Sin is a human condition. We are born in to sin by way of being born in a physical state, a physical being with desires. All men struggle against the tameing of those desires in accordance with their conscience. Our physical body acts in accorance with physical laws, our spiritual body in accordance with spiritual laws. The Law in the form we know as the ten commandments is not a set of regulations set out by some tyranical diety to bring us under His conformity. The law of the spirit is with in every man, that is the breath of Life, Gods manifestation with in us, good, love, life, passion.
Gal 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
1 Cor 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

We chose to either follow it's guidance and answer to our conscience or to quench it and harden ourselves and become selfish and with out compassion, looking only to satisfy the physical needs and whims and pay no heed to our own hearts.

The ten commandments were an embodiment of the physical results that occur when a man makes the choice to live by the spiritual law..i.e. follow the spirit of Life and love that is with in himself.
We can not be saved by those laws, their meare existance gives rise to the fact that we are ALL sinners and have failed to uphold those physicall laws with-out fail. Such is the condition of dwelling in a physical body. Paul wrote:
Rom 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh.
Rom 7:25 So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.




Matt 24:12
"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold."
The people being lawless, being driven by the physical and haveing strayed from the spiritual saw not their own sin. They had quenched the spirit and hardened to their conscience and no longer felt conviction for their actions...they needed to have the law in a physical standard for them to see how good should manifest itself in the physical world. We then have the ten commandments:
1 Tim 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers


Following them will not be salvation...It rather convicted them were their conscience no longer did.

Following the letter but with out the spirit thereof was not the intention of the commandments.
Mathew 23:23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Matt 9:13 "But go and learn what this means: 'I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT SACRIFICE,"



It isn't about a set of rules, it is about a recall to our conscience to our spirit and what we truely are:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"


Jesus taught us by word and by example that this was the TRUTH, the meaning of the scripture...to take dominion over the physical body which works the workings of sin and walk spiritualy there by no longer being in bondage to our flesh.
Heb 7:16 who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life
Eph 2:15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances




All of the ten commandments embodie the spirit of unwillingness to do harm but to in all things do good to all that we hold in our hearts and conscience (Our Spirit). They are all actions that cause harm or bring grief and suffering to others and to ourselves.

Jesus said the physical law can be summed up in one law, the law that takes hold when we follow the spirit and not the flesh....
Matt 7:12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Rom 13:8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
Gal 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.



Paul said by living in the spiritual guidance and not in our physical guidance we then create and prove the law as true and good. In other words if with out any law you follow your Spirit and be true to your conscience then you have in fact followed the very law you did not have, just as the gentiles in the earlier example:
Rom 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Rom 5:13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
Rom 7:16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
Rom 7:22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man
Rom 7:23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
1 Cor 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.
2 Cor 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.



That is what the Bible actually teaches...it is not about a tyranical ruler in need of our submission for His own ego...but a call to us to walk in spirit, to be true to the life and the love that dwells with in our hearts and is our very existance. There is no "Do all these things, or don't do all these things and you are saved, or you are better than others or you are chosen". It is a calling to not let our flesh overcome our hearts and minds to the outcome of harming and destroying Life itself, our humanity, what makes us who and what we truely are...spiritual, an image of God, of Love, and of Passion.

It looks beautiful on paper, but take a look outside.
Has christianity become like Jesus would want it to.
[I parsonally very don't like the idea about original sin and disagree with it completely]
Christianity over years has become that, what Jesus was fighting to 2000 years ago.
A bit sad that one of our worlds biggest phylosophers ever was so greately misunderstood.
In the movie Dogma[yeah, yeah I know, you don't like it] was said that the ideas are those who are important, not faith.


What I wanted to say, there is no christianity left in this world, only pseido-christianity, guided not by good ideas, but dogmatic beleifs.
Really sorry for Jesus, he had such great ideas.

Christianity is just a term given to the group of followers who started what we know as the first congregations. The term was given to them out of sarcasim. Jesus didn't come to the righteouse but for the sinner, that is all men not any sect.

Christianity is no where near what Jesus wanted it to be, nor are any of us...we all struggle to win the battle for good over ourselves. The crime Christians bring to it is that they "claim" to somehow be special, to be above what Jesus taught and stood for. They try to keep others from the truth based on their assumption that only they are worthy of it, when in fact they are very often very very very far removed from anything that even resembles the truth. You are correct it is sad.
Avatar I concur with your statement that the true intentions of the original Christian church is in fact quickly becoming extinct. Few and far between are those who hold to those teachings still and most of those that do are not called by or do not wish to be called by the name "Christian" often due to the stigmatism others have given it by their hypocracy.

Actually I haven't seen the movie Dogma, but I may well enjoy it if I had.

Ever heard George Carlins skit on the reduction of propoganda in the ten commandments? Funny guy, and with humor and reasoning reiterates Jesus' point about the purpose of the law in a very "lets use a little common sense here folks" kinda way.

Hi Taken,

Sin is a human condition. Only if you mean it is a concept created by man. But the term sin is purely a religious concept and means disobedience of God, or to offend God. If there is no god then sin has no meaning.

We are born in to sin by way of being born in a physical state, a physical being with desires. This says that even being born is offensive to God. What a cruel creator.

All humans begin life with very few neural connections and we could term these as instincts, i.e. evolutionary adaptations that promote actions for survival. Or inherited character traits transmitted via DNA coding. Without this basic firmware life would never survive. From then on the physical senses transmit information to the brain but the brain has to adapt to make sense of the data. Interpreting the senses is a long period of trial and error. New babies tend to thrash around often seemingly in a random fashion, until they touch or experience something. The brain at these times is undergoing massive transformations. Many neural connections are being formed and unformed as new data is being reinforced or discarded. In these times the baby is very vulnerable and is entirely dependent on its parents. Human parents and environment have massive effects on the characteristics of a child.

What a child becomes is entirely dependent on inherited traits (the child has no choice with these) and the environment in which he/she is exposed (and there is little choice with these in the early formative years).

Physical desires that are largely inherited work towards the survival of the species, and this is a common factor in every living organism on the planet. The primary and strongest instinct is reproduction. Those species without strong sexual desires tend to become extinct. The giant pandas are a good example. Their libidos are low resulting in only a few of them now in existence.

All men struggle against the tameing of those desires in accordance with their conscience. You use the terms ‘struggling against’ and ‘taming desires’. Your implication is that these desires are somehow bad, and let’s be truthful here; sexual desires are by far the most powerful and seemingly the most irksome to religionists.

If parental supervision and teaching, and school education is appropriate then there should be no struggle or taming required. And here we see the two greatest problems with modern society.

1. People have children. Virtually no one attends any form of education on how to introduce a new human being into the world or how to teach them the basics of life. Nearly all parents are hopelessly unprepared and unqualified to adequately introduce a new life into the world.

2. The education system is staffed by some of the most lowly paid people around and the schools are almost always under-funded. The result is a haphazard and miserable system where only those with high intelligence traits stand any chance of succeeding.

Given this hopelessly inadequate education and introduction to the world we should not be surprised at the random results and often very poor results that we see.

But physical desires are the basis of our evolutionary survival. There is nothing bad about them. Once they have been placed in their proper perspective and the student has been appropriately educated then these physical pleasures are among the most exquisite adventures available to the human condition. They should be promoted and explored fully and not hidden away as sinful evils and things to be hated.

When natural desires are suppressed paranoia and deviant behaviors are the result. Are we surprised then that where religions dominate then deviant behavior abounds. Remove repressive religious doctrines from the world and add well funded education systems and we will solve most of the world’s problems.

Our physical body acts in accorance with physical laws, Ok, no problem, kinda obvious I think.

our spiritual body in accordance with spiritual laws. This has no meaning, there are no facts here.

The Law in the form we know as the ten commandments is not a set of regulations set out by some tyranical diety to bring us under His conformity. But they are. They are phrased for the benefit of God and not for man. Men would phrase them very differently. They are authoritarian rather than educational. They don’t need to be laws at all.

The law of the spirit is with in every man, that is the breath of Life, Gods manifestation with in us, good, love, life, passion. My first reaction is to be derisory, but I will exercise restraint. Unfortunately that leaves me lost for any other appropriate words.

The rest of your post is really a sermon playing to emotions rather than to any sense of reason.

All of the ten commandments embodie the spirit of unwillingness to do harm but to in all things do good to all that we hold in our hearts and conscience (Our Spirit). They are all actions that cause harm or bring grief and suffering to others and to ourselves. If so then why aren’t they introduced in that manner? They are stated as authoritarian commands to be obeyed without question and the punishment for disobedience in every case but one is death.

If we remove the religious garbage that surrounds the Ten Commandments and remove the authoritarian slant, doubtless introduced because of the times in which they were written, and then phrase them in the light of your interpretation. Then we have a primitive basis for a moral code followed by most people. E.g. anything that enhances life is good and anything that detracts from life is bad. This follows evolutionary theory very well; the religious stuff is irrelevant and misleading.

Matt 7:12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. This has been plagiarized from many earlier philosophies. Also known as the golden rule etc. But this seemingly worthwhile concept has a number of problems. It assumes for a start that everyone wishes to be treated the same as you. If your ideas of what is good don’t quite match with someone else then if you inflict your ideas on them then you will cause harm and conflict. Wicca has another variation – “an harm none do what ye will”. This is a superior stance and similar to my own ‘everyone should be free to do whatever they wish providing such actions do not interfere with the freedom of others’. Both these later philosophies are non-intrusive and non-confrontational.

Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Note that this is phrased as an authoritarian command again, to be obeyed or suffer punishment. A rule to be followed blindly as part of the test to obtain eternal life.

A humanist variation would go something like: By loving and helping your neighbors you will help limit and remove conflicts and increase the chances of your own survival and that of the species. And species survival is important to your own survival because you will not be able to survive on your own. Again if you remove the religious authoritarian garbage, the concept then makes sense and the benefit to everyone becomes obvious. There just isn’t a need for a religious angle to any of this.

One can pretty much remove all the flowery religious wordings and be left with some basic concepts that have been in existence long before Christianity or Judaism arose.

That is what the Bible actually teaches...it is not about a tyranical ruler in need of our submission for His own ego... Your point is not proven since I can show that by simple re-phrasing, most of those statements can be worded for the benefit of man very clearly. As they are now they are specifically worded for the benefit of a tyrannical authoritarian god.

There is no "Do all these things, or don't do all these things and you are saved, or you are better than others or you are chosen". But again it doesn’t read that way. Put them all together and in a single context and that is exactly what Christianity is saying. The target is eternal life and to get there you must obey these rules.

You are heavily interpreting what you read to suit your own ideals, which I might add come very close to my own. Remove the overwhelming religious frills and you have some useful basic concepts for a healthy life. The resultant book however will be a tiny fraction of the existing bible, since most of the bible (7/8ths) is concerned with God’s ego, there is very little in there of benefit to man. But I strongly suspect that those few good ideas came from elsewhere anyway.

It is a calling to not let our flesh overcome our hearts and minds to the outcome of harming and destroying Life itself, our humanity, what makes us who and what we truely are... Our flesh (desires), heart (emotions), minds (intellect), all have roles to play in surviving and enjoying life. If one has had the benefit of a well-balanced and high quality education then it should be possible to bring all these aspects of life also into balance.

The result will be a happy, satisfied, but short-lived individual. Death unfortunately is the end that awaits all of us, but there is real hope now that with the use of our minds we can use our technology and science to overcome even this last hurdle of human weakness. And then there will be no place for religion and even less for Christianity.

Happy Christmas
Cris

This is nothing new. Most people are too lazy or willfully ignorant to seek out the truth instead opting to being told what an assumed truth is so they don't miss monday night football. Then then they want to be told that it doesn't matter what they believe so they don't have to check up on what they think is the truth to see that it actuall is.

This is general problem. Not just in Christianity. Just look at how few people take courses in philosophy and ethics.

God isn't dead. Reason is.

Ben

"Actually I haven't seen the movie Dogma, but I may well enjoy it if I had. "

Actually I suggest you to take tht movie for a rent or if you would like it then buy.

It is a hilaryous and sarcastic movie about chatolic[and all christian] church.
There are angels, demons, nymph, God, the 13th apostle, a far relative of Christ, archbishop, two prophesiers.
And it is all beautyfully presented.
Chatolics don't like it though[I have given this movie to them(some friends of mine) and I was happy that the inquisition is no more, tht look in their eyes:)

Cris, sin to me and I believe the Bible teachings concur...is anything we do that is in violation of or counterproductive to life and the good of mankind. Causing harm to others for unjustified selfish reasons is wrong. We do not need a religouse doctrine to tell us that. As Paul said our own conscience bears witness to it. Can anyone know what true hunger feels like and not have empathy on another person who is with out food? Can you love life and your family and not feel remorse if you have to take a human life for any reason? (Not speaking of those rare occurances of people with out conscience here, but of humans in general.) Your own heart and spirit convicts you when you cause pain, you do not have to be told or taught it is wrong. This type of human connection and passion occurs in most naturally, then we can by our own actions harden our hearts and quench our own conscience of free will. Going against God means going against Life and Love.

I never said we are born offensive to God...I said the desires that cause us to go against our conscience stem from physical needs and desires, there for by being born in to a physical body we are born in to haveing to deal with those desires. Make sense?

If you read the Bible and study the original wording of the Hebrew text, it is made very clear that Isreal was given the law for spiritual reasons, not to be brought under submission for Gods sake. And who is God anyway? Is He not Life, Love, Good, the very existance itself? "I Am". Then the laws are for the good of life and existance...i.e. MAN.

Rephrasing is a typical problem. The Bible is not a cluster of verses, it is a Book, it has a purpose and meaning and message and must be taken as a whole, in the order it was written. Bits and pieces by themselves out of the original message are easily misunderstood and misrepresented. Ever wonder why Christian churches teach random verse memorizations as opposed to reading and studying the Bible from front to back?

As for proof of spiritual laws....would you overcome or forego the physical laws and need of hunger to give your lunch to another hungry person? Thats not self preservation, thats self sacrifice.

As for desires being sin...No they arent. Sex is very natural, healthy and necesary...but if you allow that physical need to overpower your conscience to the point that you would betray, humiliate and grieve your wife and destroy your childrens lives and home to have an illicit affair...Now you have lost the battle of not allowing your natural physical desires cause you to vex your conscience and do harm to innocent people for selfish reasons. Make sense?

Physical needs are not sins, but it is our inner man that gives us cause and want to keep them under controll for the good of ourselves and others. That is the battle between the physical man and the spiritual man.

*Originally posted by avatar
I parsonally very don't like the idea about original sin and disagree with it completely*

While it is unclear what "original sin" means to you, I suspect that you will "personally" not like the idea of being thrown in the lake of fire.
You would probably disagree with it, too.

*What I wanted to say, there is no christianity left in this world, only pseido-christianity, guided not by good ideas, but dogmatic beleifs.*

There is actually true Christianity left in the world.
Most of what you see IS pseudo-Christianity, since that is part of the plan of Satan.
It's really no big deal.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 11:14,15, KJV).

*Originally posted by Taken
Avatar I concur with your statement that the true intentions of the original Christian church is in fact quickly becoming extinct.*

Boldly going where every man has gone before, huh, Taken?
The Body of Christ will never be extinct.
Wake up, before everyone thinks you're an atheist.

*Originally posted by Cris
If there is no god then sin has no meaning. *

The corollary to that is that if God does exist, then sin has plenty of meaning.

*The result is a haphazard and miserable system where only those with high intelligence traits stand any chance of succeeding. *

Isn't that kind of the point in a competitive society?

*My first reaction is to be derisory, but I will exercise restraint. Unfortunately that leaves me lost for any other appropriate words.*

You do have a bit of a knack for subtle understatement there, Cris.

*E.g. anything that enhances life is good and anything that detracts from life is bad. This follows evolutionary theory very well; the religious stuff is irrelevant and misleading.*

There you go again.
You very concisely highlight the key point.
Then you derail your train of thought in the very next sentence.

Evolutionary theory is completely independent of concepts of "good" and "bad," except for being totally bad in itself.
The word "random" is what applies if evolution is true.

*------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gal 5:14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that this is phrased as an authoritarian command again, to be obeyed or suffer punishment. A rule to be followed blindly as part of the test to obtain eternal life.*

This is where you have completely missed the boat, Cris.
You see, if it were an authoritarian command, then the verse tense would be the imperative tense.
It isn't.
It is future indicative.
IOW, it is merely telling whoever believes it, that they WILL be like that.

*Originally posted by avatar
It is a hilaryous and sarcastic movie about chatolic[and all christian] church.
There are angels, demons, nymph, God, the 13th apostle, a far relative of Christ, archbishop, two prophesiers.*

What's sarcastic about all that?
All that stuff is mentioned in the Bible, along with near relatives of Christ, like his brother James, and even the name of the 13th apostle is given, namely Matthias.

Of course, it should be remembered that Catholicism has nothing to do with Christianity, except for borrowing some names.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by [b]Cris [/i]
Our flesh (desires), heart (emotions), minds (intellect), all have roles to play in surviving and enjoying life. If one has had the benefit of a well-balanced and high quality education then it should be possible to bring all these aspects of life also into balance.

So what do you do with the ones who are not so fortunate.

…we can use our technology and science to overcome even this last hurdle of human weakness. And then there will be no place for religion and even less for Christianity.

Hmmmmm……..and up jumps the boogie.

What about the people who believe in God, will there be a place for them, in this happy and satisfied short lived life?

Love

Jan Ardena.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
What about the people who believe in God, will there be a place for them, in this happy and satisfied short lived life?*

Yup, the lake of fire.
Unless, of course, they believe in Jesus Christ, too.

Tony, Tony, Tony...how many times must I explain to you that there is a difference between the body of Christ, which is the true church, the true believers...and all the little sects and denominations of people parading around under the title "Christian" who in fact are NOT doing or teaching the true gospel of Jesus? Take your beloved Catholics for instance...are they the church?

Zero times.

However, you might consider making a distinction once in a while.

As for "beloved Catholics," beloved might be a little bit of a stretch, but no they're not part of the body of Christ, unless they believe his Word.
Then again, if they do, why are they still in the Catholic church?

Beloved was said in sarcasim to exclamate the point.

I have made the distinction before in other posts, most recently the thread entitled the church. I do not repost all statements leading up to due to the inefficiency of that method. I opperated on the assumption that haveing pointed my difference on the two out to you before that you would realize I don't see the two as equal.

The name "Christian" has been harloted and defiled by so many generations of men it is apauling to me, and I would assume to you as well. I will in the future refer to "Christians" and "The Church" as those under the name only and "True Believers, or Elect" as the TRUE body of Christ. Please remember that for future so we don't keep barking up the same old tree.

*Originally posted by Taken
I will in the future refer to "Christians" and "The Church" as those under the name only and "True Believers, or Elect" as the TRUE body of Christ.*

Why do that when the Bible already uses the terms unbelievers and believers.
Why do you think you end up barking up the same old tree?

Unbelievers already lump believers and unbelievers under the term "Christian."

In a religouse forum I see that occasion might arise to need to use the words Church and Christian....there does need to be a distinction made as our misunderstanding points out.

When in the Bible we see Jesus refer to His church He speaks of it in the purest sense of the meaning...however in this day and time we can no longer refer to believers as the Church or even Christians and be distinguished from those who bandy about the words at will in the minds of others.

Jesus didn't chose the name Christian nor did He assign the word Church to a building made of sticks and stones...so I will allow the majority useing the words to have them and gladly return to "Elect, brethren, Saints"...those names originally given to His children.

Fair enough to preserve clarity between us?

By your definition I'm a non-believer, but tht's a lie.
I beleive, only I have different beleifs than you, but tht in any way doesen't mean tht I'm non- beleiver.
The same goes for believer.
And if bible says non-believer tht means non christian/ity beleiver.
and only that.
In ancient times people were more tolerant to other beleifs, we have regressed in this field, sad.

*Originally posted by Taken
Fair enough to preserve clarity between us? *

I can understand pretty much anything you're saying regardless of the words you're using, but I'd like to see the sucking swamp you're going to end up in discussing things with tiassa.

*Originally posted by avatar
By your definition I'm a non-believer, but tht's a lie.*

I can understand your wanting to believe that, but you are a non-believer.
You see, believing only applies to believing something true.
Believing in something false is simply being stupid.

*I beleive, only I have different beleifs than you, but tht in any way doesen't mean tht I'm non- beleiver.*

I'm sorry, it does.
Again, if you "believe" something false, you are simply wrong, not a believer.

*And if bible says non-believer tht means non christian/ity beleiver.
and only that.*

Sorry again, but when the Bible says "non-believer" it means the disobedient and the rebellious.

*In ancient times people were more tolerant to other beleifs*

That's only because they didn't know better.

Tony will the men who believed in God before the life, death, and reserection of Jesus go to heaven...or the kingdom of God (I know how strict you are on terminology)?

Again, if you "believe" something false, you are simply wrong, not a believer.
Not according to you.

*Originally posted by Taken
Tony will the men who believed in God before the life, death, and reserection of Jesus go to heaven...or the kingdom of God?*

Depends on what it is they believed.

Even demons believe in God, so that isn't enough.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
(James 2:19, KJV).

*Originally posted by Xelios
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, if you "believe" something false, you are simply wrong, not a believer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not according to you.*

Shouldn't you be in bed?
What do you mean not according to me?
You just quoted me.

I think you're staying up too late.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tony1

Yup, the lake of fire.
Unless, of course, they believe in Jesus Christ, too.

If one believes in God and hears Jesus' teachings, one would have no choice but to believe in God. The whole point of Jesus' appearance was so that people would believe in God. One who does not recognise the word of God, does not actually believe in Jesus.

Love

Jan Ardena.

"*In ancient times people were more tolerant to other beleifs*

That's only because they didn't know better."

So you say tht intolerance and haterid is better thn mutual understanding and tolerance. You do not sound as a "beleiver" and follower of Jesus at all.


"*Originally posted by avatar
By your definition I'm a non-believer, but tht's a lie.*

I can understand your wanting to believe that, but you are a non-believer.
You see, believing only applies to believing something true.
Believing in something false is simply being stupid. "

Something true ei! But here you run into a wall. How do you know tht what you beleive is true, how do I know tht what I beleive is highly possible. None of us can be 100% sure tht their beleif is the true one and I wont to go further. Every beleif on earth is true. If how you say God is only one, then what's the matter how you call it. Your words go to him anyway.
And about the truth of christianity.
Why did God send Jesus to this world[if you beleive tht he is a son of God] only 2000 years ago. Why didn't he create Jesus in first place. It doesn't seem for God to throw in hell all those who lived before Christ[again tht is assuming you "beleive" in hell]

"Again, if you "believe" something false, you are simply wrong, not a believer."

Tony did you know tht you are a "non-beleiver", you do not beleive the same thing as I:)


"*And if bible says non-believer tht means non christian/ity beleiver.
and only that.*

Sorry again, but when the Bible says "non-believer" it means the disobedient and the rebellious. "


Need I to remind you tht christianity was disobedient and rebellious in the first place!

Tony, you yourself believe in something false, and so you are not a believer, just wrong.

*Originally posted by Jan Ardena
If one believes in God and hears Jesus' teachings, one would have no choice but to believe in God.*

Obvious?

*The whole point of Jesus' appearance was so that people would believe in God.*

No, they already believed in God.
He appeared so that they would believe what he said.

*One who does not recognise the word of God, does not actually believe in Jesus.*

That's correct.
You don't.

*Originally posted by avatar
So you say tht intolerance and haterid is better thn mutual understanding and tolerance. You do not sound as a "beleiver" and follower of Jesus at all.*

I didn't say anything about hatred.
Tolerance of falsehood is a sign of lack of understanding.

*How do you know tht what you beleive is true, how do I know tht what I beleive is highly possible.*

It's the difference between "true" and "highly possible."

*None of us can be 100% sure tht their beleif is the true one and I wont to go further.*

If by "us" you means "us pagans" then you're right.
I can and do know, though.

* Every beleif on earth is true.*

How about the belief that you're nuts?

*If how you say God is only one, then what's the matter how you call it. Your words go to him anyway.*

Mine do.
But who do your words go to?
So far, you don't know God, and there is no shortage of spirits who would be glad to his place in your life.

*Why didn't he create Jesus in first place.*

He didn't have to.

In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God.
(John 1:1, TCNT).

*Tony did you know tht you are a "non-beleiver", you do not beleive the same thing as I*

My point stands.
You're still wrong.

*Need I to remind you tht christianity was disobedient and rebellious in the first place!*

LOL! No.
Disobedience to disobedience, and rebellion against rebellion don't count.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Tony, you yourself believe in something false, and so you are not a believer, just wrong.*

Where's your proof?

I thought you didn't need proof?

But just for fun, where's yours?

*Originally posted by Xelios
I thought you didn't need proof?*

I don't, you do.
You don't get to just make statements, because you believe in the scientific method.
You have to prove your statements.
I do get to just say things because I know when I say things that is the way it is.

*But just for fun, where's yours? *

OK, I'll play along.

If the Bible is false, then what is the true thing that it is lying about?

Incidentally, bringing up evolution won't cut it, because it wasn't invented until 1850, and the Bible is much older than that.

the thing tht bible is older than theory of evolution, doesn't proove it is more true. it only proves tht it is older and nothing more.
[considering this particular case]

"*How do you know tht what you beleive is true, how do I know tht what I beleive is highly possible.*

It's the difference between "true" and "highly possible." "

I used the words "highly possible" just I like tht term better. I do not share your feelings towards the word "true". Truth is a very relative term, while "highly possible" is highly possible and you can not interpret it different.

"That's only because they didn't know better"

What is better than mutual undertanding Tony?

"If by "us" you means "us pagans" then you're right.
I can and do know, though. "

OK, proove me you are right. Proove me tht Jesus was the son of God. Proove me tht there is only one God. Proove me tht there actually is any God. [no bible quotes please. i have seen enough of them. cold hard facts.] And by us I mean all humans.


"Every beleif on earth is true.*

How about the belief that you're nuts? "

:)That will be your only beleif, but until you have facts to proove it, it's worth nothing.

"But who do your words go to?
So far, you don't know God, and there is no shortage of spirits who would be glad to his place in your life. "

my words do not need to go to any God. Gods are just a part of natural life force. We are a small part of nature, so are they. Even in Bible there is said, tht there were oceans and skyes, even before your God created this world[if you beleive in this].

"In the Beginning the Word was; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. "

That was said by some guy named John about 2000 years ago, not God. I can write down anything and say tht it was said to me by God. You can do it too[bible quotes:)]



"*Need I to remind you tht christianity was disobedient and rebellious in the first place!*

LOL! No.
Disobedience to disobedience, and rebellion against rebellion don't count. "

But what if that rebelion has created the world it was fighting against and the heads of the rebelion are some of the new worlds leaders.

And you are wrong about tht rebelion too. That was a rebelion against Rome and Jewish church at the first place, not against whole world.


"*Originally posted by Xelios
Tony, you yourself believe in something false, and so you are not a believer, just wrong.*

Where's your proof?"


And you ask for proof. But Tony all you needed was only beleif. You didn't need any proof for the truth about christianity, you just blindly beleive.

*Originally posted by Avatar
the thing tht bible is older than theory of evolution, doesn't proove it is more true. it only proves tht it is older and nothing more.
[considering this particular case]*

Funny guy.
So, before 1850, everything that anyone believed or knew or thought was a load of crap?

*I used the words "highly possible" just I like tht term better. I do not share your feelings towards the word "true". Truth is a very relative term, while "highly possible" is highly possible and you can not interpret it different.*

Highly possible doesn't mean anything.
Either a thing is true, or it isn't.
Highly possible merely refers to your chances of knowing it.

*What is better than mutual undertanding Tony?*

Truth.

*OK, proove me you are right. Proove me tht Jesus was the son of God. Proove me tht there is only one God. Proove me tht there actually is any God. [no bible quotes please. i have seen enough of them. cold hard facts.] And by us I mean all humans.*

OK, I'll see you on the shore of the lake of fire.
You'll be in it.
I'll be waving to you.


*"Every beleif on earth is true.*

How about the belief that you're nuts? "

:)That will be your only beleif, but until you have facts to proove it, it's worth nothing.*

You said it was a true belief.
I believe you're right.

*That was said by some guy named John about 2000 years ago, not God. I can write down anything and say tht it was said to me by God. You can do it too[bible quotes]*

That's good.
I have a choice between John and you.
I pick John because he makes more sense than you do.

*But what if that rebelion has created the world it was fighting against and the heads of the rebelion are some of the new worlds leaders.

And you are wrong about tht rebelion too. That was a rebelion against Rome and Jewish church at the first place, not against whole world.*

I didn't say anything about the whole world.

*And you ask for proof. But Tony all you needed was only beleif. You didn't need any proof for the truth about christianity, you just blindly beleive. *

I ask for proof from those who say they have it.
So far, it seems that they don't.

Besides, I don't "blindly" believe.
I can actually see the earth and the sky.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1, KJV).

Avatar, there is no hard proof for God. Plain and simple. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand what proof is.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. From what I got form tony before I ignored him, this is how he feels about most modern day theories about the universe. However, I would challenge him to put forth the extraordinary proof religion requires to be credible before he begins making accusations about the credibility of science.

Of course, he won't do this, because he can't. But that's his problem, not mine, and until he can science will remain as credible, if not more so, than any religion we know of.