Are any Bodybuilders Christians here

[boots555]

Thinks positive boys. Your thoughts have a direct impact on your feelings. Always be positive.

[boots555]

Are you lusting !!!

For a girl like that. Yes I am.

[DSM4Life]

My milk shake brings all the boys to the yard,
and they're like,
its better than yours,
damn right its better than yours,
I can teach you,
but I have to charge

[lovbyts]

I promise you most who share there faith do it out of love. It is a uncomfortable thing to do. Your right it doesnt make freinds. If what I am saying is true you better believe it. Christ claimed to be God. He validated his confession. He claimed to be the way, the truth, and the life. He claimed to be the way to truth. He claimed to be the truth. If what He said was true you better believe it.

How many stalkers, psychos and molesters say they did it out of love?

I like the idea of teach dont preach. Forcing someone even out of love is 100% not right.

[boots555]

I am a chic magnet. It is weird, I lost my voice, and girls like me more now than when I had my voice. I write them little notes on a pad and they love it.

[boots555]

How many stalkers, psychos and molesters say they did it out of love?

I like the idea of teach dont preach. Forcing someone even out of love is 100% not right.

Not many. Psychos and stalkers are not doing it out of love. They dont care about the other person but are only reacting to there feelings.

[lovbyts]

Not many. Psychos and stalkers are not doing it out of love. They dont care about the other person but are only reacting to there feelings.

But see THEY believe it is the right thing to do just like the tali ban truly believe they are doing the right thing also inspired by religion. It is all in the eyes of the believer on if it's right or wrong. Your way is the only true path. Hmmmm I think not. Yes through Christ is the way but NOT by force. Live it and lead by example, not by strong arming someone. Sorry, this may NOT be you. I just hate all the hypocrites.

[rockinred]

Find me some secular evidence that Jesus even existed or that the crucifixtion even occured. There is no evidence for a Jesus existing with the exception of your Gospels. The New Testament is nothing more than Old Testament midrash.

The only secular writings to occur during that time were the writings of Josephus... He writes about Jesus a little... not a whole lot.. His works were historical... He states something like..."there was this man named Jesus, a wizard of a sort, etc..." It is no doubt that Jesus existed and for anyone to argue that point is sounding desperate and uninformed.

I say, believe or don't believe....it is an individual choice... but to start to go as far as saying that he never existed is really to the point of ignorance and when that rumor spread it was shutdown quick and no one who wanted to hold a credible debate over the divinity of Jesus even pulls that card anymore... I am not saying anyone is ignorant for that statement, just it really shows that a person has not really researched it and are echoing one of those word of mouth rumors that have no credibility...

maybe it is not worth looking into for some, but you should spare yourself some embarrassment if you want to hold an intellectual debate over that particular subject... I am not flaming I am being serious.

It is like saying that George Washington never existed or something...

[boots555]

But see THEY believe it is the right thing to do just like the tali ban truly believe they are doing the right thing also inspired by religion. It is all in the eyes of the believer on if it's right or wrong. Your way is the only true path. Hmmmm I think not. Yes through Christ is the way but NOT by force. Live it and lead by example, not by strong arming someone. Sorry, this may NOT be you. I just hate all the hypocrites.

I agree with you "not by force". What would follow in debate with you is a whole lesson on logic and truth. I dont want to go into to that. If truth is exclusive (which it is) then the claim to be ''the way, the truth and, the life is a very fair claim. His statements were narrow, but so is truth. He understood this and said that many would reject it because of this. The claims He made are like no other in history. "you have heard it said, but I say to you" He was more than a reformer. In the face of death He did not shrink away but only seemed more confident in his mission to die. He even had the confidence to tell the theif next to him "before this day is over you shall be with me in paradise."

[boots555]

As Lewis said, Christ was eigther Lord, Liar, or lunatic. How did He fullfill the prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament?

[Tock]

As Lewis said, Christ was eigther Lord, Liar, or lunatic. How did He fullfill the prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament?

He didn't.

Not that you'll read them, or that it will change your opinions if you do, here are some links to enlightening websites disputing your unfounded assertion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp...articlePages=1


Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.
One problem with this is, if Jesus was the son of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he was not not a descendant of King David. If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, then he was not born of a virgin, which also becomes a problem.


So, though CS Lewis said, "Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar," there's another option. Jesus is a work of fiction, and that's all there is to that.

[rockinred]

He didn't.

Not that you'll read them, or that it will change your opinions if you do, here are some links to enlightening websites disputing your unfounded assertion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp...articlePages=1


Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.
One problem with this is, if Jesus was the son of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he was not not a descendant of King David. If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, then he was not born of a virgin, which also becomes a problem.


So, though CS Lewis said, "Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar," there's another option. Jesus is a work of fiction, and that's all there is to that.

Ok Tock, I speed read through your links... what would you like to talk about on those... the main jist of the article is trying to discredit Mathew's writing to take away from the meaning or content... that is called strawman.

I don't know where you got that Mary's and Joseph's lineage are different, but in both Luke (mary's) and Mathew's (joseph's) link them to the tribe and seed of David.

A lot of the other interpretations of the prophecy fulfilment in the links above is explaining what the intent of the original author was writing about and that it was not intended to apply to Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy... in otherwords if you take psalm 23, which is David's poem about his affliction, then you can't use that to apply to Jesus... but, the whole idea of prophecy in this manner originates in Judaism... you don't have to accept the prophecies in that manner, but no one asked anyone too... it is for the Jews and the prophecies were fulfilled according to their manner and interpretation... Jesus uses many examples to say that God reveals himself to the "simple" and hides from the "wise"...

from a textbook reading it is just like the links stated above... applied to a different time.. to a faithful servant it is fulfilment of the prophecy of the messiah..

[boots555]

He didn't.

Not that you'll read them, or that it will change your opinions if you do, here are some links to enlightening websites disputing your unfounded assertion:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html
http://www.salafipublications.com/sp...articlePages=1


Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.
One problem with this is, if Jesus was the son of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he was not not a descendant of King David. If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, then he was not born of a virgin, which also becomes a problem.


So, though CS Lewis said, "Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar," there's another option. Jesus is a work of fiction, and that's all there is to that.

Tocks arguements are red herrings and can be thrown out with a little bit of study. These things have been debated down through the years. A good understanding of theology is all you need to understand this. This isnt even considered a problem accoding to most scholars. I have never heard this point argued before in debate,


Better sites
http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Li...tThinking.aspx
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/
http://www.euroleadershipresources.o...hp?NetworkID=1

[boots555]

Ok Tock, I speed read through your links... what would you like to talk about on those... the main jist of the article is trying to discredit Mathew's writing to take away from the meaning or content... that is called strawman.

I don't know where you got that Mary's and Joseph's lineage are different, but in both Luke (mary's) and Mathew's (joseph's) link them to the tribe and seed of David.

A lot of the other interpretations of the prophecy fulfilment in the links above is explaining what the intent of the original author was writing about and that it was not intended to apply to Jesus' fulfilment of prophecy... in otherwords if you take psalm 23, which is David's poem about his affliction, then you can't use that to apply to Jesus... but, the whole idea of prophecy in this manner originates in Judaism... you don't have to accept the prophecies in that manner, but no one asked anyone too... it is for the Jews and the prophecies were fulfilled according to their manner and interpretation... Jesus uses many examples to say that God reveals himself to the "simple" and hides from the "wise"...

from a textbook reading it is just like the links stated above... applied to a different time.. to a faithful servant it is fulfilment of the prophecy of the messiah..

Good post

[boots555]

Infidels arguments are weak. The best liberal new testament scholar i know of is a man by the name of Erhman. I would encourage people to read the transcript of the debate btw. Erhman and Craig. Erhman wouldnt even allow the debate to be posted on his sight at first. I dont know if he has now. Craig was clearly the winner.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments...surrdebate.htm

[rockinred]

One more thing about all this... I have been suckered into a lot of debates about many, many bible topics and truths... I have never seen it go anywhere but a prideful measurement of ones intellect... I have had the same intense debates with believers and nonbelievers alike... they lead to nowhere in the end...

I will go on here and say that my profession about this is one of faith... this is not measured by a person's ability to have an open mind... In one Gospel they told Jesus about a leader in the Sanhedrein that had the most open mind and the only response Jesus gave to it was to open your heart....

So with that being said mine is one of an open heart and I am going to respectfully bow out of this thread... There is much more I would like to say, but I have to learn from my past experiences... and that is that intellectual debates about the details of things leads to nowhere for the most part...

I don't know anything about God's true judgement of everyone and their daily decisions and actions in life... I only know about my walk in life and the decisions I make daily. With the measure of judgment that I give is the same measure I will receive and hopefully I don't pass any judgement on anyone cause I need lots of room for forgiveness in my walk in life.

You all try to have a peaceful debate here... express opinions, no need to force anything on anyone... besides Jesus never did anyways so why should anyone else.

[nojoke]

Originally Posted by Psychotron

Find me some secular evidence that Jesus even existed or that the crucifixtion even occured. There is no evidence for a Jesus existing with the exception of your Gospels. The New Testament is nothing more than Old Testament midrash.

The only secular writings to occur during that time were the writings of Josephus... He writes about Jesus a little... not a whole lot.. His works were historical... He states something like..."there was this man named Jesus, a wizard of a sort, etc..."

Just to add a little to rockinreds post...Josephus also referred to the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ."...

And, Tactius, a Roman historian who lived during the first century penned: "Christus, which is Laitin for "Christ", from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."...This is reffering to the execution of Jesus...

With this info, the New Encyclopoedia Britannica says: "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries".



NJ

[boots555]

Good post, I would love to go deeper into this debate because the historical evidence is so powerful concerning the life and especially the death of Christ.

[boots555]

Whats incredible is the entire New Testament could be pieced together with only writings of the the early church fathers. We have found a writing from the gospel of John from the first century A.D.

[nojoke]

Originally Posted by Tock

Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.

I'm not sure where the idea comes from that Mary was not a decendant of David...From my research on it, I'm showing that she was indeed a decendant of King David, of the tribe of Judah...I believe she was the daughter of Heli...Joseph was also from the tribe of Judah as well...

One problem with this is, if Jesus was the son of a virgin, then Joseph was not his father and he was not not a descendant of King David.

U are correct in the sense of Jesus not being Joseph's biological father...However, he (Joseph) was his (Jesus') stepfather...

If Jesus was the biological son of Joseph, then he was not born of a virgin, which also becomes a problem.

No problem, Jesus was born of the virgin Mary...And she was a decendant of King David...What's interesting about this particular event to me is the fact that the gospel brings out how Joseph was going to divorce Mary...When he (Joseph) found out she was pregnant with their first child he wanted to divorce her because he had not had intercourse with her yet...So, Joseph thought Mary had been with another man...As it goes, an angel appeared to Joseph to inform him of his (Joseph's) error...Then Joe got back on track and stopped the divorce...And the rest is history...


NJ

[MATTMAN01]

spirit filled speaking in tongues, baptised by full imersion.
Mark16:17 And these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE. In my name shall they cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues.
Baptise: Baptiso- Immerse.
Been BB'ing 6 years.

[Psychotron]

I still chuckle at the continuous statements that it is a 100% historical fact that Jesus the Christ was a real person as depicted by the gospels. You do realize the gospels weren't written by the people they were attributed to?

The epistles of Paul make no, zero, zip mention of Christ as embodied ever as a human. Paul is mild gnostic who relied entirely on old testament for his revelation about Jesus. He knew nothing of a human named Christ, to him the death and resurrect occured on a different plane of existence.

Read Earl Doherty or some stuff by Robert M. Price.

[boots555]

I still chuckle at the continuous statements that it is a 100% historical fact that Jesus the Christ was a real person as depicted by the gospels. You do realize the gospels weren't written by the people they were attributed to?

The epistles of Paul make no, zero, zip mention of Christ as embodied ever as a human. Paul is mild gnostic who relied entirely on old testament for his revelation about Jesus. He knew nothing of a human named Christ, to him the death and resurrect occured on a different plane of existence.

Read Earl Doherty or some stuff by Robert M. Price.

Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far. Not even the Jesus seminar would agree with you. The Gospels were written by who they claimed to be, I would love to debate you on this subject. Have you read the letters of Paul? it doesnt sound like it. You need to read the new testament. Paul claims to have encounters with the risen Christ.

[BgMc31]

Still no one has answered the question as to why Jesus and/or God for that matter ever put pen to pad?

Boots you keep saying even the most liberal scholars accept your facts but say nothing in regards to the 'liberal' scholars cited by others on this forum.

Religion is a personal choice. Leave it at that! You cannot convince a non-believer anymore than a non-believer can convince you. For every so-called expert you point to in order to prove your religion is true, someone can point out an equal number (if not more) that it doesn't.

Fact remains Christianity is relatively new in the history of man. Its definitely not perfect, and there are many holes in it. But if Jesus makes you a better person, then so be it. But you cannot fault a person because he/she doesn't need YOUR God to be a better person.

The divisive nature of religion is the reason why the world is in peril now.

[Tock]

Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far.

You could say that to anything, couldn't you?



http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-electi..._cid=rss_world

THE Republican presidential nominee John McCain has broken with two controversial televangelists whose endorsements he once trumpeted to win support from religious conservatives.

Well, you're wrong, even liberal scholarship doesn't go that far

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11576122/
Kenya Mob Burns 15 Women to Death over Witchcraft
A mob of about 100 people in western Kenya burned alive15 women accused of witchcraft on Wednesday, the AFP reports. The mob also torched about 50 houses in the local village of Nyakeo. "I can't believe my wife of many years would be killed so brutally by people who cannot prove their case even before God," said Enoch Obiero, a pastor. Kenyan officials have vowed to "hunt the suspects down," but this is just one of many incidents of vigalante and mob violence in Kenya's "sorcery belt." Dozens of suspected people were killed in western Kenya in the 1990s, amid allegations of sorcery. Several cases were also reported in recent months in neighbouring Tanzania, forcing President Jakaya Kikwete to order special protection for albino, who were being murdered and mutilated for good luck by with-doctors.

Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholarship goes that far.

http://www.mapquest.com/maps/austin+...:::::f:EN:M:/e

Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholarship goes that far.

[Tock]

Good post, I would love to go deeper into this debate because the historical evidence is so powerful concerning the life and especially the death of Christ.

Well, you're wrong. Not even liberal scholars would go that far.

[Tock]

Whats incredible is the entire New Testament could be pieced together with only writings of the the early church fathers. We have found a writing from the gospel of John from the first century A.D.

Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John



Authorship

The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity traditionally holding that the author was John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Several other authors have historically been suggested, including Papias, John the Presbyter and Cerinthus, though many apologetic Christian scholars still hold to the conservative view that ascribes authorship to John the Apostle. Most modern experts conclude the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness.[11]

The text itself is unclear about the issue. John 21:20–25 contains information that could be construed as autobiographical. Conservative scholars generally assume that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple) in verse 20 are the same person;[12][13] they further identify all three descriptors with the Apostle John through a combination of external and internal evidence.[14] Critics point out that the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24–25 indicates that the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.[15][16]
Ancient testimony is similarly conflicted. Attestation of Johannine authorship can be found as early as Irenaeus.[14] Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus received his information from Polycarp, who is said to have received it from the Apostles directly.[14] Charles E. Hill argues that there is a solid early orthodox tradition of authorship: the tradition that an apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel and can be attested to as early as the first two decades of the second century, and there are many Church Fathers in the remainder of the second century that ascribe the text to John the Apostle.[17] Martin Hengel and Jorge Frey similarly argue for John the Presbyter as the author of the text.[citation needed] Hill goes on to propose that Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias’ elders, and Hierapolis' Exegesis of the Lord’s Oracles possibly all quote from the Gospel of John.
Epiphanius, however, takes note of an Early Christian sect, the Alogi, who believed the Gospel was actually written by one Cerinthus, a second-century Gnostic.[18] Corroborating this evidence is a quotation by Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church 7.25.2) in which Dionysius of Alexandria (mid-third century) claims that the Apocalypse of John (known commonly as the Book of Revelation), but not the Gospel of John, was believed by some before him (7.25.1) to also have been written by Cerinthus. This discussion of the Alogi represents the only instance in which both the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John were specifically attributed to Cerinthus.[18] Hill asserts that, at that time, the Gospel of John was never attributed to Cerinthus by the established orthodoxy; that Eusebius was only stating a theory that he had heard; and that Eusebius himself believed the Gospel to have been written by the Apostle John.[19]
Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.[20]
Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel.[21] He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): 1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus; 2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and 3) the edited version that readers know today (Brown 1979).
Among scholars, Ephesus in Asia Minor is a popular suggestion for the gospel's origin.[2]

Date

Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90–100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars. Justin Martyr quoted from the gospel of John, which would also support that the Gospel was in existence by at least the middle of the second century,[22] and the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which records a fragment of this gospel, is usually dated between 125 and 160 CE.[23]
The traditional view is supported by reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other gospels (Eusibius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7). This would place the writing of John's gospel sufficiently after the writing of the synoptics.
Conservative scholars consider internal evidences, such as the lack of the mention of the destruction of the temple and a number of passages that they consider characteristic of an eye-witness (John 13:23ff, 18:10, 18:15, 19:26–27, 19:34, 20:8, 20:24–29), sufficient evidence that the gospel was composed before 100 and perhaps as early as 50–70. Barrett suggests an earliest date of 90, based on familiarity with Mark’s gospel, and the late date of a synagogue expulsion of Christians (which is a theme in John).[24] Morris suggests 70, given Qumran parallels and John’s turns of phrase, such as "his disciples" vs. "the disciples".[25] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[26]
There are critical scholars who are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three), beginning at an unknown time (50–70?) and culminating in a final text around 95–100. This date is assumed in large part because John 21, the so-called "appendix" to John, is largely concerned with explaining the death of the "beloved disciple", supposedly the leader of the Johannine community that would have produced the text. If this leader had been a follower of Jesus, or a disciple of one of Jesus' followers, then a death around 90–100 is reasonable.

[ecto9]

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. ICor 1:27-29

[Psychotron]

Well, your wrong, even liberal Scholarship doesnt even go that far. Not even the Jesus seminar would agree with you.

Robert Price is a fellow of the Jesus seminar, he is about the only sane secular biblical scholar out there. Everyone else has some warped view and interprets it from there.

The Gospels were written by who they claimed to be, I would love to debate you on this subject.

You have got to be kidding me right? Any serious scholar knows they werent. It was a writing style of the age. Write something and attribute it to someone else. Read Ehrman on this.

Have you read the letters of Paul? it doesnt sound like it. You need to read the new testament. Paul claims to have encounters with the risen Christ.

No he doesn't. There is only one vague passage where he talks about "seeing" christ with 500 brothers. The greek translation can also be worded as vision.

Read Earl Doherty's "Jesus Puzzle" for an indepth analysis of Paul and how he is not related to th Gospel accounts of Jesus.

In the end the Gospels and Paul's view of the Christ is not very difficult to view as simply old testament midrash. For those who would argue "well how did we get so many people believing he did exist?" Do you ask yourself the same question regarding Greek, Roman, Egyption gods?

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

[Tock]

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;

Ya, right . . . like this is supposed to make the ignorant and nonsensical BS in the Bible any easier to swallow?

Dumb is still dumb, regardless of how pretty of a dress you put it in.

[xero]

Funny how we argue and fight for centuries about the existence of a god we have never seen.

Christianity? Not for me. Santa for adults.

[qualityclrk1]

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. BUT HE LOVES YOU! He loves you and he needs money....-George Carlin

[qualityclrk1]

another good quote:

"I am often made sick when a rich person in a rich nation attributes some minor blessing to God on account of his faith and prayers when the same God allows thousands of orphaned, exploited, abused, malnourished, homeless, innocent children to die in filthy gutters around the world every single day." - David Mann

[qualityclrk1]

and one for everyone to ponder:

"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." - Mark Twain

[dece870717]

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. BUT HE LOVES YOU! He loves you and he needs money....-George Carlin

That "love" is shown through his ability to let you be forgiven, every single thing anything anyone has done is forgivable as long as you accept that gift. Think about how many times a person can sin a day and times that by how many years they live and then times that by how many people there are in the world. Lets say you make rules and 6 billion people disobey 30 rules a day for years and years and years, your going to be pissed and consequences arise! If you think about how many sins people commit in their lives we're lucky to have a way out.

another good quote:

"I am often made sick when a rich person in a rich nation attributes some minor blessing to God on account of his faith and prayers when the same God allows thousands of orphaned, exploited, abused, malnourished, homeless, innocent children to die in filthy gutters around the world every single day." - David Mann

By saying this he is basically saying God should police the world. If God didn't let these things happen he would take away choice by forcing us not to do those things. So its either freedom to choose or we're all robots and we do exactly what he says to do no matter what and love can not be forced and thats what he wants from us. Its not God's fault that these bad things happen, its ours, he has no obligation to fix our problems that are caused by US because of stuff that he told us not to do!

[Lexed]

Great qoute of the man Einstien

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

[DSM4Life]

Great qoute of the man Einstien

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

The get quote of Forrest Gump:

"Mama always said life was like a box a chocolates, never know what you're gonna get. "

[MATTMAN01]

It amazes me how people prefer to trust in the vain wisdom of man to justify their own lifestyle instead of believing the bible, which if they investigated has all been proven to be true except where it talks about the end of this world.

[MATTMAN01]

To disobey God is to move out of the realm of which he works;ie blessings etc. You don't get punished.

[magic32]

Thats the problem.

Worship me, praise me, me me me me me
or you shall burn and torture forever and ever and ever


What an awesome guy I tell you. Can't wait to see him!

CLOSE, BUT NOT EXACTLY THE WAY HE SEES IT. MORE LIKE YOU SINNED, LEFT ME, I DIED TO PROVIDE A WAY BACK, YOU REFUSED TO TAKE IT, WHICH MEANS YOU REAP THE END RESULT OF HAVING SINNED WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE AFOREMENTIONED BURNING AND TORTURING FOREVER AND LET US NOT FORGET WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH…HEY THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH BUDDY AND EVERY BILL EVENTUALLY COMES DUE.

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

It's impossible to be sinless in your entire life period.

TRUE!
AND ESPECIALLY SO WHEN YOU’RE BORN INTO IT, WHICH MAKES THE REDEEMER/SACRIFICE/CHRIST SO VERY NECESSARY!-----------------------------------------

I have read the bible cover to cover three times and have also read various books in the bible many times over that....

I never read anything about hell.....Hell is an english term, Jesus referenced a place called Gehenna (which was in Jeruselem), and also some letters in the epistles interchanged the term Gehenna with Hades (greek term).... another term is Sheol (place of the dead or grave in Hebrew).... all these terms are loosely interchanged with the english word Hell. This causes the misconception of what Hell like you are stating above is, with what those original terms meant.

The only place everyone goes to is the grave (dead)....and belief in Jesus as the savior gives one the chance of eternal life and to be ressurected (rised up, brought forth) from the grave or dead state into life at the appointed time...

OKAY, ALL THAT MAY BE TRUE AS WELL, BUT SOMEHOW YOU MISSED “HELL” THE PLACE OF OUTER DARKNESS, ORIGINALLY CREATED AS A PUNISHMENT AND TORTURE FOR FALLEN ANGELS, SO HERE:

• Mat 25:41
  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
• Mat 8:12
  But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 22:13
  Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 24:51
  And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Mat 25:30
  And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
• Luk 13:28
  There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.

IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT “YES” THIS SAME HELL IS FOR SINNERS BUT NEED TO BE BIGGER FOR SO MANY GUESTS…

• Isa 5:14
  Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
• Isa 5:15
  And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled:

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

I am just wondering why does it matter which religion you belong to as long as you are good human being???

THIS IS A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND GOD’S ANSWER IS THAT FIRSTLY WE WERE BORN IN SIN, OF SINFUL PARENTS. A CONDITION NO DIFFERENT THAN BEING BORN BLACK, WHITE, ETC. SECONDLY, WHO DETERMINES WHAT GOOD IS? ARE YOU GOOD BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T KILLED A MAN, WHAT ABOUT THEFT, LYING, FORNICATION, ETC.? BUT IT’S REALLY THE FIRST REASON THAT MAKES US SINFUL, THE SECOND IS MERELY A MANIFESTATION OF OUR SIN NATURE, WHICH AS PAUL PUT IT:

• Rom 3:10
  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

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

I don't understand all the kaos in the world either. Not letting it affect my belief in God at this point, just putting it off till it will all be revealed to us later (judgement day/next life)...

WELL, SIN AND DEATH ARE THE HARBINGERS OF DECAY SO ONCE THEY CAME INTO THE WORLD THROUGH ADAM, CHAOS FOLLOWED:

• Rom 5:12
  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

PLUS THE FACT THAT THOUGH SATAN (DESCRIBED AS THE PRINCE OF THIS WORLD OR OF THE AIR) MAY NOT BE HEAVILY WORSHIPPED but HIS SYSTEM IS, AND THAT TOO IS ONE OF CHAOS AND ANIMOSITY TOWARDS GOD.

• Jhn 12:31
  Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
• Jhn 14:30
  Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.
• Jhn 16:11
  Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
• Eph 2:2
  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

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

lol these threads go nowhere!!

Its all about faith. The truth is, what you want it to be.
IF WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT, THEN EVERY MAN HAS HIS OWN TRUTH, AND SURELY YOU DON’T BELIEVE SUCH A THING? BUT LET’S GO A STEP FURTHER, WHAT IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT ON TRUTH, WOULD THAT MAKE EVEN A FALSEHOOD TRUE? HMM, GETTING DEEP IN HERE…

• IT WAS ONCE LARGELY AGREED THAT THE WORLD WAS FLAT, BUT THAT MADE IT NO LESS ROUND.
• AND OF COURSE THERE WAS WIDESPREAD GEOCENTRISM (EARTH CENTER OF UNIVERSE), BUT THAT DIDN’T NULLIFY THE TRUTH OF HELIOCENTRISM (SUN CENTER).

SO THERE IS "REAL" TRUTH, AND EITHER GOD EXISTS OR HE DOES NOT. TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED ASSERTIONS CANNOT BE TRUE, NOR CAN A MAN'S BELIEF MAKE AN UNTRUTH TRUE


What makes your god any more credible than that of the Greek Gods?
other religions? etc.
FIRSTLY, THEY WERE CREATED BY MAN, WHEREAS CHRIST (GOD THE SON) WALKED AMONG US AND UNLESS HE WAS A MASS HYPNOTIST DID THINGS ONLY A GOD CAN DO.

Whose to say whose right and whose wrong?
TRUTH!

I don't like organized religion. Do I believe in Jesus?
No. Im sure there was a "jesus", but some miracle working messiah? I dont think so.
HOW CAN YOU SEPARATE THE MAN FROM HIS WORKS? YOU’D BE BETTER OFF WITH TOCK CLAIMING “THERE WAS NO MAN”.

This is my opinion/view, and were each entitled to. If people choose to believe, and it causes them to have a better life/be a better person, more power to them.
A quote I've always kind of liked is:

"I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

THIS IS A VERY AMUSING PIECE OF LITERATURE, ISN'T WORD-PLAY WONDERFUL?

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

So i accept hell.
DOESN’T NOT DOING SOMETHING IN LIFE EQUATE TO ACCEPTING THE CONSEQUENCES?

• NOT EATING MEANS ACCEPTING HUNGER.
• NOT SLEEPING MEANS ACCEPTING FATIGUE.
• NOT GOING TO CLASS OR STUDYING MEANS ACCEPTING LOWER GRADES.
• NOT GETTING A JOB MEANS ACCEPTING NOT GETTING A CHECK.

SO “YES” THAT’S WHAT THE BIBLE IS SAYING ABOUT NOT ACCEPTING JESUS…ACCEPTING HELL!

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

news flash...they are christians! if you believe in chirst , you are christian, you dont have to be born again or any other denomination to be christian.

A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament and interpreted by Christians to have been prophesied in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament

theologians consider a Christian to be anyone who accepts the Nicene Creed. This ancient text is accepted by Catholics, the Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans and all the remaining mainline Protestant Churches.

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ACCEPT THE “NOT HAVING TO BE BORN AGAIN” PART, UNLESS I’M SOMEHOW MISUNDERSTANDING YOU OR YOUR CONTEXT. THE BIBLE MAKES IT CLEAR, EVEN FROM THE VERY LIPS OF JESUS IN RESPONSE TO NICODEMUS’ FAMOUS QUESTION:

• Jhn 3:1
  There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
• Jhn 3:2
  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
• Jhn 3:3
  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
• Jhn 3:4
  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
• Jhn 3:5
  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
• Jhn 3:6
  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
• Jhn 3:7
  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

• 1Pe 1:23
  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

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

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it.

However, if you were to expand your acquaintance with theologians, you would discover that quite a few take Jesus as a fictitious figure, and not as a historical one.

THAT’S THERE OPINION AND THEY ARE WELCOME TO IT… BUT THIS TOPIC IS MOOT.

BUT HOW DO WE KNOW OTHER HISTORICAL FIGURES WHO PREDATE PHOTOGRAPHY ACTUALLY EXISTED? EASY THEY WERE WRITTEN ABOUT BY MULTIPLE NON-FICTION CONTEMPORARIES…I.E. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION, WHICH APPLIES HERE, ALONG WITH CHRISTMAS (BIRTH, REGARDLESS OF ACTUAL DATE), GOOD FRIDAY (DEATH), EASTER (RESURRECTION) OH AND THAT LITTLE ISSUE OF HOW TIME ITSELF IS MEASURED…BC & AD. OR ARE THEY ALL JUST AS FANCIFUL?

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

and this is why the religion forum was closed...cause someone is going to go to far and this thread will be locked...religion is not something to debate over the net....fuK

I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE HERE, AS LONG AS THE TITLE DENOTES CHRISTIAN CONTENT, MEANING THE THREAD IS PEMITTED. ANYONE FOUND FLAMING OR BEING OVERLY DISCOURTEOUS SHOULD BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO THE RULES THAT GOVERN SAID BEHAVIOR.

THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE IN THIS THREAD!

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

Find me some secular evidence that Jesus even existed or that the crucifixtion even occured. There is no evidence for a Jesus existing with the exception of your Gospels. The New Testament is nothing more than Old Testament midrash.

AH, EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS!
DON’T YOU RECALL THIS BEING COVERED?

Do you have any questions about the Bible?
(post #268)

DID YOU CHANGE SIDES PSYCH, YOUR ATTITUDE IN THIS THREAD IS DECISIVELY ANTI-GOD, UNLIKE MY THREAD.

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

I think the net is the best place actually.

-CNS

IF NOT, IT IS CERTAINLY A GOOD ONE.

NARK,
BE SURE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ABOVE CITED LINK, I THINK YOU’LL FIND IT PARTICULARLY INTERESTING.

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

How many stalkers, psychos and molesters say they did it out of love?

I like the idea of teach dont preach. Forcing someone even out of love is 100% not right.

EXCELLENT POINT…FREE WILL.
GOD DIDN’T DO IT (FORCE US THAT IS), ADAM HAD A CLEAR CHOICE TO REJECT EVE’S APPLE PROPOSAL. BUT IT SURE DIDN’T HELP THAT SHE WAS NAKED WHEN SHE MADE IT.
-------------------------

[QUOTE=rockinred;3995045]The only secular writings to occur during that time were the writings of Josephus... QUOTE]

THERE ARE OTHERS, SEE THE OTHER THREAD.
----------------------

He didn't.
FALSE.

Also, Jesus was prophesied to have been the son of King David, but if you check out the genaologies given in the New Testament, you'll find that while one version shows Jesus to be the son of Joseph who was a descendant of David, the other version shows Jesus to be the son of Mary, who was not a descendant of David.
FALSE, ACTUALLY BOTH ARE, AS THE BIBLE GOES TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAKE THIS POINT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR!

JESUS' GENEALOLOGY:

• Mat 1:1 - 16
• The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

• Luk 3:23 - 38
  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son-in-law] of Heli,

MATTHEW RECORDS JOSEPH’S GENEALOGY, AND LUKE RECORDS JESUS’ GENEALOGY THROUGH MARY.

BOTH MARY AND JOSEPH WERE OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF DAVID-- THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, AS WE SHALL EXAMINE. BOTH JOSEPH'S AND MARY'S GENEALOGY ARE RECORDED TO PREVENT JUST THIS TYPE OF FALSE CLAIM.

MATTHEW POINTS OUT JESUS' PLACE IN THE ROYAL SUCCESSION.
LUKE GIVES US HIS ACTUAL PHYSICAL ANCESTRY THROUGH MARY'S BLOODLINE.

JOSEPH'S GENEALOGY IS RECORDED BECAUSE OUR LORD JESUS WAS THE ADOPTED SON OF JOSEPH, WHO WAS A SON OF DAVID. WHEN YOU ADOPT A CHILD, HE LEGALLY BECOMES YOUR CHILD, YOUR HEIR, AND THAT CHILD TAKES ON THE FAMILY NAME.

SO IF YOU WANT TO PULL THE NOT REALLY JOSEPH’S BLOOD CARD (THE LAST REFUGE OF A DESPERATE NON-BELIEVER, MARY STILL COVERS THE BILL AS STATED ABOVE JUST FOLLOW IT BACK!


So, though CS Lewis said, "Jesus is either Lord, lunatic, or liar," there's another option. Jesus is a work of fiction, and that's all there is to that.
TRUE!
I’M SURPRISED TO AGREE WITH TOCK HERE, BUT ALTHOUGH JESUS COULD BE A LUNATIC LIAR, LORD (GOD) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE OTHERS, AND BASED ON HIS ACTS (PLEASE DON’T QUESTION VALIDITY HERE). THOSE INHUMAN ACTS ARE PART OF WHY HE IS SO REMEMBERED, OBSERVED, AND WORSHIPPED.

• Jhn 10:25
  Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
• Jhn 10:38
  But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in him.

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

I still chuckle at the continuous statements that it is a 100% historical fact that Jesus the Christ was a real person as depicted by the gospels. You do realize the gospels weren't written by the people they were attributed to?

SO THEN ALSO FICTIONAL ARE THE MULTIPLE HOLIDAY OBSERVANCES OF HIM, THE ARGUMENT OF TIME (AD & BC), AND THE CITED NON-RELIGIOUS WORKS CITED IN THE LINK ABOVE?

OR SHOULD WE JUST PRETEND THEM AWAY SO THAT OUR LIVES CAN TRULY BE OUR OWN RATHER THAN BELONGING TO HIM?
----------------------------------

Still no one has answered the question as to why Jesus and/or God for that matter ever put pen to pad?
ARE YOU SERIOUS, HERE? IF SO THE ANSWER IS NO, NEITHER WROTE ABOUT THEMSELVES/HIMSELF, THIS MUCH IS VERY CLEAR.

Religion is a personal choice. Leave it at that! You cannot convince a non-believer anymore than a non-believer can convince you. For every so-called expert you point to in order to prove your religion is true, someone can point out an equal number (if not more) that it doesn't.
PROBABLY THE TRUEST WORDS I’VE EVER READ. ANALYTICAL ARGUMENTS CANNOT PERSUADE THE SOULS OF MEN, ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN DO THIS, WHICH BEGS THE QUESTION OF THE “ELECT”. THIS IS A GUARANTEED CAN OF WORMS.


Fact remains Christianity is relatively new in the history of man.
UNTRUE, THE OLD TESTAMENT IS FILLED WITH ALLUSIONS TO THE COMING CHRIST, MAKING IT QUITE OLD INDEED.

But you cannot fault a person because he/she doesn't need YOUR God to be a better person.
A BETTER PERSON MAYBE, BUT NOT SINLESS BEFORE GOD, WHICH IS HIS REQUIREMENT OF US. AND AS PAUL PUT IT:

• Rom 3:10
• As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

• …WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY REQUIRED A SACRIFICE (FOR RIGHT STANDING) AND WHY DENIAL OF HIM IS TANTAMOUNT TO DAMNATION, BECAUSE WE ARE IN SIN (REGARDLESS OF HOW GOOD WE THINK WE ARE) AND THUS LOST.
  
• The divisive nature of religion is the reason why the world is in peril now.
• THIS IS UNTRUE…THE REASON IS “SIN”.

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

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. ICor 1:27-29

AMEN!
---------------------------

Funny how we argue and fight for centuries about the existence of a god we have never seen.

Christianity? Not for me. Santa for adults.

SADLY MANY THINGS WE'VE NEVER SEEN DO INDEED EXIST.
MIGHT I IN HONOR OF TOCK, BORROW A SECULAR QUOTE FROM THE IMMORTAL BARD?

“…THERE ARE MORE THINGS ON HEAVEN AND EARTH THAN ARE DREAMT OF IN YOUR PHILOSOPHIES, HORATIO…”
- HAMLET

-------------------
GOOD QUOTES QUALITYCLRK1.

Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. BUT HE LOVES YOU! He loves you and he needs money....-George Carlin

NO, GEORGE CARLIN GOD DOESN’T SEND YOU ANYWHERE, YOUR ETERNAL ADDRESS IS UP TO YOU.

another good quote:

"I am often made sick when a rich person in a rich nation attributes some minor blessing to God on account of his faith and prayers when the same God allows thousands of orphaned, exploited, abused, malnourished, homeless, innocent children to die in filthy gutters around the world every single day." - David Mann

DAVID MANN IS A GOOD WRITER, BUT I’M NOTICING A TREND HERE, AGAIN YOUR QUOTE BLAMES GOD FOR MAN’S POOR DECISIONS. SHALL WE NEXT BLAME HIM FOR GLOBAL WARMING AND OZONE DEPLETION AS WELL? INTERESTING!

and one for everyone to ponder:

"Why shouldn't truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense." - Mark Twain

I DO LIKE THE MARK TWAIN ONE THOUGH. THIS IS THE SAME ARGUMENT I USE FOR E V O L U T I O N ISTS, AND BIG BANGERS.

AN ALL-POWERFUL GOD CREATING ALL THAT THERE IS MAY BE FANCIFUL, BUT BELIEVING THAT IT ALL JUST CAME FROM NOTHING IS FAR MORE FAIRYTALE-LIKE…DON’T YOU THINK? WHAT OTHER PRECEDENT DO HAVE FOR NOTHING + NOTHING = ANYTHING, MUCH LESS EVERYTHING???

----------------------------------
AH, SIR ALBERT!
WELL LET’S TAKE A LOOK MR. GENIUS…

Great qoute of the man Einstien

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves.

DO WE NOT REWARD AND PUNISH OUR CHILDREN? WHY THEN WOULD A GOD WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE CREATED US IN HIS IMAGE NOT DO THE SAME?

Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death;

WHAT PHYSICAL DEATH AL…FORGETTING ABOUT HIS ETERNAL NATURE ARE WE?

let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.
YOU’D THINK ONE SO DEEPLY ENTRENCHED IN THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ENERGY MERELY CHANGES FORM WOULD BE MORE OPEN TO AN ETERNAL SOUL, BUT TO EACH HIS OWN.

I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
OBVIOUS FLUFF AND RAMBLING, UNTIL THE END WHERE HE’S MERELY CONGRATULATING HIMSELF ON HIS OWN DISCOVERIES.

MAYBE AL SHOULD STICK TO PHYSICS AND LEAVE METAPHYSICS TO THOSE WHO ARE BETTER QUALIFIED FOR THE TASK.

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

It amazes me how people prefer to trust in the vain wisdom of man to justify their own lifestyle instead of believing the bible, which if they investigated has all been proven to be true except where it talks about the end of this world.

ELOQUENT!

To disobey God is to move out of the realm of which he works;ie blessings etc. You don't get punished.

THIS IS BOTH TRUE AND FALSE. THE NON-BELIEVER DOESN’T GET PUNISHED, JUST AS YOU WOULDN’T PUNISH A STRANGER’S CHILD. BUT THE BELIEVER CERTAINLY DOES!!!

• Hbr 12:7
  If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
• Hbr 12:6
  For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
• Deu 8:5
  Thou shalt also consider in thine heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, [so] the LORD thy God chasteneth thee.
• Rev 3:19
  As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.