If the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God, it certainly is extremely foolish to reject its precepts. The recent surge in insistence by certain members of the forum has caused me to pen this essay in an effort to examine the Word of God and “give it a chance to speak to my heart”.
Regardless of whether Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant or not, the ecumenical body of believers asserts that the Bible is useful for instructing the nonbeliever on Christ and the way to God.
The first in a series of evidences used by Christians to uphold this belief is that the Bible “claims to be from God” and usually entails this Scripture:
(2 Tim. 3:16).
Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

We must first ask, does “every scripture” refer to the Bible? A quick reference to the New Testament reveals that neither the canon of the Catholic nor the Protestant Church was being referred to by the writer of 2 Timothy but rather the Jewish scriptures available to him. In doing so, we may now sweep aside this “defense” as utterly useless.

The next proof employed by Christians is the sheer amount of New Testament manuscripts available today. Says Josh McDowell in his book More than A Carpenter, “over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in manuscript authority after the New Testament (48).” The assumption by these apologists is clear: the more manuscripts a text has, the more its “authenticity and general integrity” is established. Without critical review, we may at once dismiss this claim too as invalid for the amount of manuscripts is simply not proportional to the integrity and accuracy of the document.

The third proof we shall examine is the claim that prophecies and miracles described within the Bible prove its validity. Using unproven miracles and vague, metaphorical prophecies to prove the Bible is monstrously circular and dishonest.

Having reviewed the more naive defenses used by apologists we shall turn to the Bible itself for what better evidence of divine origin for a Holy Book than the Holy Book itself?
The internal evidence shows that the New Testament was NOT written by eyewitnesses of Jesus. There are various anachronisms detailed elsewhere on the internet which evince this but I cannot address these here as they are not relevant as such to the topic.
The very fact that Paul and other apostles within the New Testament claim to be under the influence of the Spirit is simply no basis to believe ANY of their claims. Such an arbitrary decision demands that the same rationale be applied to other religious books. Any failure to do so is simply dishonesty.

Other topics to address as time goes on:
Science
Contradictions
Apparent agreement of the Old and New Testaments
----------
The very gist of this essay is: Christians (fanatic or not) base their beliefs one way or another in the claims made by New Testament authors. As the claims of these authors have not been corroborated and often times have been shown to be dubious, it is simply dishonest to accept their claims "hook, line, and sinker" and in the same token reject the doctrines of other religions.

An argument from faith is simply null and void as we would again come to the question of why the Christian believes the claims of the writers simply because they say so.
---------------

This will be updated and revised as time goes on. I challenge all Christians and nonbelievers to take up their swords and poke every hole in this essay as it expands as it is obviously far from perfection and completeness, which we strive for.

Is it possible that everything you have stated is true but that the bible still has more wisdom and knowledge in it on how the average person should live their daily lives (if not taken literally) than all but a handful of other books in the world (from the other ancient religions)? After having discarded it as useless folly at first, I am coming around to this point of view even though I do not believe in a deity of any kind. If nothing else, it is still great literature with several thousand years of hard earned human wisdom thrown in don't you think? I quote Joseph Campbell in a "The Power of Myth" interview on PBS in the states; "The danger is not in using metaphors, the danger is getting stuck inside the metaphors".

I wish that you had the faith that I possess when reading the scriptures! The Word of God is self evident. God is love. What part of 'love' do you not understand! God communicated His love to us Through The Word. God is invisible, God is not seen. God cannot be heard because He has no mouth but ours. God says Of Jesus "This is my son in whom I am well pleased" but you do not hear God in that because your hearts are far away from Him. The Word means nothing to you. If you love 'love' you will delight in these words and 'know' the are from God. In this you will know that Jesus is the Word made flesh that God's nature might be revealed to all. God is for us!
Look, if God says "Dont do this and that" you become scornful and say "I am not doing what any old God tells me to do! Who is he anyway?". You do not realise that you are like petulant children. But God is patient with you as any good father is, waiting for you to see the error of your ways because He knows that His motives are to protect His children as any Good father might. Jesus said "If your son asks you for a fish, even as evil as you father's are, which one among you would give him a snake?". Please know The Word. It is life unto you. In it you are saved and receive eternal life because The Word promises this. Jesus said "Whoever believes in me has eternal life". Listen to The Word. It is Good. Very Good News!

peace

c20

yes poor player agreed, it does contains some wisdom/knowledge, but no more than any ancient book for example the qu-ran, vedas, Tipitaka, easops fables, arabian knights, there are countless others, and they all contain wisdom/knowledge.

so why trust only in one.

and welcome to sciforums, incidently I am an atheist.

Let's examine the spirit that says "A Final Proof Against Christianity".
It is the spirit of the antichrist since Christianity is about the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ.
But let us discern the authors motives. The author of the thread is unsure but would much rather there be no judgement against Him from some God who just likes to kill people for fun. The author does not consider that God is worthy to judge him in such a fashion and so sets out to prove that the God of the Christians is false. The whole basis for the argument is based on fear of God's anger which causes the author of the thread to try and bury the truth of the message of salvation. It is the Christian's lot to stand before God exposed and naked as the day you were born and confess to the sins you have commited. We Christians stand there and do this trusting in our heart that our Heavenly Father will forgive us. Even those with unforgiving human parents such as myself believe that God Himself is a Heavenly father who knows that I must be restored after I have humbled myself before Him. Even though my lifes witness does not currently see God's love in my parents over the matter of restoration, I do hold faith that their hearts will one day be turned towards me in love. If God has made their hearts hard until they die then so be it, but I will still know that God restores me through Jesus Christ whose blood was payment for anything that I may have done. In this I know that Jesus would always intercede on my behalf and if I have the Son, I have the Father also.
God's mercy is infinately greater than His anger. He requires you to stand boldly before him. A son can do this with his father independantly of what he has done. Read the parable of the Prodigal Son for a greater understanding of God's love for you.

Thanks

c20

§outh§tar, it is off topic but may I ask what you think of the trinity?

:m:

The very gist of this essay is: Christians (fanatic or not) base their beliefs one way or another in the claims made by New Testament authors. As the claims of these authors have not been corroborated and often times have been shown to be dubious, it is simply dishonest to accept their claims "hook, line, and sinker" and in the same token reject the doctrines of other religions.

An argument from faith is simply null and void as we would again come to the question of why the Christian believes the claims of the writers simply because they say so.
Interesting. Not corroborated? Isn't this a self-defeating statement? Corroborated means more than one witness... yet there are four gospels? The NT is not one book, but rather a compendium of many books by many authors. I will confess that some authors get more attention than others, but as long as more than one author's views are represented, doesn't that constitute corroboration?

The gospels are four separate accounts by four separate men of the events in question. While they do not contain the same details, they do paint the same basic picture of the same Jesus, from four points of view. Even if, as has been suggested, Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material, the details are still different, and they simply reinforce the pervading belief of the times. John, on the other hand, gives an entirely different point of view, which does not, in substance, disagree with the other three. Not corroborated?

yes david, just like a game of chinese whispers.

The purpose of this thread is for input for and against the essay to be provided and in doing so, for the essay to expand and incorporate these various viewpoints so go ahead and ask all you want - the essay can become all-inclusive.

David F.
That Matthew and especially Luke copied almost verbatim from Mark at times and that even in doing so, they at times contradict each other is evidence that this is no "corroboration". Furthermore, as I stated originally, the very fact that they were not eyewitnesses to any of the events they "record" coupled with what you just pointed out, that they all give their "point of view", shows as I have said earlier a) they were biased in their representations b) they were at least a generation removed from these events and were NOT eyewitnesses and therefore cannot be given the benefit of the doubt without being shamefully arbitrary. This means that taking their word on their "point of view" of who Jesus actually was is extremely naieve since they had not even met Jesus.

Let's examine the spirit that says "A Final Proof Against Christianity".
It is the spirit of the antichrist since Christianity is about the Good News of salvation through Jesus Christ.
But let us discern the authors motives. The author of the thread is unsure but would much rather there be no judgement against Him from some God who just likes to kill people for fun. The author does not consider that God is worthy to judge him in such a fashion and so sets out to prove that the God of the Christians is false. The whole basis for the argument is based on fear of God's anger which causes the author of the thread to try and bury the truth of the message of salvation. It is the Christian's lot to stand before God exposed and naked as the day you were born and confess to the sins you have commited. We Christians stand there and do this trusting in our heart that our Heavenly Father will forgive us. Even those with unforgiving human parents such as myself believe that God Himself is a Heavenly father who knows that I must be restored after I have humbled myself before Him. Even though my lifes witness does not currently see God's love in my parents over the matter of restoration, I do hold faith that their hearts will one day be turned towards me in love. If God has made their hearts hard until they die then so be it, but I will still know that God restores me through Jesus Christ whose blood was payment for anything that I may have done. In this I know that Jesus would always intercede on my behalf and if I have the Son, I have the Father also.
God's mercy is infinately greater than His anger. He requires you to stand boldly before him. A son can do this with his father independantly of what he has done. Read the parable of the Prodigal Son for a greater understanding of God's love for you.

Thanks

c20

Instead of a psychoanalysis we would appreciate more relevant input sir.

Is it possible that everything you have stated is true but that the bible still has more wisdom and knowledge in it on how the average person should live their daily lives (if not taken literally) than all but a handful of other books in the world (from the other ancient religions)? After having discarded it as useless folly at first, I am coming around to this point of view even though I do not believe in a deity of any kind. If nothing else, it is still great literature with several thousand years of hard earned human wisdom thrown in don't you think? I quote Joseph Campbell in a "The Power of Myth" interview on PBS in the states; "The danger is not in using metaphors, the danger is getting stuck inside the metaphors".

Yes, I do agree, but as the title says, this is directed to Christians especially and their interpretations. Obviously Christians do not observe the bible as merely a book of "wisdom and knowledge", as I say in the first paragraph, and therefore it is necessary to inquire whether their faith and fundamental beliefs is sound.

§outh§tar, it is off topic but may I ask what you think of the trinity?

:m:

You either believe it or you don't. Whether it is at all relevant to a person's salvation I don't know, and if not, then who cares whether or not there is a Trinity.

I don't think however that how we see the Trinity is how the twelve saw the Godhead.

Interesting. Not corroborated? Isn't this a self-defeating statement? Corroborated means more than one witness... yet there are four gospels? The NT is not one book, but rather a compendium of many books by many authors. I will confess that some authors get more attention than others, but as long as more than one author's views are represented, doesn't that constitute corroboration?

The gospels are four separate accounts by four separate men of the events in question. While they do not contain the same details, they do paint the same basic picture of the same Jesus, from four points of view. Even if, as has been suggested, Matthew and Luke used Mark as source material, the details are still different, and they simply reinforce the pervading belief of the times. John, on the other hand, gives an entirely different point of view, which does not, in substance, disagree with the other three. Not corroborated?

As SouthStar mentioned, "Matthew" and "Luke" seem to copy sometimes word per word or just about the Gospel of "Mark". There's no real proof that "John" was an eyewitness. The P52 fragment MIGHT be a fragment of the gospel of John (and if it is, it's very small and can't really be used to prove the entire text of John), or it could have been a fragment from another gospel which "John" used, or it could have (from my understanding) even have been a gospel similar to or actually the gospel of Nicodemus. And, P52's dating isn't conclusive. It could be as late as 195 CE.

Regardless, from my understanding, there were supposedly ancient references to Apollonius of Tyana's miracles, one of which you can still read today, written by Philostratus. Christians have a history of burning books. This is not to say that the early opponents of Christianity wouldn't have done the same thing though. You either have to say the miracles occurred, or didn't. If they did, from what source? Good or evil or "miracles from nature"? If you say from evil, why should we believe that Jesus' miracles weren't from an evil source?

I think you should target your essay to those who take the bible literally in its entirety and state it clearly up front. There are "Christian" denominations and just independent people who do not at all take it that way. For example, many Christians believe Jesus was a great teacher and moral man but that the fanatical elements in church history have embellished a great deal on his life and written falsehoods about what he said and did into the bible. Many Christians do not believe it to be the inspired word of god in its entirety and recognize that human politics have factored in heavily to the choice of the canon. Many don't even believe in hell or salvation. But they will still say they are Christians and are inspired by its metaphors. They just have not allowed themselves to get trapped inside them. They are greatly comforted by their faith and it has added a lot of value to their lives or in some cases saved them. Many of these Christians do not even oppose science or evolution in any way. Creationists and/or fundamentalists on the other hand are a horse of a different color altogether. Sure, they will make the absurd claim that these people are not "true" Christians but we shouldn't allow ourselves to make the same mistake. We should respect the differences.

If the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God,
its not,
it has too many contradictions and inconsistencies to be a word of PERFECT being!
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

I wish that you had the faith that I possess when reading the scriptures! The Word of God is self evident.
word of god,huh?no thnx
www.evilbible.com/

God is love.
wrong
love is an emotion.

God is a imaginary being ;)
God is invisible, God is not seen. God cannot be heard because He has no mouth but ours.
that is true,
but then you contradict yourself with

God says Of Jesus "This is my son in whom I am well pleased"

but you do not hear God in that because your hearts are far away from Him.
if God was Creator of ALL wouldnt you think WE would be part of God then?
how could our hearts,be separate from god/creator?
(btw whoever uses their HEARTS to hear??? :rolleyes:

But God is patient with you as any good father is, waiting for you to see the error of your ways because He knows that
god as defined by the bible cannot exist
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/index.html

His motives are to protect His children as any Good father might.
is that why he kills millions of them in huricanes,floods,starvation,sicknesses and so on all the time?
Please know The Word. It is life unto you. In it you are saved and receive eternal life because The Word promises this. Jesus said "Whoever believes in me has eternal life".
souls,spirits,afterlife its all just a wishfull thinking,invented by primitive people long time ago before science showed us what we are made of
www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html

I think you should target your essay to those who take the bible literally in its entirety and state it clearly up front. There are "Christian" denominations and just independent people who do not at all take it that way. For example, many Christians believe Jesus was a great teacher and moral man but that the fanatical elements in church history have embellished a great deal on his life and written falsehoods about what he said and did into the bible. Many Christians do not believe it to be the inspired word of god in its entirety and recognize that human politics have factored in heavily to the choice of the canon. Many don't even believe in hell or salvation. But they will still say they are Christians and are inspired by its metaphors. They just have not allowed themselves to get trapped inside them. They are greatly comforted by their faith and it has added a lot of value to their lives or in some cases saved them. Many of these Christians do not even oppose science or evolution in any way. Creationists and/or fundamentalists on the other hand are a horse of a different color altogether. Sure, they will make the absurd claim that these people are not "true" Christians but we shouldn't allow ourselves to make the same mistake. We should respect the differences.

I do understand that, which is why I added:

Regardless of whether Christians consider the Bible to be inerrant or not, the ecumenical body of believers asserts that the Bible is useful for instructing the nonbeliever on Christ and the way to God.

Regardless of whether they take every part of it or not, if there is at all any sound basis for their faith in the Gospel accounts and NT promises should we not inquire of their faith to see if it sound? Even if a Christian only takes the part about Jesus Deity, we must know why they decide that writers who were not even eyewitnesses by about 40 years are telling the unbiased and "Gospel" truth.

If the Bible truly is the inspired Word of God, it certainly is extremely foolish to reject its precepts.

You either believe it or you don't. Whether it is at all relevant to a person's salvation I don't know, and if not, then who cares whether or not there is a Trinity.

I don't think however that how we see the Trinity is how the twelve saw the Godhead.

thx,

:m:

What I'm saying is that if all many Christians believe in is that Christ was a great human being and nothing more or less (a moral teacher), that God is an undefinable spirit unknowable in a truly personal way, and that the bible is almost completely allegorical, then why attempt to attack their esteem for the bible as an inspirational book at all. Altough you attempted to address it you are still lumping their faith together with the fundamentalists who are completely on the other end of the spectrum.

Are you not attacking the faith of both groups even though they really have no commonality other than in name? I happen to believe that a large percentage of Christians would agree with everything you have said so far in your essay. So how does that disprove Christianity? I think you strengthen the power of your argument if you narrow your target to those Christians who......fill in the blank. Showing that the bible is full of falsehoods and contradictions does nothing to disprove Christianity as a whole because it is simply too diverse in its varieties of traditions and dogma.

What I'm saying is that if all many Christians believe in is that Christ was a great human being and nothing more or less (a moral teacher), that God is an undefinable spirit unknowable in a truly personal way, and that the bible is almost completely allegorical, then why attempt to attack their esteem for the bible as an inspirational book at all. Altough you attempted to address it you are still lumping their faith together with the fundamentalists who are completely on the other end of the spectrum.

Are you not attacking the faith of both groups even though they really have no commonality other than in name? I happen to believe that a large percentage of Christians would agree with everything you have said so far in your essay. So how does that disprove Christianity? I think you strengthen the power of your argument if you narrow your target to those Christians who......fill in the blank. Showing that the bible is full of falsehoods and contradictions does nothing to disprove Christianity as a whole because it is simply too diverse in its varieties of traditions and dogma.

May I at least define what a christian is please. I am one therefore am in a fairly good place to be able to tell you what it means. If we do not understand the Christian mind then we are going to be full of 'ifs' and 'buts'. Once we come to understand the Christian mind it may be easier for atheists to write their essays.

The Christian mind was not always a Christian mind. Once the Christian was the atheist, not believing in God, nor the supernatural but only considering his own life and the lives of others around them. Being that the atheist mind sees itself as answerable to no one but their fellow man, the atheist concludes that "eye for an eye" is at least fair given that there is no God.
The atheist is often condemned as someone who does not know how to show love by the Christian types because the atheist rejects God whom Christians say is love. This is obviously nonsense for the atheist knows how to show love as much as the next man. In fact the Christian argument looks incredibly elitist and devalues the message to an extent where the athiest feels even more justified in his unbelief.
Now what turned a once atheist into Christian? And why since becoming a Christian does the Christian become so holier than thou? Surely this only serves to make the bible look like a pack of lies? I agree.
I remember giving up cigarettes once. It nearly killed me. Every day I was stressed but as time went on I thought to myself, "I am not doing (giving up) for no good reason, I am doing it to become well!". I became incredibly proud of myself and everytime I saw a smoker I would think "Come on you sucker! Can't you give up as I have???". I would even say to the smoker ( I had only given up for 3 weeks myself) "That's a well disgusting habit. You should pack that in you know!". The smoker would look at me as if I had just spat on him. In fact he looked exactly like I used to look when pious idiot quitters would say that to me when I had a ciggie in my face. It made me think though "Just because I have quit, should I be so 'in your face' with others?" but then I thought "I am only trying to get him to feel the benefits that I now feel i.e. free of that thing that had me enslaved to it" but then I thought "Ah it's his choice. I have said my piece. It is his choice" but then I thought "Perhaps he enjoys smoking! I know I certainly used to!" but then I thought "Well why the hell did I give up then?" and then I thought "Because I would be healthier".
This gnawed at me and gnawed at me. I seemed like such a terrible hypocrite. It stressed me out so much that I suddenly needed a cigarette more than anything else in the world. I felt all kinds of guilt for wanting a cigarette and yet it was the guilt that was preventing me from buying a pack. I suffered and suffered, craving a ciggie soooo very badly but was completly powerless to buy one such was my guilt. One day I was with a group of friends. This particular group of friends knew that I was trying to quit and were not taunting me. Secretly they were envious because they had often expresed an interest to give up but they were good friends and were not going to put pressure on me to smoke one of theirs. However I found myself becoming furious inside that they could not see my pain and offer me a cigarette to help me. Eventually one of my very close friends turned to me and said "Are you alright?"
I blurted out "No I'm not bloody alright. I need a ciggie!!!"
"Should have just asked then stupid" said my friend as he handed me one.
As I smoked that cigarette I kid you not, it had been a terrible hot day but the moment the nicoteen hit my system, I felt free of all of my worries and again no word of a lie, call it coincidence if you like, the sky grew dark and the heavens opened and it rained. I lay down on a grassy bank protecting my ciggie from the rain and got soaked, absolutely soaked but still that little cigarette didnt go out. I am still a smoker today. The cigarette proved to be both my saviour and my tormentor.
It was no different when I became a Christian. I had not done anything marvellous. In fact I was very cynical as I stood there and said "Allright Jesus, if you are there, come on m8, why dont you show me yourself!"
Now this was the bit that blew my head off! He did! At this point I can feel that some of you may have already switched off saying to yourselves "Ok youve led us in with a false sense of security and now you are going to preach Jeeeezzzzzzzuuuuuussss... blah blah blah blah"
But wait! All I am saying is that I asked Him to show me who He was and He did! I knew nothing about the bible when I asked Him. Nothing at all and yet my mind and body was filled with the most glorious ideas of Him. The most wonderful mysteries were revealed to me. Things that were not of this earth. For example I had the strongest sensation of being washed in blood. An idea that would seem so putrifying to me became the most wonderful mystery. As I was being washed (spiritually speaking) I realised that I was incredibly dirty inside and that which was washing me hated to see me so dirty inside. It was like a mother taking a wet cloth to her childs face after she had pigged out on candy floss. I have never felt so much pure love in my entire life.
I felt that I was free of the dirt inside and I felt clean and holy. I was ecstatic with joy. God was real, by Jesus God was real and wasnt just some fantasy of man. I cannot begin to explain the emotions that waved through me. God was much much much much bigger than I had ever even concieved in my moments as an atheist when I had dared to entertain such a possibility. I thought that God was just kind of neutral in those moments. That there was no purpose to God if He existed at all. Now I knew conclusively that His purpose was infinately more complex than I could have ever concieved of.
Yep you guessed it, I went out shouting the name of Jesus from the top of my lungs to everyone I met. I went to work praising God in tongues much to the disquiet of my startled collegues. I started preaching to absolutely everyone and completly forgot about myself. My head was full of the wonders of God and everything else was utterly utterly futile.
I lost my job. People declared me insane and I was sectioned under Twenty Eight Day Section 2 of the mental health act. This was incredibly hard for me and was such a huge test of my new found faith. I could not deny the things that I had been made known to me. Each of the things made sense to my inner being and my inner being delighted in the things it had been shown but the world was not for me it seemed. I could not believe that God would allow me to be sectioned for God's sake! I was a physicist, a chemist, an economist, a mathematician, a scholar and a damned good one. I was a programmer for Christ's sake! I had been programming since I was seven years old and had always had wonderful jobs! WTF was I in a mental home! Put in there for believing in God! It was so unfair! Why would God do this to me? I didnt feel insane at all, this was other peoples perceptions, not mine! What right did they have to section me, tell me I was a danger to society?
I had no where to turn to. Christian friends of my parents visited me but they were not helpful, I had upset my parents and that was not good. They hoped I would see the light! Can you imagine how upsetting that was!!!
All this time though I had conviction that the God who had revealed Himself to me was never far away. I prayed to Him to help me.
The day came for me to be tested by the doctor to see if I was now in my right mind before releasing me from the authority that kept me under Section.
He only asked one question which was "Tell me *my name*, who is in control?", this was a complete head fuc* for me because naturally I wanted to say "God is you fools! Why have you kept me here? You will all be punished for what you have done to me!!!" but instead I said meekly "I am".
"That's fine" said the doctor, "You may collect your things and go"
I should add that this scenario repeated itself another 3 times before I learnt to walk more humbly with my God.
God is good. I am just a man. I am just a man that needs a cigarette, needs toilet paper, needs warmth, needs affection and love.
God reminds me that I have to wash the inside of my glasses on a daily basis and that I am no different to that glass. He says "Just as I make sure that the glass is always fit for use before I pour a drink to put to my lips, so does He and that I cannot say because I have washed a glass out once that it is always clean because once the drink is drunk, it will need cleaning again."
But I will say this, Jesus is my brother. I understand His suffering because I too have suffered greatly for proclaiming the greatness of God. You cannot blame me for defending one I am not afraid to call my brother.
There are many mysteries contained in the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ but to see them a seed of faith must exist. Once that seed is planted though I cannot begin to tell you how huge the tree grows and how many birds take shelter in it.

peace

c20

I've heard stories similar to this before, and they all come down to the same very basic principle:

When you turn religious and start believing in god/jesus... life becomes one of abject misery and hardship.

The very first word uttered by the religious is "suffering", and then in the very same sentence declare that their god is one of love.

Why do you think the religious seem to suffer so badly, while myself and every atheist I know live perfectly fine lives?

I guess it's in the mentality of the religious. You all set yourselves up for turmoil and hardship, thinking inside that god is testing you and that suffering is important - but it wont matter in the long run because eventually you'll get to life number 2, and all will be well.

In fact I was very cynical as I stood there and said "Allright Jesus, if you are there, come on m8, why dont you show me yourself!"


Tell me then, if we all sit here cynical and say the same thing, when nobody ever responds what would you claim is the reason? Why would jesus answer one and ignore the other?

What is the purpose of a test? To prove to the teacher where you're at, or to show yourself where you're at?

What I'm saying is that if all many Christians believe in is that Christ was a great human being and nothing more or less (a moral teacher), that God is an undefinable spirit unknowable in a truly personal way, and that the bible is almost completely allegorical, then why attempt to attack their esteem for the bible as an inspirational book at all. Altough you attempted to address it you are still lumping their faith together with the fundamentalists who are completely on the other end of the spectrum.

If they did they wouldn't be a Christian by any means I know.. there are people who say Jesus was a great teacher and no more no less but don't consider themseves Christians. Hence my thread on the trilemma, where C.S. Lewis argues that the Bible does not allow for such an interpretation.

Are you not attacking the faith of both groups even though they really have no commonality other than in name? I happen to believe that a large percentage of Christians would agree with everything you have said so far in your essay. So how does that disprove Christianity? I think you strengthen the power of your argument if you narrow your target to those Christians who......fill in the blank. Showing that the bible is full of falsehoods and contradictions does nothing to disprove Christianity as a whole because it is simply too diverse in its varieties of traditions and dogma.

Whell I'm not focusing actually on contradictions or falsehoods; that has been done before. I'm focusing on whether or not the Bible can be depended upon for making a religious decision (which gives the thread a more general scope). I do agree that it is naieve to put all under the same umbrella and maybe this is instead addressed to 'orthodox' Christians.

I've heard stories similar to this before, and they all come down to the same very basic principle:

When you turn religious and start believing in god/jesus... life becomes one of abject misery and hardship.

The very first word uttered by the religious is "suffering", and then in the very same sentence declare that their god is one of love.

Why do you think the religious seem to suffer so badly, while myself and every atheist I know live perfectly fine lives?

I guess it's in the mentality of the religious. You all set yourselves up for turmoil and hardship, thinking inside that god is testing you and that suffering is important - but it wont matter in the long run because eventually you'll get to life number 2, and all will be well.



Tell me then, if we all sit here cynical and say the same thing, when nobody ever responds what would you claim is the reason? Why would jesus answer one and ignore the other?

You ask some good questions between the lines and I will attempt to answer them.

Firstly - no one likes to suffer. Trust me m8, I would love to play Soul Calibur 2 all day with my friend and be fed cheeseburgers and coke by voluptuous concubines who wipe the corners of my mouth for me and ask "Is there anything else I can do for you sir?"
But that ^^ is fantasy not reality. In reality I get to play Soul Calibur 2 with my mate for about 2 hours a night before he has to go home to his wife and kids, getting ready for work the next day etc etc. My wife prepare a meal or maybe I will turn my hand to something or maybe we go out for food.
Then I have to go to work. Reality isn't at all harsh and really is the proper way to deliver what I may call my fantasies.
So what of suffering? Do you see a person inside me who like to suffer? No of course you do not - you see someone like yourself.
Why then am I subjected to suffering?

Well let's begin with my first wife. She was a lover of money. I was a means to an end for her. She did not love me but rather made a good pretence of it because I had a nice car and obviously had the ability to keep her in the lifestyle she had become accustomed to by being a stripper. We met through our parents. Her mum asked my mum if I could help her get off 'coke'. Now I am not a lover of anything which produces a feeling of constant dependancy and have researched street drugs quite extensively. I was honored to be asked to help. I made friends with this girl very quickly and I fell in love with her. I turned her pain into love just by loving her. Out of the misery I saw a beautiful thing emerge and after some time I asked her to marry me. She said 'yes'. We were married and had a daughter. I worked very hard despite having been in a terrible car accident in which I nearly lost my life. Technically I think I could have taken welfare checks all of my days but this was not my will for my family so I got my butt out to work and slaved 7 days a week to ensure I got a full time contract at the company I was working for ( It was a pharmaceutical manufacturers ironically). We never had enough money. My wife always wanted new things and I was always letting her down in her eyes. She wouldn't sleep with me nor take any interest in me such was her displeasure at not being able to have all the things she desired. I worked harder and harder, doing longer and longer hours sometimes working 22 hours straight through.
The day I got my contract she threw me out. Some time later she confessed she was sleeping with someone I called a friend. She then told my family terrible lies about me and turned them all against me. She turned my own daughter against me. She turned my best friend against me. I was completely alone in what I can only be described as hell. In that place I thirsted for love like I have never thirsted before. My faith was being tested but certainly not by God! God doesn't do the testing. It's important to know that.
Anyway, now my daughter is gone, my parents hate me and friends still mutter something about me deserving it when they see me.
Thank God for my new wife! She is everything my first wife wasn't. When we met it was like the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle fitted together. She didn't care about money, she just wanted to have a little fun and so we spent many hours playing SNES street fighter and throwing food at eachother absolutely content in eachothers company. I had been through so much that I couldnt face a job with complex responsibilities and so became a road sweeper in one of the dirtiest towns in the country. I tell you this... I was never happier. There were times when we had no money at all. No food, no cigarettes, no nothing but we coped even going round picking up cigarette butts off the ground at 3am trying to trip eachother up for fun as we did.
I went from being the most worried person in the world to the most carefree person in the world but still nothing could eradficate the stain left on my soul from all the suffering. I badly (and still do) lament the love of my parents who are now lost to me, I badly desire to be with my daughter where she is that I may hold her and tell her that daddy isnt the bad man that her mum made him out to be, I wish that the car accident hadn't left 2.5 lbs of scar tissue along my spine from multiple whiplash. I can wish and wish and wish but I cannot change a thing. I dont rejoice in my suffering although I can see how these things produce a spirit of endurance and it is that spirit of endurance that serves to build my character.
It is hardly suprising therefore that we see Jesus as the most talked about character today! Whether you love him or hate him, whether you call Him friend or enemy, you cannot deny that His name is known by millions. Now history has produced many great kings but none are remembered as Jesus is remembered.
People blame Jesus or God for their suffering but it is other people who actually cause the suffering because of their love of money or selfish interests. Look at all the evil in the world and tell me what you see as the root cause? Now I hear you say but look at what God does throughout the old testament, He even turns one woman to a pillar of salt because she didnt give to the church what she could have given. I tell you the truth, it is for the love of the world that God does these things. It is because He has a plan for the world He has made. I just love the whole tower of babel story and please bear in mind that I am not a biblical scholar and so have to paraphrase a bit but...
We see men making these towers as high as they can so they can reach the heavens. They labour away making these huge constructions and then God comes and says "Oh no! Look, soon they will be able to do whatever they like"
so God busts up the towers and splits the men up and gives each a new language so as to confuse them in their joint purpose.
Now one could argue that God was just being a nightmare... why not let the little men build their towers? Why is God such a power tripper? Well God said "Oh no! Soon they will be able to do whatever they like"
God saw the little men as children who were slaving away to build something that was absolutely useless to them if they truly wanted to reach Heaven. God had a much better plan for them. The little men had forgotten God is in Heaven and that God had made them and that their labours were in vein because if they just turned their hearts to Him, he would reveal the Kingdom of Heaven to them. So He made them lose their sense of purpose so that they would become frustrated and try and seek what they were looking for elsewhere. God is like this. He subjects us all to terrible frustrations (different from being tested personally by some enemy) so that we have no place else to look but to Him. God is insanely jealous for your love. I cannot begin to describe that jealousy but it is like a mother bird jealously defending her young from the predator that would devour them. The difference is that God is way at the top of the food chain, in fact He is the first link in it and the last link in it. He is All In All - the alpha and the omega.
As for your assertion that Jesus must only listen to some and not others, I can testify that this is not true. Jesus Himself said "Whoever believes in me will not perish but will receive eternal life" << The Word in His mouth was God's good word. God's promise! The spirit of The Word is a true spirit. You see the battles we witness and indeed take part in are not of flesh and blood but of spirit. The Word of God is Light that banishes all false spirits that are antichrist because they must flee from the light. God is the Light and from God does the Light Shine. If you have said in your heart "I dont know what is what Jesus but I am willing to put my doubts at your doorstep if you will reveal yourself to me" - well, if you do this with just a tiny bit of faith that you will be heard, well you have my absolute guarentee of eternal life because God promised. I will hold God to account if He fails to keep His word to you. But understand something that Jesus said, He said "Dont be suprised if the world hates you because of me". He said this because he knows that mankind likes to live in the darkness where they think that their deeds cannot be seen. Once you have accepted Jesus you are quite literally born again, a brand new creation that shines just as brightly as the sun. You may not realise it at first but the Holy Spirit will be at work within you making you ready for your first spiritual milk. My frustration here is that I know that the things you reject are the very things you desire. You become much more than conquerors in Christ. You become like great spiritual heros who live not for the flesh but for the spirit. The Holy Spirit would work such miracles among you because you are so bright and full of eagerness. God is such a good master and the sword He gives you has power's that no video game could hope to mirror.
One mustard seed of faith. The seed costs you nothing and yet the fruit from it lasts forever.

peace

c20

I think using "orthodox Christianity" is a good solution. I do think you could find many examples of Christian groups who don't believe in the orthodox traditions. I found a quick example through Google of what I'm talking about in the FAQ answers below found on www.uua.org . I don't know any of these people but I love their refusal to conform with pre-conceived notions of all of the traditional religions. Their answer to the last question about whether UUs are Christians is priceless: Yes AND No! Here it is:

What about Jesus?

Classically, Unitarian Universalist Christians have understood Jesus as a savior because he was a God-filled human being, not a supernatural being. He was, and still is for many UUs, an exemplar, one who has shown the way of redemptive love, in whose spirit anyone may live generously and abundantly. Among us, Jesus' very human life and teaching have been understood as products of, and in line with, the great Jewish tradition of prophets and teachers. He neither broke with that tradition nor superseded it.

Many of us honor Jesus, and many of us honor other master teachers of past or present generations, like Moses or the Buddha. As a result, mixed-tradition families may find common ground in the UU fellowship without compromising other loyalties.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And about the Bible?

In most of our congregations, our children learn Bible stories as a part of their church school curricula. It is not unusual to find adult study groups in the churches, or in workshops at summer camps and conferences, focusing on the Bible. Allusions to biblical symbols and events are frequent in our sermons. In most of our congregations, the Bible is read as any other sacred text might be-from time to time, but not routinely.

We have especially cherished the prophetic books of the Bible. Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and other prophets dared to speak critical words of love to the powerful, calling for justice for the oppressed. Many Unitarian and Universalist social reformers have been inspired by the biblical prophets. We hallow the names of Unitarian and Universalist prophets: Joseph Tuckerman, Dorothea Dix, Clara Barton, Theodore Parker, Susan B. Anthony, and many others.

We do not, however, hold the Bible-or any other account of human experience-to be either an infallible guide or the exclusive source of truth. Much biblical material is mythical or legendary. Not that it should be discarded for that reason! Rather, it should be treasured for what it is. We believe that we should read the Bible as we read other books (or the newspaper)-with imagination and a critical eye.

We also respect the sacred literature of other religions. Contemporary works of science, art, and social commentary are valued as well. We hold, in the words of an old liberal formulation, that "revelation is not sealed." Unitarian Universalists aspire to truth as wide as the world-we look to find truth anywhere, universally.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do UUs understand salvation?

The English word salvation derives from the Latin salus, meaning health. Unitarian Universalists are as concerned with salvation, in the sense of spiritual health or wholeness, as any other religious people.

However, in many Western churches, salvation has come to be associated with a specific set of beliefs or a spiritual transformation of a very limited type.

Among Unitarian Universalists, instead of salvation you will hear of our yearning for, and our experience of, personal growth, increased wisdom, strength of character, and gifts of insight, understanding, inner and outer peace, courage, patience, and compassion. The ways in which these things come to, change, and heal us, are many indeed. We seek and celebrate them in our worship.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are Unitarian Universalists Christian?

Yes and no.

Yes, some Unitarian Universalists are Christian. Personal encounter with the spirit of Jesus as the christ richly informs their religious lives.

No, Unitarian Universalists are not Christian, if by Christian you mean those who think that acceptance of any creedal belief whatsoever is necessary for salvation. Unitarian Universalist Christians are considered heretics by those orthodox Christians who claim none but Christians are "saved." (Fortunately, not all the orthodox make that claim.)

Yes, Unitarian Universalists are Christian in the sense that both Unitarian and Universalist history are part of Christian history. Our core principles and practices were first articulated and established by liberal Christians.

Some Unitarian Universalists are not Christian. For though they may acknowledge the Christian history of our faith, Christian stories and symbols are no longer primary for them. They draw their personal faith from many sources: nature, intuition, other cultures, science, civil liberation movements, and so on.

Southstar,

Just a quick one.
We haven't spoken to each other much, but i do remember you being convinced that 'Jesus' and 'God' were one and the same person, despite there being no biblical evidence (the very source of your belief) to support this claim.
You wouldn't even accept the testimony from Jesus himself, not to mention other biblical evidences.

Irregardless of whether you believe or not, the existence of (Biblical) God, how can you be sure you are not making the same blockheaded mistakes, but only this time in the atheist camp?

Jan Ardena.

c20H25N3o: One mustard seed of faith. The seed costs you nothing and yet the fruit from it lasts forever.
*************
M*W: Sounds to me that you only replaced one addiction with another.

Regarding your 'mustard seed' of faith...

Plants of the mustard family grow in waste places and are cultivated for their seeds which are medicinally valuable. They were originally thought to be members of a small genus of European and Asiatic herbs named Sinapis ([/B]Sin[B]apis, from the Greek sinapi mustard).

Mustard flour made from the seeds has been historically used as an antiseptic, sterilizing poultice and deodorizer. Hippocrates advised mustard seeds be used internally and externally as an irritating poultice made with vinegar to be used for complaints of the digestive organs. Mustard seeds are used as a laxative for inflammation or retention in the intestines. Mustard seeds are unsafe ingested in large quantities causing causing irritation in the stomach and intestinal canal.

Mustard seeds act as irritant, stimulant, diuretic and emetic. Mustard seeds are used in the form of poultices for external application, chiefly in pneumonia, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases. They relieve congestion of various organs by drawing the blood to the skin surface. In disorders of the head, mustard seeds relieve headaches and other neurologic problems such as pain and spasms.

The leaves of the mustard plant can be used instead of poultices when mixed with the seeds and pulverized into an oil to make a paste to adhere to paper. When aplied to the skin, mustard seed oil is a powerful irritant. It produces an instantaneous cure for chilblains, chronic rheumatism, colic, etc.

Hot water poured on smashed mustard seeds makes a stimulating footbath and helps to relieve colds and headaches. It has also been noted that taking the oil of mustard seeds helps to relieve epileptic seizures. (Interestingly, Saul of Tarsus was afflicted with epilepsy.)

Mustard seeds pulverized into mustard flour and smeared on the skin acts as a stimulant drawing out toxins through the skin. By adding luke-warm water to the mustard flour, drinking it relieves hiccups and can elicit vomiting to expel toxins from the stomach.

The mustard plant exudes an oil from the hulls of the seeds that promotes growth of the hair.

Mustard seeds are used to counteract snake poisons if taken in time. Mustard seed powder mixed with honey and taken upon arising in the morning will clear-up everything from drowsiness, forgetfulness, heal the voice, open up the nostrils and upper respiratory orifices, and alleviate lung infections. When the seeds are chewed, they help relieve toothache and reduce hair loss. Their use has also been known to relieve cuts and bruises, and pains in or around the neck. When gargled, mustard seeds can relieve sore throat.

The mustard plant leaves used as a skin poultice (although they are good to eat in salads), when applied to the genital areas, creates a stimulating aphrodesiac-effect to elicit a good erection prior to intercourse.

Have you had your mustard seeds today?

c20H25N3o: One mustard seed of faith. The seed costs you nothing and yet the fruit from it lasts forever.
*************
M*W: Sounds to me that you only replaced one addiction with another.

Regarding your 'mustard seed' of faith...

Plants of the mustard family grow in waste places and are cultivated for their seeds which are medicinally valuable. They were originally thought to be members of a small genus of European and Asiatic herbs named Sinapis ([/B]Sin[B]apis, from the Greek sinapi mustard).

Mustard flour made from the seeds has been historically used as an antiseptic, sterilizing poultice and deodorizer. Hippocrates advised mustard seeds be used internally and externally as an irritating poultice made with vinegar to be used for complaints of the digestive organs. Mustard seeds are used as a laxative for inflammation or retention in the intestines. Mustard seeds are unsafe ingested in large quantities causing causing irritation in the stomach and intestinal canal.

Mustard seeds act as irritant, stimulant, diuretic and emetic. Mustard seeds are used in the form of poultices for external application, chiefly in pneumonia, bronchitis and other respiratory diseases. They relieve congestion of various organs by drawing the blood to the skin surface. In disorders of the head, mustard seeds relieve headaches and other neurologic problems such as pain and spasms.

The leaves of the mustard plant can be used instead of poultices when mixed with the seeds and pulverized into an oil to make a paste to adhere to paper. When aplied to the skin, mustard seed oil is a powerful irritant. It produces an instantaneous cure for chilblains, chronic rheumatism, colic, etc.

Hot water poured on smashed mustard seeds makes a stimulating footbath and helps to relieve colds and headaches. It has also been noted that taking the oil of mustard seeds helps to relieve epileptic seizures. (Interestingly, Saul of Tarsus was afflicted with epilepsy.)

Mustard seeds pulverized into mustard flour and smeared on the skin acts as a stimulant drawing out toxins through the skin. By adding luke-warm water to the mustard flour, drinking it relieves hiccups and can elicit vomiting to expel toxins from the stomach.

The mustard plant exudes an oil from the hulls of the seeds that promotes growth of the hair.

Mustard seeds are used to counteract snake poisons if taken in time. Mustard seed powder mixed with honey and taken upon arising in the morning will clear-up everything from drowsiness, forgetfulness, heal the voice, open up the nostrils and upper respiratory orifices, and alleviate lung infections. When the seeds are chewed, they help relieve toothache and reduce hair loss. Their use has also been known to relieve cuts and bruises, and pains in or around the neck. When gargled, mustard seeds can relieve sore throat.

The mustard plant leaves used as a skin poultice (although they are good to eat in salads), when applied to the genital areas, creates a stimulating aphrodesiac-effect to elicit a good erection prior to intercourse.

Have you had your mustard seeds today?

Hehe, no no actual mustard seeds but that was extremely interesting factual information about the mustard seed so thank you :cool:

peace

c20

God is such a good master and the sword He gives you has power's that no video game could hope to mirror.
One mustard seed of faith. The seed costs you nothing and yet the fruit from it lasts forever.

peace

c20
you seem to want to convert everybody, so to try to get it into you head, that we dont need converting, a litttle logic for you for the infidel guy.

1.) if The Christian God exists, he wants all men to know he exists.

2.) The Christian God can provide sufficient evidence to convince all men of his existence.

3.) Not all men are convinced of his existence.

4.) The Christian God chooses, for whatever reason, to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.

5.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.

ok c20 does that clarify things for you.

pavlosmarcos, you are forgetting a premise or two:

n.) Humans are free willing.
n2.) Humans can choose to ignore the evidence that is sufficient to convince all men of God's existence.
n3.) Humans have mental frameworks.
n4.) The mental frameworks of humans may be such that the evidence that is sufficient to convince all men of the existence of God is not understood and acceptable.
n5.) Within the human sphere and human nature there is loss.
n6.) The sufficient evidence that may be provided to convince all men of God's existence may not be perceived due to a loss within the human sphere or human nature.
n7.) The notion of God is highly controverted, and hence misunderstood by many, or most.
n8.) The sufficient evidence that may convince all men of God's existence may be misunderstood due to that the concept of God is also misunderstood. What people are convinced of may be God, just not understood as such.

need I continue? There are plenty of reasons that people do not believe in God. This doesn't mean that the evidence hasn't been provided, nor that God does not wish that humans know Him, nor that He is incapable of providing convincing evidence, nor that God wants non-believers to exist. Your conclusion is made too hastily.

you seem to want to convert everybody, so to try to get it into you head, that we dont need converting, a litttle logic for you for the infidel guy.

1.) if The Christian God exists, he wants all men to know he exists.


I Am That I Am


2.) The Christian God can provide sufficient evidence to convince all men of his existence.


Well I reckon the whole caterpillar-cocoon-butterfly trick was pretty cool but I guess men are hard to please eh?


3.) Not all men are convinced of his existence.


How can you say this! I even sent my own Son to do miracles which I documented into man's history, my very own Son whom they nailed to a tree! The very Son that paid the price for man's sins so that they may have eternal life with me. The Son they do not believe in. The Son that became sin so that man might not taste death but have eternal life in Him.


4.) The Christian God chooses, for whatever reason, to not provide sufficient evidence to convince all men that he exists.


*Silence*


5.) Therefore, The Christian God wants non-believers to exist.


*Silence*



ok c20 does that clarify things for you.

c20 response: Yes perfectly. Thank you.

@ Poor Player

I had wanted to add this afterthought to my post before you responded but I haven't been on a computer till now.

The 'Christians' you spoke of who believe "Christ was a great human being and nothing more or less (a moral teacher), that God is an undefinable spirit unknowable in a truly personal way, and that the bible is almost completely allegorical" are ineffably stupid.

If they refuse to accept the Bible's depiction of God and the NT portrayal of Jesus as the Son of God then they are, excuse me to say, idiots to claim Jesus was a "great human being" and "moral teacher" since those are 'byproducts' of His divinity. Moreover, if the Bible is allegorical as they claim, then their interpretation of Jesus as merely a great moral teacher is undeniably foolish since the story of Jesus may very well then be 'allegorical' as well. My point is such arbitrariness only points to their own intellectual dishonesty and willingness to abide by these double standards.

EDIT: Will look at your newer post when I have time. Later.

1.) if The Christian God exists, he wants all men to know he exists.

By punishing millions of Africans and Native Americans living before Jesus to hell fire even though they never got a chance to hear the Gospels? Silly..


2.) The Christian God can provide sufficient evidence to convince all men of his existence.

Excuse me to say, you are either brainwashed or just plain ignorant. How do you know the 'caterpillar-cocoon-butterfly trick' was not the work of gods as opposed to a God? Speculation? Guesswork?


3.) Not all men are convinced of his existence.

I gave ample justification for this in the original thread, which I suppose you are simply too proud to even read so you go around the thread parading and making utterly irrelevant comments.

Southstar,

Just a quick one.
We haven't spoken to each other much, but i do remember you being convinced that 'Jesus' and 'God' were one and the same person, despite there being no biblical evidence (the very source of your belief) to support this claim.
You wouldn't even accept the testimony from Jesus himself, not to mention other biblical evidences.

Irregardless of whether you believe or not, the existence of (Biblical) God, how can you be sure you are not making the same blockheaded mistakes, but only this time in the atheist camp?

Jan Ardena.

There was ample Biblical 'evidence' that even the disciples believed Jesus was God. Now who would know more about Jesus, you or the disciples?

There was ample Biblical 'evidence' that even the disciples believed Jesus was God. Now who would know more about Jesus, you or the disciples?

Jesus was The Word made flesh. But you know this. The Word is with God and the Word Is God. Without The Word you do not have being. But again I say to you §outh§tar, you know this but still you return to your vomit.

Ok, a lot to get through. However C20, I would like to quickly get this out of the way before proceeding:

Trust me m8

A) There is no valid reason whatsoever for me to 'trust' you.

B) we're not mates.

Kindly remember these two things for the future.

Do you see a person inside me who like to suffer? No of course you do not - you see someone like yourself.
Why then am I subjected to suffering?

I don't see 'someone like myself' at all. Do not assume that others are the way you are. I see many people, day in - day out, and a large number of them are actually more comfortable in a position of suffering, and so technically we can say inside, many people like to suffer. Not only that, but they like to see others suffer aswell. Why do you think programmes like Eastenders and Coronation Street are so popular?

Why you personally are subjected to suffering, can be one of many reasons - and without going into a long long discussion, can not be satisfied fully. Some people are inherently weak by nature, and fall foul to certain things because of their nature. Others, like my brother, are just prone to it. They're like 'suffer magnets'.

Either way, god appears to be a crutch for the fact that you suffer so much. That doesn't mean he's there, but as long as you feel supported, the suffering isn't quite so visible.

Well let's begin with my first wife. She was a lover of money. I was a means to an end for her. She did not love me but rather made a good pretence of it because I had a nice car and obviously had the ability to keep her in the lifestyle she had become accustomed to by being a stripper.

Now ask yourself why you didn't notice this before getting in too deep, why, (given her apparent background), you didn't stay clear, and why, once knowing more about her, you didn't leave?

These are very important questions, that will hopefully tell you a bit about you.

It's easy for all of us to pile everything onto someone else, but very rarely do we look at ourselves and ask, "what is wrong with me?"

At one stage you say; "I saw a beautiful thing emerge", but the rest of your post completely contradicts that statement. But isn't that how it is? You see something that nobody else sees, and regardless to what they say, you ignore them, believing your own view is the correct one. It's a lot easier standing back and then you'll see what's wrong with the picture. When you're stuck right in the middle of it, you never notice.

It's like a frog. If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it'll bounce right out in pain. If on the other hand you put a frog in cold water, and then slowly heat the water up - the frog will just sit there and boil to death.

This has relevance with both your past relationship, and your religious beliefs. Take it as you will.

I was completely alone in what I can only be described as hell.

It's a very typical religious story, and one where the answer is thereby obvious to anyone viewing from a distance. Life sucked ass, you found guidance in the clouds. It's as simple as that, and it could have been anything from jesus to allah to little green men. All you needed was guidance, and while I would say you should have just gone to counselling, you chose the 'faith' option, whereby you threw sanity and logic out of the window and adopted the world's most naive standpoint. It might be cheaper than seeing a good shrink, but the problems are never really solved, just shoved aside and forgotten about. All the pain turns to love - and to such a degree where even evil can be seen as wonderful. No sane person ever reads the bible and says it's full of love - only a religious man can do that - and that's because he was lacking it so much, he had to find a substitute, and once found it became the absolute pinnacle of that which he could not find elsewhere.

You've already spoken about your father, and now you've spoken about your wife. Add to that a life threatening accident, and I think you mentioned something about the death of your child - and there can only be one of few conclusions.

But for a moment sit down and consider this seriously: Given all the turmoil, strife and pain in your life, do you think you're in a position to trust your own judgements and beliefs? If so, why?

In that place I thirsted for love like I have never thirsted before.

See? My point exactly.

I can wish and wish and wish but I cannot change a thing.

Ask and it shall be given. Anyone who believes in jesus can move mountains, pick up deadly snakes, drink poison and live...

The dreams of a man who's life is in the toilet.

I concur with you however, you can wish and wish and wish, but nothing will ever be solved that way - by anything, be it god, leprechauns or mermaids.

I dont rejoice in my suffering although I can see how these things produce a spirit of endurance and it is that spirit of endurance that serves to build my character.

So, are you saying that before all this suffering you had no character, or a weakly built character? See the first part of my post.

It is hardly suprising therefore that we see Jesus as the most talked about character today!

Actually, I think he's been overtaken by Harry Potter. What is your claim here? That because people talk about a person, that that person is real or god or able to perform miracles?

Whether you love him or hate him, whether you call Him friend or enemy, you cannot deny that His name is known by millions.

Again, the same goes for Harry Potter. What is your point or claim?

People blame Jesus or God for their suffering but it is other people who actually cause the suffering because of their love of money or selfish interests.

By that same token, it's man who causes love and happiness. People blame jesus or god, but it's humans. It's not a surprise to see the one thing that you "thirsted for like you have never thirsted before", can only be found in the clouds, whereas all the pain and strife is down to the humans that have caused that pain and strife. You put love slightly beyond reach, because that's where it is, and put pain right under your nose because that's where it is.

Look at all the evil in the world and tell me what you see as the root cause?

It's the same as everything though.. You need to look for it. Personally I don't watch the news, and as such I see very little evil. What I do is spend my time with my wife and daughter, and as such all I really see in life is love.

I'm also not a pessimist. I fall off a ladder for instance.. Instead of thinking about the pain of the fall, I think about the extra love shown to me by my wife and daughter. Even when, like now, I'm messed up with the flu... I don't let the illness get me down, because my daughter is rushing me cups of tea, my wife brings me a glass of whisky, asks if I'm ok and tells me that she loves me. That makes the illness vanish into the distance.

As to your question.. The very rare times that I bother reading/watching the news - the cause of that evil always comes from the same source: religion. Ok, there's always the odd story of someone killing a child or whatever, but I deal with ill people all the time. They are not "evil" so to speak, they're just ill.

Some illnesses only last a week and can be dealt with with a paracetamol.. some illnesses are more rare, and take a lot longer to solve, if ever. But why try and make a border between them? Ill is ill. It's not about sin, sacrifice or the devil.. it's a part of being ill.

Now I hear you say but look at what God does throughout the old testament, He even turns one woman to a pillar of salt because she didnt give to the church what she could have given. I tell you the truth, it is for the love of the world that God does these things.

Love for the world, sure.. What about love for the woman? Did jesus not sacrifice himself for her sins, just like yours?

Read my earlier responses to this.

The little men had forgotten God is in Heaven and that God had made them and that their labours were in vein because if they just turned their hearts to Him, he would reveal the Kingdom of Heaven to them. So He made them lose their sense of purpose so that they would become frustrated and try and seek what they were looking for elsewhere.

But this was obviously all for nothing. While it most certainly has delayed man, we're now in "heaven". Forget tall buildings, we can fly to space. Forget language barriers, we can learn and speak every language on the planet, or indeed just buy tiny machines to translate for us. We have embarked on joint ventures to nearly every remote part of this planet and have even travelled beyond this planet, into the place ancient people called heaven. We have machines on Mars for crying out loud. As time goes by, we'll go further and further and further. What's gods next great plan to confuse us all?

In 2011, NASA plan to send men to Mars, and from then on it's just a small matter of time. You might even still be alive when you see serious missions to Mars underway, with a team of humans at the helm.

The confusing of people who knew nothing, and thought the world was flat is completely irrelevant when looking at the big picture. It has served as a brief inconvenience and nothing more.

God is like this. He subjects us all to terrible frustrations (different from being tested personally by some enemy) so that we have no place else to look but to Him.

To what degree? Would you say that someones child dying is one of god's "frustrations" given to us just so we look for him? Where do you draw the line, if anywhere?

God is insanely jealous for your love.

Well send him my apologies, but my wife and daughter must come first. Doing otherwise would go against my very sense of humanity. It would render me something that I am not.

Furthermore, if I was to get an eternity with him, isn't it a little too much to ask that I show more to him now than to my family with the brief 80 years I have, if I'm lucky?

Anyone who thinks an invisible guy in the sky is more worthy of love than their own wives and children are, is as far as I'm concerned, a serious sicko.

The difference is that God is way at the top of the food chain, in fact He is the first link in it and the last link in it. He is All In All - the alpha and the omega.

Which is strange, considering to many of us he is completely meaningless. My daughter is ALL. That's all there is to it, and no argument in the world could change that simple fact.

As for your assertion that Jesus must only listen to some and not others, I can testify that this is not true. Jesus Himself said "Whoever believes in me will not perish but will receive eternal life" << The Word in His mouth was God's good word. God's promise! The spirit of The Word is a true spirit. You see the battles we witness and indeed take part in are not of flesh and blood but of spirit. The Word of God is Light that banishes all false spirits that are antichrist because they must flee from the light. God is the Light and from God does the Light Shine. If you have said in your heart "I dont know what is what Jesus but I am willing to put my doubts at your doorstep if you will reveal yourself to me"

This doesn't answer my question.

well, if you do this with just a tiny bit of faith that you will be heard, well you have my absolute guarentee of eternal life because God promised.

I don't actually want eternal life.

Secondly, you now say "with a tiny bit of faith", when earlier you said you didn't even take it seriously etc. I then asked that if someone else did it exactly how you did it and got no response, what would that mean?

But understand something that Jesus said, He said "Dont be suprised if the world hates you because of me". He said this because he knows that mankind likes to live in the darkness where they think that their deeds cannot be seen.

That's clearly not true. We've come from threats of death from god if we dare masturbate, to a world full of people happily wanking. Everything that you might deem bad deeds, are so public now that there is little in the way of taboo left on earth, (depending on location). What might have once been done in darkness is now as open as it ever could be - for the entire world to see.

My frustration here is that I know that the things you reject are the very things you desire.

With all due respect, but could you kindly keep your blatant delusions to yourself. While I might be the only person, I actually detest the idea of an eternal life, I detest the idea of worship, (unless aimed at my daughter), and I detest the idea that while I could go to heaven there would be others burning for eternity.

While in some cases they most certainly would have done "evil" things, my job and my interests are in helping people, not tormenting them because of their problems.

There might be a god offering all these things.. but I would have to decline on principle. I am better than that.

You become much more than conquerors in Christ.

I don't want to conquer, I want to help.

You become like great spiritual heros who live not for the flesh but for the spirit.

I don't want to be a hero, and there is no such thing as spirit.

God is such a good master and the sword He gives you has power's that no video game could hope to mirror.

I don't need a sword. I have a brain and find that fully sufficient. I also do not need a master, an eternal life, or a golden city.

One mustard seed of faith. The seed costs you nothing and yet the fruit from it lasts forever.

I don't need or want a mustard seed. I have a brain, and use that as well as I can to help others.

Personally I say you can have it all, and my share aswell. It just does not interest me at all.

Again, the same goes for Harry Potter. What is your point or claim?

It's a popularity contest, duh. The more popular, the more true the doctrine becomes.

Actually, I think he's been overtaken by Harry Potter. What is your claim here? That because people talk about a person, that that person is real or god or able to perform miracles?

Yup.

---------------------------------

Jesus was The Word made flesh. But you know this. The Word is with God and the Word Is God. Without The Word you do not have being.

Again C2O, do tell us how you came to know that "the Word is God" and without the Word, we do not have "being" (whatever that means).

33
The Doctrine of a Preemptive War. Table 17 reports on opinion regarding to two pressing
questions in U.S. foreign policy. The first topic is President Bush’s doctrine of a
preemptive (or preventative) war, a new question on the nation’s political agenda. There
was a consensus in favor of this doctrine across the religious landscape. However, given
the newness of this doctrine and the on-going war in Iraq, these findings should be
viewed with great caution.
34
Table 17. The Religious Landscape, Preemptive War, and Israel, Spring 2004*
U.S. Can Engage in U.S. Support Israel
Preemptive War over Palestinians
Agree No Op Disagree Agree No Op Disagree
ENTIRE SAMPLE 62% 16 22 35% 27 38
Evangelical Protestant 72% 15 13 52% 23 25
Traditionalist Evangelical 78% 12 10 64% 18 18
Centrist Evangelical 70% 15 15 45% 26 29
Modernist Evangelical 50% 24 26 28% 37 35
Mainline Protestant 62% 16 22 33% 30 37
Traditionalist Mainline 70% 14 16 43% 28 29
Centrist Mainline 68% 16 16 34% 34 32
Modernist Mainline 47% 19 34 22% 26 52
Latino Protestants 63% 12 25 37% 30 33
Black Protestants 54% 24 22 24% 32 44
Catholic 63% 15 22 31% 26 43
Traditionalist Catholic 65% 15 20 43% 26 31
Centrist Catholic 66% 15 19 30% 24 46
Modernist Catholic 57% 15 28 23% 29 48
Latino Catholic 59% 20 21 25% 36 39
Other Christian 52% 21 27 33% 27 40
Other Faiths 51% 9 40 22% 8 70
Jewish 57% 11 32 75% 13 12
Unaffiliated 57% 12 31 20% 27 53
Unaffiliated Believers 65% 11 24 19% 30 51
Secular 59% 12 29 23% 26 51
Atheist, Agnostic 40% 15 45 15% 23 62
*All rows sum to 100%. Agree=agree, strongly agree; disagree=disagree, strongly disagree;
No Op=no opinion.
Source: Fourth National Survey of Religion and Politics, Bliss Institute University of
Akron, March-May 2004 (N=4000)
Overall, more than three-fifths of the entire sample in 2004 agreed with the statement
“Given the threat of terrorism, the U.S. must be able to take preemptive military action
against other countries,” and just one-quarter disagreed. One-sixth had no opinion.
35
All of the major traditions agreed with the preemptive war doctrine, ranging from almost
four-fifths of all Evangelical Protestants to nearly three-fifths of the Unaffiliated.
The strongest backers of the preemptive war doctrine were Traditionalist Evangelical and
Mainline Protestants, followed by Traditional Catholics. Here the Centrist groups tended
to resemble the Traditionalists.
Jews, Other Christians, the minority groups, Unaffiliated Believers and Seculars also
supported the doctrine of preemptive war.
Just one religious group, the Atheists/Agnostics, failed to have a majority in support of
this statement. The Other Faiths were the next least supportive of the doctrine, but with a
slim majority in favor. However, all the Modernist groups were less supportive than their
Traditionalist and Centrist counterparts.
In some ways, these results are at odds with the support for international cooperation to
maintaining world peace, and this disjunction reveals important nuances in foreign policy
attitudes. Most religious groups preferred international cooperation as a way to maintain
world peace, but were willing for the U.S. to engage in a preemptive war if the nation
were threatened.
The doctrine of the preventative war raises the issue of support for the war in Iraq.
Respondents were asked such a question, but because so much has happened since the
conclusion of the survey in the spring of 2004 that these attitudes are likely to have
changed substantially. For the record, a brief mention of these findings is in order. In the
spring of 2004, a majority of the sample believed the Iraq war was either “fully justified”
or “probably justified.” There was, however, considerable variation across the religious
landscape. These patterns tended to resemble the results for the doctrine of the
preemptive war, but with deeper divisions. Such relative levels of support among the
religious groups may have persisted even if the overall popularity of the Iraq war has
waned, but perhaps not.
U.S. Support for Israel over the Palestinians. The second topic in Table 17 is the
longstanding question of question of American policy toward the Israel-Palestinian
conflict. The religious landscape was sharply divided on this particular question.
Overall, just under one-half of the entire sample in 2004 agreed with the statement “The
U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians in the Middle East,” and a slim majority
disagreed. More than one-quarter expressed no opinion.
This item presents a tough choice since it asks the respondent about the U.S. supporting
Israel over the Palestinians, rather than a variety of the options, such protecting the
security of Israel or wanting even handed treatment for both nations. While it is tempting
to assume that the “no opinion” responses reflect a desire for an even-handed approach
and that the “disagree” responses signify support for the Palestinians, it is not clear that
this is the case (some who disagree with the statement may sympathize with Israel rather
36
than the Palestinians, but oppose U.S. policy that favors Israel). This item is specifically
about the U.S. taking Israel’s side in the dispute with the Palestinians.
As one might expect, Jews were most likely to agree with this strong statement, and by a
large margin (three-quarters). Traditionalist Evangelicals were the next most supportive,
(almost two-thirds).
Other groups showed plurality support for Israel over the Palestinians, including Centrist
Evangelicals, Traditionalist Mainliners and Catholics. And still other groups were more
evenly divided, such as Centrist Mainliners and Latino Protestants.
The Other Faiths (which includes Muslims) strongly disagreed with supporting Israel
over the Palestinians (seven of ten) as did Atheists/Agnostics (better than three-fifths).
Other opponents of supporting Israel over the Palestinians included Unaffiliated
Believers, Seculars, Black Protestants, Latino Catholics, Other Christians, and all the
Modernists groups.
Trend Analysis. Table 18 reports changes in this measure of U.S. support for Israel over
the Palestinians back to 1992. Overall, there has been a seven percentage point increase
in agreement, but a two percent increase in disagreement.
Evangelical Protestants showed a double digit increase in the agreement column and a
decline in the disagreement column. Both Mainline Protestants and Catholics also
showed increased agreement with a policy favoring Israel over the Palestinians and at the
same time an increase in the disagreement column. The largest portion of this change
came after 2000. Estimates from previous surveys suggest that most of the increased
agreement occurred among the Traditionalists; and that most of the increased
disagreement has come from the Modernists.
The most interesting pattern is for Jews, who showed an eight percentage point decline in
agreement with the statement that the U.S. should back Israel over the Palestinians over
the period. The low point in this series actually came in 2000, representing a 17
percentage point decline. While interesting, these patterns must be viewed with
considerable caution: there are only a small number of Jewish respondents in each of
these surveys, and in any event, Jews remained the strongest supporters of Israel over the
entire period.
It is worth noting that the Unaffiliated increased their disagreement with supporting Israel
over the Palestinians between 1992 and 2004.

SouthStar, well it looks like I hit the submit button by accident on the previous post. My apologies. That info is from a massive political and religious survey on the U.S. elections I found on www.beliefnet.org . The findings are actually pretty amazing. There are two questions mentioned there and one was about whether "Pre-emptive War" was O.K. The only group of people who had a minority who said "no" were the atheists/agnostics. Every single other religious category group had a majority who said it was O.K. So much for the orthodox belief in turning the other cheek! Anyway, the whole survey is downloadable and free (.pdf). It just illustrates what I have been saying. Christians are an incredibly diverse group of people, as are jews, muslims, etc. Their beliefs are far from uniform even within the same traditions and therefor should not be treated monolithically in any way. If you really think liberal Christians are all stupid then checkout anything by Bishop John Shelby Spong. He is writing articles right now about the so-called literalness of the bible, or the lack thereof. Cheers.

Here is the part I was going to highlight in my previous post:

------ All of the major traditions agreed with the preemptive war doctrine, ranging from almost four-fifths of all Evangelical Protestants to nearly three-fifths of the Unaffiliated. The strongest backers of the preemptive war doctrine were Traditionalist Evangelical and Mainline Protestants, followed by Traditional Catholics. Here the Centrist groups tended to resemble the Traditionalists. Jews, Other Christians, the minority groups, Unaffiliated Believers and Seculars also supported the doctrine of preemptive war.

Just one religious group, the Atheists/Agnostics, failed to have a majority in support of this statement. The Other Faiths were the next least supportive of the doctrine, but with a slim majority in favor. However, all the Modernist groups were less supportive than their Traditionalist and Centrist counterparts. -------

I personally think the distinctions in the different religious categories are important to the politicians exactly because they were created after polling people on their true political beliefs and not just their church doctrine.

There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?

§outh§tar: There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?
*************
M*W: Yes, that makes it confusing to both fanatical believers as well as agnostics. I attended a Baptist university for my undergraduate degree. The curriculum required courses in OT and NT, comparative religions and such. The more I learned -- the more I didn't believe, yet, I went on to marry a "good" Catholic and converted, mostly, so my children could be reared in a religious family. However, back to the curriculum -- my professors in O&NT both stated that the O&NT writings shouldn't be taken literally but allegorically. I've had the opportunity to mention this to some zealous christians in the past, but they all denied it, saying that the Bible is to be taken literally. What I learned was, if these minister professors were telling the truth, then why should I believe the Bible as solid truth at all? If anything my christian education did for me was to open more doors to further christian education in both Protestantism and Catholicism, but my christian bubble burst when I pursued the truth through chronic reading and personal obversation that christianity was a way to control the masses. How could I continue to submit to this false god and a false husband. I freed myself from both! I learned that nothing in life should be taken literally, because the world we live in is, at best, allegorical.

There was ample Biblical 'evidence' that even the disciples believed Jesus was God. Now who would know more about Jesus, you or the disciples?

Lets rephrase that question; who would know whether Jesus was God Almighty, Jesus or his disciples? :rolleyes:

Jan Aardena.

There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?

It is not a black and white, binary issue as you suppose but there are many shades of grey here. Certainly many parts of the bible were meant to be taken that way, and many were not, but the fact that the true historical accounts have been translated and falsified by zealots so many times makes it impossible to say which verses were intended to be allegorical and which were not. The Revelation to John is not exactly a model for historical reporting and even contradicts itself on several critical issues such as the length and timing of the "great tribulation" for example. I don't believe you will get very far with biblical scholars in treating the entire book as a literal account of a supernatural vision someone had. The four gospels, which again, contradict one another extensively, are filled with potential allegories and nobody knows which are literal and which are not. The entire doctrine of hell is based on an allegory which was never intended to be literal at all......and I'm being kind. The doctrine of hell was never even accepted by early orthodox Christians. Even Orthodox traditions have changed over time.

Lets rephrase that question; who would know whether Jesus was God Almighty, Jesus or his disciples? :rolleyes:

Jan Aardena.

If you believe Jesus was God but don't believe His disciples then where are you getting the substance of your belief from?

It is not a black and white, binary issue as you suppose but there are many shades of grey here. Certainly many parts of the bible were meant to be taken that way, and many were not, but the fact that the true historical accounts have been translated and falsified by zealots so many times makes it impossible to say which verses were intended to be allegorical and which were not. The Revelation to John is not exactly a model for historical reporting and even contradicts itself on several critical issues such as the length and timing of the "great tribulation" for example. I don't believe you will get very far with biblical scholars in treating the entire book as a literal account of a supernatural vision someone had. The four gospels, which again, contradict one another extensively, are filled with potential allegories and nobody knows which are literal and which are not. The entire doctrine of hell is based on an allegory which was never intended to be literal at all......and I'm being kind. The doctrine of hell was never even accepted by early orthodox Christians. Even Orthodox traditions have changed over time.

In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.

§outh§tar: In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.
*************
M*W: Yes, liberal Christians are dishonest. They believe in a delusion. They do NOT believe in reality. There can be no 'accuracy' for christians. They believe in the son of god, but that really means the "sun god." There is no god but the Sun. There is no god but 'Allah.' How simple it is!

In that case even the "liberal" Christians are being dishonest with themselves since no one knows what is "accurate" and what isn't.

Ahhhh maybe so, but they don't really "know" what is accurate or not now do they. They simply believe. It just depends on what denomination you are talking about, and what sub-group or faction, etc. So who are we to tell them they can't literally believe in part of the bible, most of it, none of it, or all the wrong parts, and still call themselves Christians if that's what they have decided to do. My main point with all of this, as with many political discussions, is that you cannot judge a book by its cover anymore. The world has just become far too complex and diverse. Those of us who are somewhat enlightened human beings must be careful to build bridges to those unlike us, and not burn them. There is often great light provided by a burning bridge, but it leaves nowhere to go for those who follow.

Southstar:

I posted this in another thread and thought you might find it interesting. I'm curious as to your opinion of the analysis.

The whole idea behind revealed religion is that God is not unknowable.

Exactly.

However I can barely relate to the justification for that notion. Thinking "god is knowable" seems like a pretty big assumption until you've accepted the circular "god is knowable because god wants you to know him" or whatever particular flavor of that idea - as factual or objective (as you see if from your subjectivity). Once you accept that, you can't get out the circle unless you reject it.

So becoming a theist IMO boils down to a very simple question: Why go into the circle? It must be that you value the consequences. Somehow your impression of what you need to survive must have led to the need not to question the circular reasoning in favor of the security offered by its acceptance. That brings up an interesting question: Why does the circle offer security?

Oddly it appears to me because of its geometry. It's a basis for strength. It's the choice to abandon identity/perception as a basis for conceptual framework, in favor of something offered externally - though still internally fabricated only as a result of the offer - it can't be the offer itself because exists uniquely in the mind of the purveyor of the idea.

Perhaps it's the emotional bond to the beliefs generated inside the circle that keep one in there. Those bonds are shared by other believers and are strengthened through the perception of the unity of the circle.


(side-bar: when the circle breeds varying beliefs (due to cultural momentum and level of isolation) however, the strength it offers them in the first place can lend to the intensity of the clash. i guess that makes the circle a seed from which a framework of beliefs is built upon, each religion for instance, the result of interactions between similar belief sets (due to proximity and imposition of the beliefs to bond the tribe) and recorded, modified, etc. in a feedback loop based on some theme and developed over time. all that can of course easily lead to belief systems that are mutually exclusive.

With all that out of the way, it seems like circular reasoning is a sound evolutionary strategy - which must be eventually abandoned, or the resulting belief systems altered in a way that they are not mutually exclusive. "Tolerance" comes to mind.

None of that though, speaks to the validity of the circular reasoning in the first place. The reasoning can only be valid if you believe it, or believe that other people believe it, though then it's both - which is annoying. It seems to me that since believing is a hueristic solution, I don't agree to limit the possible solution set to the question that results in the answer "god" because it may exclude the actual solution. Further I suppose, god is by defintion - unknowable unless you know it. I won't claim to know something that I don't think I could possibly know becaue if someone put a fake by the real one I'd have no methodology by which to discern them. With someone of the power of god, I couldn't trust the claim of identity "god" without being forced to do so (because something of that power would possess the force to do it). Ultimately it seems to me that if there were a god and it created us as we are, then it must have intended that we ignore it - because it would know we couldn't ever trust the claim "Hi, I'm god - worship me". It would be quite a dirty trick to the rational mind to ask for "faith" of such a claim based on only the claim (because of its magnitude).

If you believe Jesus was God but don't believe His disciples then where are you getting the substance of your belief from?

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

Jesus is God's humility. The Son obeys His Father as every good son should. Please remember here that Jesus was begotten of God. A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. It is important to know that Jesus is God and no I am not a fool for saying this :)

peace

c20

A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. unless it's a natural hybrid, this is how evolution works, one plants, seeds or pollen mixes with anothers and they produce a new species.

is there but one god, in your eyes.
and is jesus god.
are they one and the same, then god has no son, and jesus has no father.
so gods a schizoid, with a split personality.

A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. unless it's a natural hybrid, this is how evolution works, one plants, seeds or pollen mixes with anothers and they produce a new species.

is there but one god, in your eyes.
and is jesus god.
are they one and the same, then god has no son, and jesus has no father.
so gods a schizoid, with a split personality.

God is love mis-t-highs. Nothing more, nothing less.

The following text should help you in your search for the truth :)
I have lifted it from http://www.abcog.org/onegod.htm

Jesus came to reveal the God as a Father (Matt. 11:27). In other words, that the Supreme God is a Father, the head of a Family. Jesus is the eldest son, also a god-level being:

"And Thomas answered and said unto him [Jesus], My Lord and my God." (John 20:28)
Jesus is the "firstborn among many brethren" (Rom. 8:29). All Christians, begotten as children of God by means of the Holy Spirit, will also be god-level beings, part of the divine family:

And [the Lord] will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6:18)
Our Father's purpose, from the very beginning, was to create us in His image (Gen. 1:27). This is exactly how all parents start their families!

The wonderful message of Jesus is that the supreme God is a Father, who wants a large family of god-level Sons and Daughters. Our Father wants you in His family to share, in love, all His wonderful attributes for all eternity!

God bless us

peace

c20 (a little god-like being for you to be friends with ;) )

The very fact that Paul and other apostles within the New Testament claim to be under the influence of the Spirit is simply no basis to believe ANY of their claims.The fact that the blind man is told that there is such a thing as the sun in the sky, it is a star and there are billions of trillions of stars is no reason for him to believe such a claim. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true. All the better for the blind man who believes.
Isaiah 42:18 "You people are deaf and blind, but the LORD commands you to listen and to see." Luke 18 35-42 "35. When Jesus was coming close to Jericho, a blind man sat begging beside the road. 36. The man heard the crowd walking by and asked what was happening. 37. Some people told him that Jesus from Nazareth was passing by. 38. So the blind man shouted, "Jesus, Son of David, have pity on me!" 39. The people who were going along with Jesus told the man to be quiet. But he shouted even louder, "Son of David, have pity on me!" 40. Jesus stopped and told some people to bring the blind man over to him. When the blind man was getting near, Jesus asked, 41. "What do you want me to do for you?"
"Lord, I want to see!" he answered.
42. Jesus replied, "Look and you will see! Your eyes are healed because of your faith." 43. Right away the man could see, and he went with Jesus and started thanking God. When the crowds saw what happened, they praised God."
Such an arbitrary decision demands that the same rationale be applied to other religious books. Any failure to do so is simply dishonesty... An argument from faith is simply null and void as we would again come to the question of why the Christian believes the claims of the writers simply because they say so.There is more than a rationale behind belief in God and acceptance of the conventional Bible as a part of God's written word. The faith argument isn't null and void - why should a blind man believe the truth about what we see when we stare into the wondrous beauty of the universe? Life is a lot more than thinking - truth is not defined by our rationale. If your rationale doesn't advocate the truth it is no less true than it was before you rationally assessed it. We all have an intuitive knowledge of God which is not beyond our rationale... but not governed by it. It is only fair for this to be so if we are to have the option of choosing to go with God... or not. One would think that these things are well justified while one is a Christian… failing that… confusion and rebellion are imminent.

§outh§tar: There is simply NO contextual evidence whatsoever that the Bible is to be taken allegorically. Can you show any evidence of this?
*************
M*W: Yes, that makes it confusing to both fanatical believers as well as agnostics. I attended a Baptist university for my undergraduate degree. The curriculum required courses in OT and NT, comparative religions and such. The more I learned -- the more I didn't believe, yet, I went on to marry a "good" Catholic and converted, mostly, so my children could be reared in a religious family. However, back to the curriculum -- my professors in O&NT both stated that the O&NT writings shouldn't be taken literally but allegorically. I've had the opportunity to mention this to some zealous christians in the past, but they all denied it, saying that the Bible is to be taken literally. What I learned was, if these minister professors were telling the truth, then why should I believe the Bible as solid truth at all? If anything my christian education did for me was to open more doors to further christian education in both Protestantism and Catholicism, but my christian bubble burst when I pursued the truth through chronic reading and personal obversation that christianity was a way to control the masses. How could I continue to submit to this false god and a false husband. I freed myself from both! I learned that nothing in life should be taken literally, because the world we live in is, at best, allegorical.
Yes, I have found that seminaries are one of the worst at destroying religious faith. If you want to end up atheist or agnostic, then go to Seminary!!!

Ahhhh maybe so, but they don't really "know" what is accurate or not now do they. They simply believe. It just depends on what denomination you are talking about, and what sub-group or faction, etc. So who are we to tell them they can't literally believe in part of the bible, most of it, none of it, or all the wrong parts, and still call themselves Christians if that's what they have decided to do. My main point with all of this, as with many political discussions, is that you cannot judge a book by its cover anymore. The world has just become far too complex and diverse. Those of us who are somewhat enlightened human beings must be careful to build bridges to those unlike us, and not burn them. There is often great light provided by a burning bridge, but it leaves nowhere to go for those who follow.

Are you saying that their beliefs in what they don't know based on 'simple faith' (a justification of ignorance) is reasonable? If it is true that "they simply believe" then why do they not apply this belief to the Quran or the religious beliefs of an African tribe? Arbitrariness of course, which is the point of my thread: any belief in the Bible's message concerning Jesus is arbitrary and unfounded, liberal or not.

As far as they call themselves Christians I am sure we can find an umbrella of generalization big enough for them. :D

Firstly, there is no reason to believe Jesus is God Almighty, as he regards himself as son of God Almighty.
Secondly, if i was a commited Christian, then the substance of my belief would be the example and teachings of Jesus Christ.
Thirdly, if a deciple strays away from the teaching and example set by Jesus, by insisting that Jesus is God Almighty, despite Jesus teaching that he is the 'son of God Almighty', then i would regard him as a fool.

Jan Ardena.

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

May I ask why you wish to impart you unbelief to believers? You have swallowed the lies that takes one into unbelief, why do you wish others chew on those poisonous thorny branches? Milk and honey are better surely?

peace

c20

c20:
southstar was one of the most devout of christians, studied hard and listen to his padre( take a look at some of his past-posts) he was questioned on his believes by the likes of me, M*W,( and she dont pull no punches) snakelord,( and neither does this man) the preacher,( called him the amoebaman, and was very flaming) to name but a few and he defend himself masterfully until one day (he did'nt like it, but it happened) so now he is, as a god helping the blind see. what is wrong with that.
you preach to convert others, what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.
if you dont like just leave.

Firstly, His name isn't even Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ maybe, but Jesus Christ doesn't even make sense... (just a little off-topic rant).

That is not the point, he is known as Jesus Christ, and you understand who i am reffering to. The point is you argued he was God Almighty even though he said he was the son of God Almighty, therefore your whole belief system was based on fawlty understanding. So how do you know that your present state of belief/unbelief is not based on fawlty understanding?

How do you know the example and teachings of Jesus? Are you going to believe the second-hand reports of the synoptics??

Again, this is besides the point. You believed, didn't you?

Jan Ardena.

c20H25N3o,


Jesus is God's humility. The Son obeys His Father as every good son should. Please remember here that Jesus was begotten of God. A plum seed produces a plum tree - nothing more, nothing less. It is important to know that Jesus is God and no I am not a fool for saying this :)


I undserstand your point, and I also believe that Jesus is as good a God in a qualitative sense, but a son and father relationtionship requires 2 distinct individuals, and Jesus alway maintained he was the 'son of God'.

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Here, it is clear that 'the word' and God both separate and the same.

Jan Ardena.

I undserstand your point, and I also believe that Jesus is as good a God in a qualitative sense, but a son and father relationtionship requires 2 distinct individuals, and Jesus alway maintained he was the 'son of God'.

1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Here, it is clear that 'the word' and God both separate and the same.I