This question is specifically directed at Christians, but also welcome any comments from anyone else.

I believe that Christ taught only one truth and gospel when here. He said that there is one faith, one baptism, straight is the gate and narrow is the way. I often hear that it does not matter, as long as you try to good, so your religion does not matter, or we will all be saved regardless of religious affiliation. Or that it does not matter what God you worship. And yet some of those same people readily berate those that do not believe as they or single out specific groups.

I am asking out of genuine desire to know. This is not a troll or an invitation to argue. To argue religion to me is antithetical to what Christ taught. Please be respectful, I honestly would like some answers as I am rather confused by this. Thank you.

Personally I don't see how anybody can search for God and not arrive at Christ some time or another. That is where the real choice lies - do you believe God has made it possible for you to know Him or not?

I think what happens is that people theorize about God and He becomes not much more than an intellectual exercise. Another problem is that all the enmity between religions and especially between individuals has made it almost impossible to remain objective about God, without running into some subjective trouble with religion.

If someone truly starts with an open mind and accepts that "God will be what God is", in spite of what people might think He is, and then start doing his research, he will eventually run into the 'does God love me, did He prove it, and would I see it?' question.Because in the end it is an immensely pesonal quest, and any answer should have immensely personal consequences.

I agree that one must search and come to a personal understanding, I don't believe that God wants us to follow blindly, rather that we come to know Him and to develop a personal relationship with Him.

I just get confused if a person belongs to religion A, but says that it does not matter if someone is B or C, it all turns out in the end. I look at it as that Christ gave specific authority to specific people and taught one truth and set up one church, not the thousands of Christian churches today.

Originally posted by truth
I just get confused if a person belongs to religion A, but says that it does not matter if someone is B or C, it all turns out in the end. I look at it as that Christ gave specific authority to specific people and taught one truth and set up one church, not the thousands of Christian churches today.

I'm not a christian, but I'll attempt to answer you. The secularization observed in the christian faith is also a plight of the Islamic faith and all other religions, while the question of why so many churches should be changed to why so many religions?

The answer is because humans have kidnapped religion and made it the religion of humans, while religion is a sole property of god. For example, when you ask someone what is your religion, you are immediately implying that a religion belongs to that person as a property or asset to that person, while noone should ask the trivial question of what is your religion, because all religions are one and they belong to the one god. What is your affiliation is more like the question that should be asked, and some have affiliation to a certain church or mosque much like golf clubs membership, but it shouldn't be confused with religion.

Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Elias, Jesus, ect....were all prophets of god that preached the same fundemental message of submitting to the one god. The jews deny Jesus as a prophet and are sufficient with what came before them, and the christians deny Mohamed as a prophet and are sufficient with what came before them, and the muslim deny everyone that doesn't believe in their message, which is the same basic message of submittion to one god. Abraham bowed down and prayed to the lord, Jesus bowed down and prayed and fasted every year for a month, the muslims bow down everyday in prayer and fast and remember god, yet due to the fact that everyone think they own their religion that we are all blind from seeing god.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Personally I don't see how anybody can search for God and not arrive at Christ some time or another. That is where the real choice lies - do you believe God has made it possible for you to know Him or not?
Just because you don't understand/see why people don't believe in Christ, doesn't mean that they must not be looking. Even if there is a 'choice' to know god, that says nothing about Christ being his son/self.

Originally posted by Flores
The answer is because humans have kidnapped religion and made it the religion of humans, while religion is a sole property of god.
Sad sad flores. Religion has not been 'kidnapped' by humans. If anything, it was created FOR humans. Your argument of god owning religion is no better then an argument of god owning everything.... and in that sense, the word 'own' loses all meaning.

For example, when you ask someone what is your religion, you are immediately implying that a religion belongs to that person as a property or asset to that person
Or you could try and understand human language. If I as you what 'your eye color is', it does not mean that you own the color brown.

because all religions are one and they belong to the one god
Nice thought... but as you have to realize, religions ARE different... as you yourself fight against the religious beliefs of others... which would mean YOU ARE FIGHTING AGAINST GOD.

Abraham, Moses, Daniel, Elias, Jesus, ect....were all prophets of god that preached the same fundemental message of submitting to the one god.
The devil is in the details. While you may claim that is was all for the same god, god seems to have told them all different things. And what is this 'fundemental message'? "Ignore the free will I gav eyou and submit to lambdom"?

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by Jenyar
[B]Personally I don't see how anybody can search for God and not arrive at Christ some time or another.

Personally, if someone honestly and sincerely searched for God, they would find themselves. Jesus has NOTHING to do with it. It's just your false belief. The Spirit of God can only be found within the human race. I'm sorry you haven't found God in your life.

If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't know what God would look like in my life. The Spirit of God is with us, but as I said before we are NOT God - it would be more accurate to say "I found Christ in my life", and I base my faith on His.

Otherwise God would be anything I make Him to be. In that sense Flores is right about people who have hijacked religion (and "god"). They make an idol out of religion. The secularisation of religion will always be a real danger to watch out for.

Persol, I think you might be confusing faith and religion. Faith is a gift from God - but each person is unique and therefore has a unique view about faith in God. Faith is the "living according to" a person's picture of God. One Christian might be trying to please God because he thinks God is waiting for him to sin and he fears punishment, another Christian might be taking liberties with the same faith because he think God will forgive everything he does anyway. This is why scripture is so important. It shows us what kind of faith God has approved of or condemned through history. It is when people begin to think they have to ignore history and return to a "pure" faith, that they start creating new doctrines that might actually be a regression.

The question shouldn't be what religion you are following, but which God you are following. All relgions are real in their own right, but not all gods are real. From a Christian perspective: Jesus said people diligently study the scripture because they think they will find eternal life in it, but they forget or don't realize that all scripture points to Him (John 5:39).

Hab.2:4 "but the righteous will live by his faith"

Originally posted by Jenyar
Jesus said people diligently study the scripture because they think they will find eternal life in it, but they forget or don't realize that all scripture points to Him (John 5:39). No, there is a redacted account writted decades after "Jesus".

The Gospel according to John is quite different in character from the three synoptic gospels. It is highly literary and symbolic. It does not follow the same order or reproduce the same stories as the synoptic gospels. To a much greater degree, it is the product of a developed theological reflection and grows out of a different circle and tradition. It was probably written in the 90s of the first century.

New American Bible: John; Introductionred]It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form.

- Introduction to the Gospel of John, The New Jerusalem Bible

So John is a comprehensive theology that already existed by the 90s.

That means it is a redaction of the teachings before it, doesn't it? A theology doesn't develop out of nothing and still reflect everything that went before it. John is evidently the result of a lot of thinking and study.

Would you care to speculate what he based his theology on, and when those would be dated?

The existance of so many religions (abrahamic religions) imply a fact : Scriptures are not enough OR failed, to guide people unitedly towards GOD. There were differences with Jewish clergy and Jesus; There were differences with people of Books (OT,NT) and Muhammad. There were differences with main stream islamic clergy and sufi saints. There are differences among various churches.

The foundation for these differences, mostly, is the interpretaion of How God is interacting with humans.? or the expectation of How God is supposed to intereact with humans.?

Jews see a God as a master creator who makes certain promises and demands, accordingly He rewards or punishes. (a more simplistic rather).

Christians (not necessarily Christ) believe that God sent His Son (for the time being lets forget Trinity aspect) out of love for humanity. Having faith in Jesus is the only way to redemption or way to escape Hell. Love and faith are crucial messages of Christ.

Muhammad said he was the last of the prophets, or so said by God(Allah)/Gabriel. He agreed with all of the prophets before him, including Jesus but did not believe that Jesus was crucified and did not believe that Jesus was the son of God. Sunni-Shia difference was a matter of inheritance of Muhammad's legacy. The gruesome murder of Imam Hussein resulted in permenant split.

Sufism further explored the nature of Allah beyond Quran and ended up saying God is not separate from His own creations but indweller of all His creations. This was apparently not in agreement with Main stream Islam's interpretation of Quran that God (Allah) is supreme and the creations are lowly.

Various Churches differ mainly in how they carry out their bussiness besides their interpretation of Christ or God.


We can see the root cause of differences being in the assertions regarding the ways and nature of God, made by various scriptures and insititutions like Churches and Clergies (Jewish,Christian and Islamic). Once asserted, the supposed ways and nature of God, it becomes the Dogma treated like unquestionable truth. Is God bound by any of our believes (Jewish, Christianity, Islamic) as to how He is OR how He should be..?

How about having an open mind and see them, now.?

The various prophets in OT came to lead their people in different circumstances. Accordingly they differed in their messages and missions.

Jesus and his message of Love and faith in his Gospel aimed at societies strayed away from the words of previous prophets whether Jeswish or otherwise. As for the chruch(es) : It is an institution supposed to offer guidance to the society and to facilitate individuals to follow Christ. They failed to leave the individual alone with his/her Lord. Church(es) is now more powerful/authoritative than Christ. Some churches would do anything for their own survival and popularity.!

Allah as a wrathfull and Merciful one in proper balance, was revealed perfectly suitable for erstwhile paganic restless arab society where power and mercy are a reverred workable combination.

Sufism was a blend of Islam and philosphies of East. Less dogmatic of All.

All the above religions have a common God, as individually they claim. The God of Abraham. Jews would be better off to come out of their long gone special chosen exclusive race belief. Christians would be better off to follow Jesus in their heart and be faithfuls to Jeus rather than being faithful to their church(es). Muslims would be better off praying Allah, the merciful one, rather than a wrathfull God misunderstood to be demanding destruction of unfaithfuls.

All of them should pause and try to see what God has done and how revealed Himself to the rest of the world - the East. Chengis Khan saw God as vastness of Sky and he belived His God was above him where-ever he went - for good or bad.! Far-east have their culture and civilization enhanced by the teachings of Buddha (he never answered to a question 'whether God is there.?'. He left the question to followers to find the truth on their own). Most of South Asia has philosophies - a blend of vedas-buddhism-jainism-sikhism-sufism not rigidly dogmatic&warring.

Originally posted by Jenyar
If it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't know what God would look like in my life.

Okay, Jenyar, so your fantasy about God looks like Jesus to you. Although you were created by God and, therefore, responsible to God, you give Jesus credit for everything in your life.

The Spirit of God is with us, but as I said before we are NOT God - it would be more accurate to say "I found Christ in my life", and I base my faith on His.

If you truly have the spirit of God within you, you would be X-like and, therefore, you would not need to follow X. I would agree that you could use X as an example to follow but not to worship. God said to have no other gods before him. You are insulting your Creator with your fantasy god.

Otherwise God would be anything I make Him to be.

You are creating a god out of your fantasy about X dying for your sins--therefore, you think you are saved. That's YOUR fantasy.

In that sense Flores is right about people who have hijacked religion (and "god").

Xians have hijacked religion and 'god.' No other religion has done that--just Xians.

They make an idol out of religion. The secularisation of religion will always be a real danger to watch out for.

Xians have made X their idol. This blasphemes God! Yes, this is a real danger.

Persol, I think you might be confusing faith and religion. Faith is a gift from God - but each person is unique and therefore has a unique view about faith in God. Faith is the "living according to" a person's picture of God. One Christian might be trying to please God because he thinks God is waiting for him to sin and he fears punishment, another Christian might be taking liberties with the same faith because he think God will forgive everything he does anyway. This is why scripture is so important. It shows us what kind of faith God has approved of or condemned through history. It is when people begin to think they have to ignore history and return to a "pure" faith, that they start creating new doctrines that might actually be a regression.

All religions blaspheme our Maker. Xianity is the worst blasphemer of all. Its like putting a belief in a fantasy before one's Creator.

The question shouldn't be what religion you are following, but which God you are following.

There's only one God, YHWH, Allah, its religions that corrupt the soul.

All relgions are real in their own right, but not all gods are real. From a Christian perspective: Jesus said people diligently study the scripture because they think they will find eternal life in it, but they forget or don't realize that all scripture points to Him (John 5:39).

This is bullshit. X, the Rabbi, taught his followers, the Jews, to be good Jews, go to Temple, and read the OT. The NT wasn't even written until long after X was gone (and I don't mean Xified).

Hab.2:4 "but the righteous will live by his faith"

Yes, the faith given to us by the One God, One Creator, One Spirit who made us all. This is what X tried to teach, but the fanatics following him (Saul/Paul) made X into a fantasy god, a false god.

[B] There is no salvation by a fantasy god.[B]

Originally posted by Jenyar
So John is a comprehensive theology that already existed by the 90s. That means it is a redaction of the teachings before it, doesn't it? No, you idiot, it means precisely what it says: that (a) "it was probably written in the 90s of the first century", and (b) it "underwent a complex development before it reached its final form".

Originally posted by truth
straight is the gate and narrow is the way.

holy wow. not the way i learned it in catholic theology (the *original* christians). i specifically remember my religion teacher saying (and i can see her now- her fake blonde hair and kind italian face) 'there are many roads but they all lead to the same place'. it was to explain the catholic policy of religious acceptance.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No, you idiot, it means precisely what it says: that (a) "it was probably written in the 90s of the first century", and (b) it "underwent a complex development before it reached its final form".
a)final form: 90s of the first century
b)"complex development" from what material? That is what I'm interested to know from you.

Originally posted by Jenyar
a)final form: 90s of the first century. According to what scholarship? Certainly not Jenyar-of-the-70-books.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
According to what scholarship? Certainly not Jenyar-of-the-70-books.
Apparently we read the words "written down" differently. Was it first written down, and then underwent a "complex development", or was it developed and subsequently written down? Keep in mind that the culture wasn't literary or peer-reviewed as it is today. Dialogue and personal involvement was preferred and more accessible than written material.

My own view is that the content of John is certainly theological, and its treatment of the gospel is informed by a Jewish/Gnostic background (The religious-historical background of John (http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NewTestament/Gospels/BACKGRJOHN.htm)), but its was based on his assocation and personal experience with Jesus (Source criticism of the gospel of John (http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NewTestament/Gospels/SOURCJOHN.htm)). I freely acknowledge this is a personal interpretaion of the research, but at least it is based on some analysis of the material.

It is really much easier to be a Unitarian Universalist then you can seek truth from human experience not from an allegiance to old writings.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I freely acknowledge this is a personal interpretaion of the research, but at least it is based on some analysis of the material. Jenyar, fraud that you are, you dance around the truth a good deal in order to prop up the textual house of cards that constitutes your storybook.

It is when people begin to think they have to ignore history and return to a "pure" faith, that they start creating new doctrines that might actually be a regression.


I've been telling you this for ages but you never really paid it much attention. Now kindly go read some Sumerian.

Originally posted by SnakeLord
I've been telling you this for ages but you never really paid it much attention. Now kindly go read some Sumerian.

I think reading the Sumerian texts should be a prerequisite for Bible reading.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Jenyar, fraud that you are, you dance around the truth a good deal in order to prop up the textual house of cards that constitutes your storybook.
I dance around what truth, exactly? You haven't submitted any basis for your claims except those two quotes (which only seem to strengthen my case). Now you are resorting to personal attacks again, just when I thought we were making progress.

If it they are stories, fine. Believe that if you want. But then they are stories already written down and available in Egypt within 40 years of Jesus death.

PS. Snakelord and Medicine*Woman: you don't believe the Sumerian stories either, so you don't learn from them any more than you would from the Bible. I have read the ones provided by Snakelord earlier, and they seemed to show that the similarities only highlight the differences.

If you don't learn from something it has no meaning.

Originally posted by Jenyar
I dance around what truth, exactly?

PS. Snakelord and Medicine*Woman: you don't believe the Sumerian stories either, so you don't learn from them any more than you would from the Bible. I have read the ones provided by Snakelord earlier, and they seemed to show that the similarities only highlight the differences.

If you don't learn from something it has no meaning.

Jenyar, you're a liar in tap shoes. You can dance around your own lies, but don't start telling lies about the rest of us. I've read some of the Sumerian texts, and they discount everything the Bible says. Don't tell me what I believe, and don't tell me what I have or haven't learned. Are you claiming that you're psychic, too? I went to a Xian university, ugh! I've studied the Bible many times over, and I still choose not to believe a word of it. Perhaps if you quit dancing around everyone else's knowledge, you might learn something. You surely aren't teaching the rest of us anything with your incessant Xian blabbering. Please, take off those tap shoes, go to a library or book store, and start reading the truth. You are so blind to the truth that you're just another pathetic example of a misinformed Xian. Sadly, you believe the lies. You have no credibility whatsoever on this forum. Please, go find yourself a Xian forum and have a field day communicating with your like-minded losers.

Originally posted by Jenyar
If it they are stories, fine. ... But then they are stories already written down and available in Egypt within 40 years of Jesus death. No. They are stories that include a confused, unverified, 2nd-hand account of a crucifixion and resurrection.

So, Jenyar-of-the-70-books, which stories were "already written down and available in Egypt" by 75 CE and what is the manuscript evidence? Perhaps we can have a real discussion after all.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
I've read some of the Sumerian texts, and they discount everything the Bible says.
But do you believe the Sumerian texts? One fiction cannot "discount" another - so there are only two possibilities left (since you told me yourself you don't believe anything the Bible says):
1)You don't believe either of them (as I state in my post)
2)You believe the Sumerian text (in which case I would ask why)

Don't tell me what I believe, and don't tell me what I have or haven't learned. Are you claiming that you're psychic, too? I went to a Xian university, ugh! I've studied the Bible many times over, and I still choose not to believe a word of it.
I don't need to tell you what you believe. You do that quite clearly enough yourself.

You are so blind to the truth that you're just another pathetic example of a misinformed Xian. Sadly, you believe the lies.
Your hold on the truth is just as tenuous as my own. I don't believe your truth (whatever it is - "the Bible is wrong" is no truth, it is a sweeping emotional claim without scholarly grounds).

Once again, Jenyar-of-the-70-books, which stories were "already written down and available in Egypt" by 75 CE and what is the manuscript evidence?

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
No. They are stories that include a confused, unverified, 2nd-hand account of a crucifixion and resurrection.
I will address this after you substantiate the claim - your proof, your burden. I'll lay it out:

Substantiate,
1)confused
2)unverified
3)2nd hand

So, Jenyar-of-the-70-books, which stories were "already written down and available in Egypt" by 75 CE and what is the manuscript evidence? Perhaps we can have a real discussion after all.
John shows a more complicated theology than the other gospels. Mark (generally accepted to be the oldest gospel) is credited as establishing the church in Egypt (allegedly he died being dragged through the streets of Alexandria for two days) (Mark, the Evangelist (http://www.cryingvoice.com/Christian_martyrs/Mark.html)). Matthew and Luke were already quoted by Ignatius before 110 CE (Ignatius quotes from two gospels and some Pauline epistles (http://www.ntcanon.org/Ignatius.shtml)), which means they were already available to him in Syria before 100CE.

Because of the historical allusions found in the Gospel of Mark to the events of the First Jewish Revolt, the period of five years between 70 and 75 CE is the most plausible dating for the Gospel of Mark within the broader timeframe indicated of 65 to 80 CE. (Early Christian Writings: (The gospel of Mark (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html))).

Mark could not have been to Egypt any time after 80 CE (some sources put his death to before 70 CE). The gospel of the Egyptians was developed between 80-150 CE (Early Christian Writings: the gospel of the Egyptians (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelegyptians.html)). By that time, John was already available. John is known by the Gnostics of Nag Hammadi (in Upper Egypt), and they were already considered heretical by Polycarp between 100 and 155 CE (The Nag Hammadi Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html) and Polycarp (http://www.ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml))

*edit*
I have since read that according to the history of the Christian Church in Alexandria, Egypt, the gospel of Christ was first brought there by Mark in the reign of the Roman emperor Nero (54- 67 AD) and is documented as spreading to Middle Egypt by the middle of the second century, the period where the Rylands John papyrus was found.
- the primitive Christians (http://biblesearchers.com/hebrewchurch/primitive/primitive3.shtml)

i'll have a shot at truth's original question

religion is a powerfull intoxicant for many, it's such a powerfull idea that people have wars over it would you believe.

i've been to a couple of 'new' churches, the intoxicated vibe i get from there is like walking into a drug fueled dance party. people are uplifted in much the same way.

there is the group effect where, people flock to one particular idea they like and well religion then gets carved up.

heaven sounds great to lots of people and everyone desperately want's to get there..... some so called good christians will end up doing very bad things all in the name of good.

it's way way out of hand.

it's quite obvious to me, from reading lots of religious texts that God selects people's worthiness as an individual not based on how hard they have tried.

It's like American Idol or some other popstars competition. It doesn't matter how hard you try or how little you try, the judges know if your real talent or not.

It doesn't matter how hard you pray it wont make one sh1t bit of difference. You will be asessed on your character and qualities and thoughts.
Even if you have a life of drugs sex and various other sins, you still could go to heaven.

Think of a mind/soul like a software program, it is just information, it doesn't have physical existence, however you can't deny it does.
I think the idea is with a place like heaven, is that is populated with minds that are functional, balanced and sane.

Hell is the refuse dump for minds that are dysfunction and corrupt and have no place, like software programs that crash a computer, they get deleted.
A fundamental law of the universe is that information cannot be destroyed, so technically a soul can't be destroyed.
There is no devil and there is no punishment, except bad software like bad souls is usually self-harming.

Bare in mind, no soul is perfect, there is no such thing as perfect even, not even god is perfect (what IS perfect?).

So it's not about purity of thought or going to church on sunday, it's not about who did what 2000 years ago. It's about self development..... no not listening to stupid self-help tapes and motivational stuff.....
it's about building your mind and your personality, feeding your intellegence and being a better person all round.
generally, the more intellegent and stable you are, the less you are likely to be a bad person, in terms of hurting people and doing bad things.
So it's not about actually doing good or bad things it's what kind of person you actually are.

i've come to those conclusions after ALOT of reading and thinking.. and that was just brushing over my conclusions too.

I didn't just read the first bible/quran/torah that was handed to me and buy it word for word.

The meaning is deeper than that..... and THAT is where the trick is.

So does that mean i'm going to heaven? I don't know, I don't care, I'm atheist so I very much doubt that is the nature of the unvierse. But at least I understand the message behind religion.... that said i don't have to give it the time of day and worry about it any more.... :D

I hope this gives a interesting (not too odd i hope) and different perspective, Truth.

So it's not about purity of thought or going to church on sunday, it's not about who did what 2000 years ago. It's about self development..... no not listening to stupid self-help tapes and motivational stuff.....
it's about building your mind and your personality, feeding your intellegence and being a better person all round.
generally, the more intellegent and stable you are, the less you are likely to be a bad person, in terms of hurting people and doing bad things.
So it's not about actually doing good or bad things it's what kind of person you actually are.
I don't want to disappoint you, but this was the first conclusion people came to after Jesus died, and they founded the Gnostic sect. You just have to free your mind, be a good person, and the gods will be pleased... Why do you think Jesus had to die? Because it was necessary.

To borrow from one of the parables. If you didn't come to a feast when you were invited, what makes you think you will ever be "good enough" to arrive uninvited later?

There simply is no other God who has invited anybody to eternal life without checking your credentials first. If you don't respond to the invitation, dress up in your Sunday clothes (I love the irony), and arrive at the appointed time, you will find the doors closed when you get there. This isn't a threat, or a condemnation, or unfair. That's life (if you can excuse the pun).

Originally posted by truth
...

I believe that Christ taught only one truth and gospel when here. He said that there is one faith, one baptism, straight is the gate and narrow is the way. I often hear that it does not matter, as long as you try to good, so your religion does not matter, or we will all be saved regardless of religious affiliation. Or that it does not matter what God you worship. And yet some of those same people readily berate those that do not believe as they or single out specific groups.

...

Perceptions of reality past, present and future depend on the subscribed belief system. An individual is subscribed to a belief system she/he believes fully and doubts not. Percecptions of the afterlife depend on the subscribed belief system.

Although the Holy Bilbe New and Old Testaments are considered the word of God, some Books of the New Testament are omitted from Bibles specialized for some groups of God's worshippers. An example might be the Book of Revelations. In that Book, one sees that anyone not Christianized will go to Hell. That notion is belived by some and not all who hold God as their god because some Holy Bibles are specialized by omitting some Books of the Old or New Testament. For example, Jews use part of the Old Testament and none of the New Testament. To a Jew subscribed to Jewish religious beliefs, the New Testament is false. Therefore, you might get a different answer from a different flavor of religion.

Those who say it is okay to worship God any way one chooses to do so and then berates others for not worshipping as they do is a hypocritical individual with a power trip. Such self-centered individuals tend towards barbarism and can potentially end up in fights more often than those who value respect while immersed in a culturally diverse envrionment.

Oh, the answer to your desire to know what is right in regards to the afterlife, pick a belief system and believe it. It is up to you if you want to debate your newfound belief with anyone subscribed to other belief systems.

Hmm, if none of the pre-existing belief systems appeal to you, make up your own. You may either comprise it of portions of other systems or of your own unique concoctions. Registering your religion and converting converts can create considerable cash. If you are the only one administering your religion and a member of your group goes to prison, the freedom of religion rights for that prisoner means the State or Federal Government has to provide a Chaplan familiar with that prisoner's belief system. If you are it, you get a Chaplan job! Your pay may be less than that of Chaplan's with religious degrees.

GodLied

Originally posted by Jenyar
...

...

There simply is no other God who has invited anybody to eternal life without checking your credentials first. If you don't respond to the invitation, dress up in your Sunday clothes (I love the irony), and arrive at the appointed time, you will find the doors closed when you get there. This isn't a threat, or a condemnation, or unfair. That's life (if you can excuse the pun). [/B]

How many religions are you using in researching your notion that God is the only god who screens people to enter the equivalent of Heaven?

Did you even bother to consider Satanism where Satanists worship Satan as their god and commit murder in Satan's name to enter Hell? Have you never learned of those news stories about Satanists that wax a corpse' eyes open to keep them open for eternity? It has been on TV at least twice in my lifetime and I watch TV infrequently.

Your obvious belief centrism neglects the existence of other beliefs as well as complementary beliefs. Narrow mindedness like yours is why the original poster gets inconsistent answers to religious queries. Expand your mind by reading up on alternative beliefs before commenting against them. In doing so, you might convert to another belief system.

GodLied.

Originally posted by Jenyar
...John shows a more complicated theology than the other gospels. Mark (generally accepted to be the oldest gospel) is credited as establishing the church in Egypt (allegedly he died being dragged through the streets of Alexandria for two days) ...

Capital punishment for John may be well deserved: He might have been the one who killed Hypatia, a female Egytian scholar familiar with the conic sections. Just because early Christians hated intelligence does not justify deaths of others in the name of God. .....remember the 10 commandments: thou shalt not kill...

GodLied

Originally posted by GodLied
Capital punishment for John may be well deserved: He might have been the one who killed Hypatia, a female Egytian scholar familiar with the conic sections. Just because early Christians hated intelligence does not justify deaths of others in the name of God. .....remember the 10 commandments: thou shalt not kill...

GodLied

My error, the Christian fanatics that brutally murdered Hypatia of Alexandria was lead by Peter. They killed her because she was educated and influential. She taught mathematics and philosophy. Her texts were used to instruct the masses. Her common sense and respect from the public would have ended spread of Christianity amongst learned individuals had she not been murdered. Hypatia's assasination by Christian fanatics is my absolute disgust with Christianity.

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Hypatia.html

GodLied.

PS: the Holy Bible is not axiomatic: there is no consistent basis from which to construct the Holy Bible. That fundamental reality is why anyone of sound mind can form inconsistent decisions consistent with the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by Jenyar
Mark ... That childish casserole was no doubt the best you could do. Unfortunately, it did not answer the question.

You're a dishonest, superficial, and pathetically ignorant fraud, Jenyar-of-the-70-books, and your efforts to appear otherwise are laughable. But, by all means, feel free to try again: which stories were "already written down and available in Egypt" by 75 CE and what is the manuscript evidence? Let me give you a hint:Mark's Gospel appears for the first time in the oldest extant manuscript containing all four canonical gospels (p45) which was written in the middle of the 3d century CE. No other manuscript evidence for Mark exists before the 4th century, where Mark is included in the papyrus (p88), and two uncial fragments (059, 0188).

- see Ancient Christian Gospels by Hekmut KoesterBut who was this Mark? One immediately thinks of the missionary John Mark firmly connected to the Pauline tradition ... a decision cannot yet be made concerning the historical trustworthiness of this tradition, since no distinctive Petrine theology can be discerned behind the Gospel of Mark, nor does Peter play a role in it beyond that already given him in the pre-Markan tradition. No one would suppose that the figure of Peter stands behind the distinctive theology of the Gospel of Mark, if there were no Papias tradition! Nor can a recognizable connection between Pauline theology and the Gospel of Mark be determined. The second Gospel is thus the work of a Christian by the name Mark, who is otherwise unknown to us.

- see The New Testament Writings by Udo Schnelle

Originally posted by GodLied
How many religions are you using in researching your notion that God is the only god who screens people to enter the equivalent of Heaven?
You misread my sentence (probably because i didn't phrase it clearly:
"... invited anybody to eternal life without checking your credentials first" vs.
"...invited anybody to eternal life only after checking your credentials first"

Anyhow: Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

My error, the Christian fanatics that brutally murdered Hypatia of Alexandria was lead by Peter. They killed her because she was educated and influential. She taught mathematics and philosophy. Her texts were used to instruct the masses. Her common sense and respect from the public would have ended spread of Christianity amongst learned individuals had she not been murdered. Hypatia's assasination by Christian fanatics is my absolute disgust with Christianity.
And Muslim fanatics flew into the WTC. Nothing prevents anybody from being fanatic over and above their moral obligations. How unfortunate the crimes of anyone - whether they called themselves Christian or not. I should point out that this Peter wasn't an apostle - no apostle could still be alive by 415CE. Her murderers will receive their punishment.

Socrates Scholasticus put it nicely: "This affair brought not the least opprobrium, not only upon Cyril, but also upon the whole Alexandrian church. And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort."

PS: the Holy Bible is not axiomatic: there is no consistent basis from which to construct the Holy Bible. That fundamental reality is why anyone of sound mind can form inconsistent decisions consistent with the Holy Bible.
If someone doesn't believe in God or doesn't act like he believes in God, the Bible will not be "Holy" to him, and he will be able to permit himself any liberty.

If anybody calls himself Christian, he will have to be able to read this without squirming in his seat:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men." (Titus 3)

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
That childish casserole was no doubt the best you could do. Unfortunately, it did not answer the question.
Er... excuse me, but since when does only extant manuscripts qualify? If a later manuscript can be dated to a certain period, then obviously it was available during that period.

Or shall we conclude that Plato was not available until 900CE, where we have the earliest extant manuscript of his work?

You're a dishonest, superficial, and pathetically ignorant fraud, Jenyar-of-the-70-books, and your efforts to appear otherwise are laughable.
I'm not of those things, CA. If I'm laughable, then so be it.

But who was this Mark? One immediately thinks of the missionary John Mark firmly connected to the Pauline tradition ... a decision cannot yet be made concerning the historical trustworthiness of this tradition, since no distinctive Petrine theology can be discerned behind the Gospel of Mark, nor does Peter play a role in it beyond that already given him in the pre-Markan tradition. No one would suppose that the figure of Peter stands behind the distinctive theology of the Gospel of Mark, if there were no Papias tradition! Nor can a recognizable connection between Pauline theology and the Gospel of Mark be determined. The second Gospel is thus the work of a Christian by the name Mark, who is otherwise unknown to us.
I can only point out a few things here, and let you make your own decision:
1)Did Mark intend to expand on "Petrine theology", or to write about the life of Jesus?
2)Why should Peter feature, when the subject is Jesus?
3)Ditto Paul
4)A rose by any other name... Some manuscripts actually have the words "attributed to Mark" on them, indicating its later date, but its content speaks for itself.


In Acts 10:34-40, Peter's speech serves as a good summary of the Gospel of Mark, "beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached." Finally, there was not an extremely strong motivation for the early church to attribute the second gospel to one obscure Mark, the disciple of Peter, instead of directly to an apostle. Thus, the tradition of Markan authorship is to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

- Early Christian Writings: the Gospel of Mark (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)