years after the event supposedly took place. and plenty have since disputed this claim after it was published.

The historic records we have by the Apostles all refer to His resurrection. You can act like this was some sort of a conspiracy or act as though someone decided to resurrect an old religion which was despised, but this would not been in keeping with the history that we have.

By the way, we have more historical evidence for the resurrection than any other event in human history from say, 1600 AD and earlier. Most events in history do not even have a fraction of the evidence that we have for the resurrection.

now when u talk about all the apostles dying martyr's deaths, u claim this proves the validity of their cause and proves they must be right as they were willing to die for what they believed in. funny this seems exactly the same claim the suicide bombers are making in the present day. just proves there aren't islamic extremists, jewish extremists, christian extremists .... they're just f**king extremists !!

This tells me that you did not read what I wrote. I explained this point already and made it very clear what the difference was. Do you need me to repeat it for you?

[scutfargus]

There are two lines to Jesus Christ, the legal line through Joseph and the bloodline through Mary.

The line of Mary is found inLuke (she is not mentioned, which is a convention of that time); this line is not the line of Coniah.

If the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary and not Joseph, then why does it list Joseph in the line rather than Mary? Why is no other genealogy of a woman recorded anywhere else in scripture? And if this is Mary?s genealogy, then Jesus descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.

I explained this in that post already. Should I repeat myself?

If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus?s claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary?s cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?

Because that is how genealogies work in the real world. My cousins are descended from American Indians. I have no Indian in me whatsoever. Should I explain that further?

As to why we have a virgin birth at all I could blithely say that Christianity plagiarizes mythology see the story of Mithras (Persian) and also of Horus (Egyptian). Both shepherds and fisher's of men born of virgin births.

Nope, wrong. It's a lot more complex than that.

[scutfargus]

Yes I believe there is a GOD. I was born and raised Roman Catholic.

However, Debating about Religion is pointless and endless. Let us just respect each others opinion and their belief. P E A C E .

yes vixen, but even though u think u believe in jesus according to scutfurgas and his ilk u believe in the wrong one (or else don't believe in him properly can't remember which it is). so unless u mend ur ways very quickly indeed u will burn in hell with the rest of us "unbelievers". how about that, even though u believe in god and u believe jesus is the son of god u r still not a proper christain, f**king crazy isn't it !!!

You prove again and again that you have not read what I have posted. At best you have skimmed over what I have said. I have never said this; in fact, I have said quite the opposite. Is your anger simply because I am a Christian, and it does not really matter what I say, that is enough to belittle me?

just as an aside vixen it's just a pity some so-called christians couldn't adopt some of ur respect for other ppl's beliefs !!!

Again, it is as though you have not read a word of what I have said. You amaze me sometimes. If you are going to dislike my point of view, maybe you should actually read what my point of view is first before making these judgments?

[scutfargus]

once again ur blinkered arrogance takes my breath away. u believe u know jesus, but the rest of us don't. what enables U to do this ? divine inspiration ?

u r not quoting jesus. u r quoting stuff attributed to jesus. must of it written and documented 100 to 400 years after his death. and please don't patronise me my trying to put words into my mouth. pls show me one instance where i have said jesus rants ?? i find it hard to understand how someone as humble, loving and forgiving as jesus can have followers as despicable and arrogant as urself. as i have said b4 i am sure if jesus came back to earth he would be embarressed by what is being in preached in his name by ppl like U.

Why was Jesus crucified, C?

And why are your opinions, 2000 years after the fact, more accurate than the historical documents of His time? I guess rewriting history is the new religion.

[scutfargus]

I was referring to the Bible being a control mechanism for the Christian church.

What Christian church are you talking about? Do you know anything at all about the history of the first 4 centuries following the center of human history?

Just a lil internet factoid?

John faced martyrdom when he was to be boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was "miraculously" delivered from death.

John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos.

The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

Well, if it is on the internet, it must be true.

[scutfargus]

Cieran,

You are wasting your time. You see Scutfargus has 'faith'. And faith is the great cop out - it is a great excuse to evade the need to think, listen to rational argument or evaluate evidence.

I have quoted a great many sources, both secular and nonsecular; and on many occasions. This is what you mean by "evading the need to think"?

People are free to believe what they want but dont ask me to respect those beliefs.

Is this not one of the things I get (wrongfully) castigated for?

Scartfargus's blind faith and religious fundamentalism is no different from the Muslim martyrs. I cant see how the religious indoctrination that he has been subjected to can be a good thing.

I have given you more evidence for what I believe than everyone on this site combined. I have used reason, secular sources, non secular sources; I have answered questions with reason; I have answered arguments with logical arguments. And you call this "blind faith and religious fundamentalism"? It is not difficult to understand how Christians can be persecuted when reading your opinions. Ignore all of the facts, call Christians names and impugne their intellectual integrity. You do exactly what you claim I do. Are you too blind to see that?

Then you group me with Muslim martyrs. I guess you don't need any evidence when it comes to impugning someone else's character, do you?