ANy one a CHristian post here

[ecto9]

If you look into the Bible with an open mind you will see that this is not possible as homosexuality is a direct violation of God's law.

It's not my opinion I just believe the Bible

I realize this was in the Old Testament. But I don't beleive I've seen it in the New Testament. Christ came to fufill the Law (of God and the Old Testament) because no mortal man could, thearby offering the forgiveness of man's sins, whatever they may be. (This is the Christian philosophy).

And as far as picking apart another mans "sins", Christ said: "Let him without sin be the first one to cast a stone (at the one caught in adultry, ie: sin). Just being born we are all sinners of different sorts and cannot judge another for their condition because we may not "approve" of their lifesyle.

[rockinred]

Boots you are going to have to explain yourself on that! Just because the tomb was empty doesn't mean he rose from the dead. The majority of the pharohs of Egypt tombs were empty when discovered. Does that mean they all ascended to heaven liked they believed?

This is boots'

Christianity is relatively new to the human existence, so I believe its fool hearted to believe in something that claims the only way to salvation is through this method. What about the millions of people who lived thousands of years before Christianity?

Well it depends on why you believe you need to be saved or if there is a reason to be.... all are doomed... it is this reason we need to be saved and a means by which to be saved... the bible does talk about those before Jesus and God's judgment after.... but, this can be answered by looking into... there is not gap or forgotten people.

No matter how hard you try to convince anyone of religious beliefs there are huge holes and the biggest being time and mans position in time. It just doesn't add up.

what time are you referring too? What is your time line of human history based on?? The earliest written documents only go back about somewhere around 3500 years..... All anthopologists agree that civilization and all language goes back to ****patamia also known as the fertile crescent...middle east.... these are believers and non believers...

the rest you wrote about time is only speculation and theory.... no facts...carbon dating is definitly not trustworthy as has been proven many times over...

I think BITTAPART said it best. Great post brotha. Once people begin to believe Jesus was a great PERSON and we should follow his example, the world would be a much better place.

Said his opinion best

I deal with a lot od Muslims on a daily basis with my job. And just as adamant you Christians are about being right about YOUR faith, others of differing faiths are just as adamant about theirs. Who is right? No one is right because there is ZERO proof that any of them are correct only coincidence and stories handed down.

Ok, it is easy to be a skeptic, but what kind of answers do you have to share? I mean I hear people make comments like this all the time and it leads to nothing but skeptism....so what? a person doesn't believe in specific religion for whatever reason...it is your right to live.... but others look for answers to life and find more meaning then just going to the local shopping mall or whatever it is...

[rockinred]

I'm confused a bit, was Jesus from Nazereth?

christian here

A Nazarene is not the same as a Nazarite...

[BgMc31]

^^you didn't answer a single question I asked. All you say is the bible says this, the bible says that...but you posted nothing. What does the bible say about people before monotheism?

Most archeologists date human script back around 4500-5000yrs ago (hell neandertals drew on caves over 15,000yrs ago). And if you believe that human history began with written language than there is no since in continuing this debate. There is a ton of evidence that proves humans emerged from Africa much earlier than 3000yrs ago. And if carbon dating is so fallable than are we to rely on stories in a book?

Again Jesus never put pen to pad, neither did Noah, neither did Moses. Every other great man (Pathagorists, Socrates, Alexander, Hawkings, King, Lincoln, etc) all wrote their accounts. We know about these great men from their own writings AND from witness accounts. The fact is, the vast majority of stories in the Bible are eerily similar to legends and stories of earlier cultures.

[rockinred]

[QUOTE=BgMc31;3927924[B]]^^you didn't answer a single question I asked. All you say is the bible says this, the bible says that...but you posted nothing. What does the bible say about people before monotheism?[/B]

First off I am saying the Bible says this and that because that is what we are talking about...not my scientific perspective of things....The bible explains that man was created and fell... sentenced to death.... whether you believe in adam n eve, or evolution, it all started with two people somewhere along the time line... it states that man was left here to perish and at that time there was also a hope created for the original purpose and intent of creation... from there many cultures developed and believe whatever they wanted...there was a group of people that wanted God and then the story goes from there... They were the jews...not even a certain ethnic group, they later became that but at the time Abraham was just a member of his civilization.

Most archeologists date human script back around 4500-5000yrs ago (hell neandertals drew on caves over 15,000yrs ago). And if you believe that human history began with written language than there is no since in continuing this debate. There is a ton of evidence that proves humans emerged from Africa much earlier than 3000yrs ago. And if carbon dating is so fallable than are we to rely on stories in a book?

My kids draw on rocks...if they are found in another 500 yrs, who knows if they will be mistaken as neanderthal writings... so don't believe everything... I never said that I believe that men existed only during the written records... i said before anything is written it is all speculation... and that is what I was getting at.... hyrogliphics were the earliest form of written communication.... I don't understand why people think it tooks millions of years to populate the planet... look how fast the US filled in the past few hundred years.... and to millions of years ago is silly... a million years is eternity... you can't even fathom that number in relation to life and time... that is just throwing out a huge number to represent the unknown.

Again Jesus never put pen to pad, neither did Noah, neither did Moses. Every other great man (Pathagorists, Socrates, Alexander, Hawkings, King, Lincoln, etc) all wrote their accounts. We know about these great men from their own writings AND from witness accounts. The fact is, the vast majority of stories in the Bible are eerily similar to legends and stories of earlier cultures.[/QUOTE]

So you really only believe what those guys wrote about how they felt and discard any other writings about anyone??? yea right...

On your posts you didn't ask any questions just asserted yourself in tone as fact... that's it...

[rockinred]

BgMC, what kind of answers do you have beside trying to disprove others beliefs? You still haven't given anything more then skepticism.

[spywizard]

why are we here?? what the point in life?? simply being?? I don't think so.

[boots555]

This info comes from a debate btw. Craig vs. Curly.


Now most people would think that the resurrection of Jesus is just something you believe in by faith or not. But, in fact, there are three established facts, recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe support the resurrection of Jesus: the empty tomb; Jesus' post–mortem appearances; and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. Let me say a word about each one of these.

22. Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{14} According to the New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

23. Fact # 2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the prominent, skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann, "It may be taken as historically certain that...the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{15} These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

24. Fact # 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Jews had no belief in a dying, much less a rising, Messiah, and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead prior to the end of the world. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was..."{16} N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him."{17}

25. Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.



http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-curley02.html

[BgMc31]

BgMC, what kind of answers do you have beside trying to disprove others beliefs? You still haven't given anything more then skepticism.

I find it odd that in your above post you tell me not to believe everything yet you are willing to believe fantasy stories with absolutely no logical evidence.

What answers do I have? My answers are in books, with proven theories, researched and dissected by countless others. The conclusions are based in scientific fact, no heirectical teachings of "because I say so". That is what religion does, it uses fantasy to explain the unexplainable and as science progresses religion digresses, just a simple fact.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I look at the Bible the same way I looked at Esops fables as a youngin. Great stories used to teach lessons. Everything you stated above proves absolutely nothing. All you are saying is 'God made it that way, that's why'. Its not nearly that simple. But if that is what you need to make you a better person, so be it. Just like I don't knock someone who needs Allah, Buddah, Jah, or Jehovah to make them better as long as it does it intended purpose of making that person better for the betterment of mankind. The problem I have with religion is it is more divisive than inclusive and all religions (except Buddhism) act in this fashion. They all claim if you don't believe as I do you are doomed a fiery eternal suffering. That just isn't condusive to the betterment of everyone only for those who conform. Sounds a bit fascists to me!

[BgMc31]

This info comes from a debate btw. Craig vs. Curly.


Now most people would think that the resurrection of Jesus is just something you believe in by faith or not. But, in fact, there are three established facts, recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe support the resurrection of Jesus: the empty tomb; Jesus' post–mortem appearances; and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. Let me say a word about each one of these.

22. Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{14} According to the New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

23. Fact # 2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the prominent, skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann, "It may be taken as historically certain that...the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{15} These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

24. Fact # 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Jews had no belief in a dying, much less a rising, Messiah, and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead prior to the end of the world. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was..."{16} N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him."{17}

25. Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.



http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-curley02.html

Again, an empty tomb doesn't automatically mean resurrection. There are several historians that would swear to seeing ghosts and spectars. Secondly Boots, claiming to see someone after their death has never been uncommon. Hell, people claim to have seen Tupac and Elvis after their deaths. C'mon man. Where is the hard evidence? And how come Jesus himself didn't write something sayin "Holy Shit, I died and came back"? As I said before the man never put pen to pad. Eye witness accounts from mourning followers isn't that hard to find. Again, you proved nothing.

[rockinred]

I find it odd that in your above post you tell me not to believe everything yet you are willing to believe fantasy stories with absolutely no logical evidence.

What answers do I have? My answers are in books, with proven theories, researched and dissected by countless others. The conclusions are based in scientific fact, no heirectical teachings of "because I say so". That is what religion does, it uses fantasy to explain the unexplainable and as science progresses religion digresses, just a simple fact.

I'm not a skeptic, I'm a realist. I look at the Bible the same way I looked at Esops fables as a youngin. Great stories used to teach lessons. Everything you stated above proves absolutely nothing. All you are saying is 'God made it that way, that's why'. Its not nearly that simple. But if that is what you need to make you a better person, so be it. Just like I don't knock someone who needs Allah, Buddah, Jah, or Jehovah to make them better as long as it does it intended purpose of making that person better for the betterment of mankind. The problem I have with religion is it is more divisive than inclusive and all religions (except Buddhism) act in this fashion. They all claim if you don't believe as I do you are doomed a fiery eternal suffering. That just isn't condusive to the betterment of everyone only for those who conform. Sounds a bit fascists to me!

well, let's say we agree to disagree... I do say that the term scientific fact is a very loose term and if it is evolution you are referring to.. you are a minority in the world....in every form the theory of evolution is a also religion that is based on "faith" believing in the unseen too.

as far as your last statment it still just attacks others beliefs with no definitive answer to real deep questions.... I mean you say you believe in being good....? where does that term originate from? and how do you know what is good? is it how you feel inside? where did that feeling originate from?

this can go on forever......peace to you. I am not trying to push a hidden agenda or convert anyone, I just feel if others can bash, then I go out of my way to give my perspective too. It is only fair....

I am with Spywizard on asking if we are just here for being?? that is more important than all the things I do day-in and day-out....

[spywizard]

This info comes from a debate btw. Craig vs. Curly.


Now most people would think that the resurrection of Jesus is just something you believe in by faith or not. But, in fact, there are three established facts, recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which I believe support the resurrection of Jesus: the empty tomb; Jesus' post–mortem appearances; and the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection. Let me say a word about each one of these.

22. Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{14} According to the New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

23. Fact # 2: On separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death. According to the prominent, skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann, "It may be taken as historically certain that...the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."{15} These appearances were witnessed not only by believers, but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

24. Fact # 3: The original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus despite having every predisposition to the contrary. Jews had no belief in a dying, much less a rising, Messiah, and Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead prior to the end of the world. Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, "Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was..."{16} N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, "That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him."{17}

25. Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be. But that entails that God exists.



http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...-curley02.html

"In bold" actually i believe he said he is who they say he is.. but i'm enjoying your text so far.. thanks for sharing, you didn't comment on my post on page 3..

[BgMc31]

well, let's say we agree to disagree... I do say that the term scientific fact is a very loose term and if it is evolution you are referring to.. you are a minority in the world....in every form the theory of evolution is a also religion that is based on "faith" believing in the unseen too.

as far as your last statment it still just attacks others beliefs with no definitive answer to real deep questions.... I mean you say you believe in being good....? where does that term originate from? and how do you know what is good? is it how you feel inside? where did that feeling originate from?

this can go on forever......peace to you. I am not trying to push a hidden agenda or convert anyone, I just feel if others can bash, then I go out of my way to give my perspective too. It is only fair....

I am with Spywizard on asking if we are just here for being?? that is more important than all the things I do day-in and day-out....

While I don't totally agree with evolution either, but it is a helluva lot more believable than the bibles rendition of the origin of man.

My father is a man of God and admits there are many, if not most, things in the bible that cannot be explained by science and I respect. Its when people try to explain things biblical stories with 'science' that annoys me. It makes some argument sound even more absurd.

If you are referring to the soul, no I don't know where it comes from, whether its god-given or an evolutionary trait, but I enjoy the journey of discovery.

And yes I do think we arr 'just' here just like any other animal. And to believe that we are more important than everything else because a diety told us so, is pure human arrogance, IMO.

But again, we have to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate. And I appreciate the civilty of it as well.

Peace be unto you as well, brotha!

[boots555]

"In bold" actually i believe he said he is who they say he is.. but i'm enjoying your text so far.. thanks for sharing, you didn't comment on my post on page 3..

No problem, I enjoy discussions like these. I am gonna call it a night, I will get to your question tommarow on page 3

[mousetraps]

A Nazarene is not the same as a Nazarite...

go on...

[Narkissos]

I want to contribute.. What are we discussing at present?

[rockinred]

go on...

mousetraps, exuse me if I don't give references because I am too lazy right now to go and quote specifics but if anything I say seems uncredible, it is easy to look up.... in the law, the Hebrew term Nazarite means "consecrate to God"....these people were to devote their lives to God by vowing to not take a razor to their hair, to not drink any wine or strong drink, not walk by any dead corpse, and many other things.... Jesus was never said to be a nazarite which was also a group of people that either did it for a period of time or for their whole life.... some known Nazarites are Samuel,Samson, John the Baptist and some others...

The Nazarene term evolved after Jesus' time, but basically when it is referring to Jesus it is referring where he was from and came out of, fulfilling the prophecy....

also it is well known that Jesus drank wine so he could not be considered a Nazarite..... Paul also mentions about how long hair is unnatural for men... meaning in this period of time and amongst the people it was well known that no one had long hair... Paul would have never stated this to all the followers of Jesus if he had long hair....

[rockinred]

I want to contribute.. What are we discussing at present?

We are all over the place...jump in...

[Diary of a Mad-man]

Mark 9:42

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

just saying..

uh......is Jesus threatening me? Thats sounds kind of nasty coming from J.C..
And since the bible is just word of mouth passed down and translated, I can say the same thing my own way. "whoever shows my minions that this is all a lie, gets killed". That will be an actual quote from Bible3000.

He may not have said that millstone drowning thing at all. Whenever I tell a story, I tend to exagerate to make it more exiting. Now imagine life where you eat shit and die at the age of 25. Story telling would be THE BOMB! TAP TAP TAP is this thing on?

This post is in its 4 page death throws. I cant discuss religion without basicly being offensive to get my point across. Sorry everyone.

[Diary of a Mad-man]

Mark 9:42

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

just saying..

What if I accidentally or indirectly convince someone not to follow Christianity??
If I lead a good Christian life, and in the end die a horrible, miserable, poor death, and my son sees this, thinks life isnt fair, and blows his brains out, is my soul redirected to hell instead of heaven? I was a devout Christian, but my life and actions led others to disbelieve. According to Jesus himself, I would suffer some sort of painful torture.

Or maybe, Sir Huffington Nob-Gobbler added this line in when he worked for the ministry of editing in 1345.

[DeputyLoneWolf]

While I don't totally agree with evolution either, but it is a helluva lot more believable than the bibles rendition of the origin of man.

My father is a man of God and admits there are many, if not most, things in the bible that cannot be explained by science and I respect. Its when people try to explain things biblical stories with 'science' that annoys me. It makes some argument sound even more absurd.

If you are referring to the soul, no I don't know where it comes from, whether its god-given or an evolutionary trait, but I enjoy the journey of discovery.

And yes I do think we arr 'just' here just like any other animal. And to believe that we are more important than everything else because a diety told us so, is pure human arrogance, IMO.

But again, we have to agree to disagree. I enjoyed the debate. And I appreciate the civilty of it as well.

Peace be unto you as well, brotha!

BgMc:

Actually I find evolution to be very unbelieveable and this video says why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGy7jRi2-uY

Also if you look around you and see the earth and the entire universe you will see that everything is orderly. There are seasons, life cycles, etc. God is a God of order and that is proved from the smallest living thing to the largest. just look at the allignment of the stars and other galaxies. There is creation therefore there must be a creator. like I said watch the video and let me know what you think.

Also not only is Homosexuaality an offront to God, it goes against nature ie God's creation...

And no I don't believe that homosexuals hould be stoned, killed, etc. That was in the old testament. I don't recall reading anyhting in the new testament stating that it was ok to be homosexual.

I deal with all kinds of people including gays and I have never discriminated against them and don't plan on starting. I don't hate them, I hate the sin. Oh and I am definately no better than anyone else I am just a sinner like everyone else but saved through faith by grace. And it sure makes me humble realizing that Christ died for a pitiful sinner like me. I deffinately deserve hell for eternity but God died and suffered in my place as well as those that believe.


"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life"

John 3:16

BTW this is an interesting thread.

[DeputyLoneWolf]

What if I accidentally or indirectly convince someone not to follow Christianity??
If I lead a good Christian life, and in the end die a horrible, miserable, poor death, and my son sees this, thinks life isnt fair, and blows his brains out, is my soul redirected to hell instead of heaven? I was a devout Christian, but my life and actions led others to disbelieve. According to Jesus himself, I would suffer some sort of painful torture.

Or maybe, Sir Huffington Nob-Gobbler added this line in when he worked for the ministry of editing in 1345.

The bible is the devinely inspired word of God. What other book has been attacked for so long and still survived? And the Dead Sea scrolls only suppoerted the Bible. There are also NO contradictions in it. For a book that was written by so many men and thousands of years apart, how is that possible if it were not for some "help from above"??

[goose]

Nice post,your avi picture is in this video.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYNaDcYGaeI

i cant justify believing in something that is unknown.

there hasnt been a miracle in 2000 years, nor any evidence that even suggests in the mildest form that christianity, or any religion is correct.

to trap your mind in a regurgitated frame of mind passed down over generations seems to be such a waste imo.

for all we know jesus could have been a schizophrenic who 'heard voices' and pursuaded people to believe him.

in modern times we know that people who hear 'voices of god' are usually suffering from a mental disorder, (schizophrenia, possibly schizotypal) and that they need treatment.

2000 years ago when there was hardly any knowlege on the inner workings of the mind and mental disorders, a schizophrenic man who heard the voice of god could be considered as being legit.

[feanixco]

If you look into the Bible with an open mind you will see that this is not possible as homosexuality is a direct violation of God's law.

It's not my opinion I just believe the Bible

It is considered to be a sin but so is swearing, drunkenness, pre-marital sex.....I could name a million things. I sin every single day but the great thing is we are already forgiven!
IT IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN AND ALSO BE GAY. GOD LOVES GAYS, MUSLIMS, ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, SINNERS AND SAINTS ...BECAUSE WE ARE ALL APART OF HIS CREATION.

[feanixco]

View Post
i cant justify believing in something that is unknown.

there hasnt been a miracle in 2000 years, nor any evidence that even suggests in the mildest form that christianity, or any religion is correct.

to trap your mind in a regurgitated frame of mind passed down over generations seems to be such a waste imo.

for all we know jesus could have been a schizophrenic who 'heard voices' and pursuaded people to believe him.

in modern times we know that people who hear 'voices of god' are usually suffering from a mental disorder, (schizophrenia, possibly schizotypal) and that they need treatment.

2000 years ago when there was hardly any knowlege on the inner workings of the mind and mental disorders, a schizophrenic man who heard the voice of god could be considered as being legit.

The book, "The Silence of GOD" explains this in great detail through prophecy and scripture.
Oh and I don't believe in religion...or I should say I don't support it.
Religion is the cause for much of the world's problems that stem from "religious" wars.

[SMCengineer]

The book, "The Silence of GOD" explains this in great detail through prophecy and scripture.
Oh and I don't believe in religion...or I should say I don't support it.
Religion is the cause for much of the world's problems that stem from "religious" wars.

Didn't you say you were a christian?

[feanixco]

Didn't you say you were a Christian?

Yes, I am a Christian.... and no, I do not believe or support religion.

Christianity is not considered a "religion" it is an ontological relationship with GOD through Jesus Christ. I am non denominational. I believe that we are saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE....plus nothing else. Not baptisms or cataclysms ...etc.
Anything beyond grace alone and faith alone is blasphemy.
A "Christian Religion" would be classified as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist....etc which i do not believe in.

[Lexed]

Yes, I am a Christian.... and no, I do not believe or support religion.

Christianity is not considered a "religion" it is an ontological relationship with GOD through Jesus Christ. I am non denominational. I believe that we are saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE....plus nothing else. Not baptisms or cataclysms ...etc.
Anything beyond grace alone and faith alone is blasphemy.
A "Christian Religion" would be classified as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist....etc which i do not believe in.

[SMCengineer]

Yes, I am a Christian.... and no, I do not believe or support religion.

Christianity is not considered a "religion" it is an ontological relationship with GOD through Jesus Christ. I am non denominational. I believe that we are saved by GRACE ALONE through FAITH ALONE....plus nothing else. Not baptisms or cataclysms ...etc.
Anything beyond grace alone and faith alone is blasphemy.
A "Christian Religion" would be classified as Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist....etc which i do not believe in.

I was just wondering cause I didn't know Christianity wasn't considered a religion, but than again I don't enough to refute.

[feanixco]

This is where the deep theological discussion stem from in the Christian church. I studied this in college and plan to finish my Masters in Divinity....ironically at a baptist seminary. ha-ha

[Amorphic]

In the sixth century, Pope Gregory handed down a list of "seven cardinal vices." Now the Vatican has issued an additional seven "social sins."
You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife, but also by wrecking the environment, carrying out morally debatable experiments that manipulate DNA or harm embryos," said [Bishop Gianfranco] Girotti, who is responsible for the body that oversees confessions.
The seven social sins are:

1. "Bioethical" violations such as birth control

2. "Morally dubious" experiments such as stem cell research

3. Drug abuse

4. Polluting the environment

5. Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor

6. Excessive wealth

7. Creating poverty

things like the vaticans new sins make me laugh....and give me another reason why i will never worship some kind of long standing institution.

the vatican is in the stone age, pushing ridiculous and irrevant standards on a society that has embraced modernization. i see no place for catholisim in the world, and it sure as hell wont bring me down

[Lexed]

whats wrong with number 6

[feanixco]

things like the vaticans new sins make me laugh....and give me another reason why i will never worship some kind of long standing institution.

the vatican is in the stone age, pushing ridiculous and irrevant standards on a society that has embraced modernization. i see no place for catholisim in the world, and it sure as hell wont bring me down

I completely agree with you.

IMO....the pope is no closer to GOD than any other believer. He has no authority to impose "law" upon anyone else.

I have to leave for a mandatory work function but I have some great commentary on this specific issue Amorphic and a lot of stuff to back it up....specifically the catholic church.
I want to make it clear I do not intend to bash anyones beliefs system or religion.

[Amorphic]

so under those new catholic church sins, steroid use is a sin, contraception is a sin, potentially revolutionary stem cell research is a sin, and being wealthy is a sin.

what if you donate money to charity? is your wealth still a sin? it seems like taking birth control is a hell of a lot more moralistic than having an abortion. can you imagine if the anti contraception movement caught on? we would be seeing abortions at an incredibily high rate. nevermind finding cures for alzheimers or any other degenerative disorders, stem cell research is morally dubious.

[rockinred]

so under those new catholic church sins, steroid use is a sin, contraception is a sin, potentially revolutionary stem cell research is a sin, and being wealthy is a sin.

what if you donate money to charity? is your wealth still a sin? it seems like taking birth control is a hell of a lot more moralistic than having an abortion. can you imagine if the anti contraception movement caught on? we would be seeing abortions at an incredibily high rate. nevermind finding cures for alzheimers or any other degenerative disorders, stem cell research is morally dubious.

Amorphic... that's why people profess to be a christian and not believe in religion... organized religion is what has caused a lot of problems in the world... and it is all in the name of God... you find it has nothing to do with your belief so you continue to believe and not follow the madness... nothing too confusing about that. if the thread asked who believes in religion and no who is a christian.. I am sure it would have been a whole different thread.

^^^the part i have highlighted.... does any of that really matter if the ending result of everyone is death? I am not opposed to it, but really were all still gonna die... so I don't get excited about that stuff...

[rockinred]

One other thing I want to throw out there for discussion.. Belief in God or the bible or whatever is all silly and unimportant until something major happens to the person... you young kids on here (not sayin all), haven't experienced anything worth asking more questions on...

until suddenly one day you realize you are in the dumps, lonely, desperate, and everything is meaningless... it is then that you start to realize things... it is no longer simple... you need help and no one around you can help you, not your family, not government nobody.... it is then that you cry out and get answered and you get helped and renewed in life... that is the difference between looking from the outside as a critic and being a reality for others.. it is only then that you can understand.

[Amorphic]

Amorphic... that's why people profess to be a christian and not believe in religion... organized religion is what has caused a lot of problems in the world... and it is all in the name of God... you find it has nothing to do with your belief so you continue to believe and not follow the madness... nothing too confusing about that. if the thread asked who believes in religion and no who is a christian.. I am sure it would have been a whole different thread.

^^^the part i have highlighted.... does any of that really matter if the ending result of everyone is death? I am not opposed to it, but really were all still gonna die... so I don't get excited about that stuff...

i agree with the main problem being that organized religion causes religious fanaticism.

i still have a problem when people tell me they 'know' x religion is the truth which is why i am agnostic

[Tock]

22. Fact # 1: On the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jacob Kremer, an Austrian scholar who has specialized in the study of the resurrection, "By far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."{14} According to the New Testament critic, D.H. van Daalen, it is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.

The Bible gives several different accounts of the Resurrection story. If you disagree, now is the time to make a few bucks from your theological scholarship:

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=stone

An Easter Challenge For Christians

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.
Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.

Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:

"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."

Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.



One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.

Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."

Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.

Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?

Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).

After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?

Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.

Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.

Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.

I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.

Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.
This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.

Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?

Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)

But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:
What time did the women visit the tomb?

• Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
• Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
• Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
• John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

Who were the women?

• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
• Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
• Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
• John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)

What was their purpose?

• Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
• Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
• Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
• John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)

Was the tomb open when they arrived?

• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)

Who was at the tomb when they arrived?

• Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
• Mark: One young man (16:5)
• Luke: Two men (24:4)
• John: Two angels (20:12)

Where were these messengers situated?

• Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
• Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
• Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
• John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)

What did the messenger(s) say?

• Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
• Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
• Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
• John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)

Did the women tell what happened?

• Matthew: Yes (28:8)
• Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
• Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
• John: Yes (20:18)

When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?

• Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
• Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
• Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
• John: No (20:2)

When did Mary first see Jesus?

• Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
• Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
• John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)

Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?

• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)

After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?

• Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
• Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
• Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
• John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
• Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)

Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?

• Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
• Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
• Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
• John: In a room, at evening (20:19)

Did the disciples believe the two men?

• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)

What happened at the appearance?

• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)

Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?

• Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
• Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
• John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
• Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)

Where did the ascension take place?

• Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
• Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
• Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
• John: No ascension
• Paul: No ascension
• Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

[boots555]

wow Tock long post

[boots555]

I have a great debate you can listen to concerning this subject.