Why do you stand in the way of those who are considering following Jesus?
Can you give an honest answer?
There is no gospel with the name "Gospel of Christ or Gospel of Jesus" with the Christians.
I don't stand in the way of those who choose to follow Jesus. I challenge their knowledge of the scriptures which were manipulated before any Christians actually learned of their existence.
I just did.
the bible is true. Study the pharaoh Ahmose (means Brother of moses who lived in the 1500BCE) and the hyksos. Ahmose's record say that they kicked the hyksos out and while they were kick them out of Egypt there was a great storm like fire and hail that the bible talks about.
You would need to offer an honest question, first.
I stand in the way of Sarah Palin's followers as well. I can't help it...
I used to be a Christian. The best answer I can give for why I'd like to talk people out of their Christians beliefs is that I've actually read the entire Bible and spent more than a decade as a believer. Losing my faith was one of the most liberating and enlightening journeys imaginable. It opened my eyes to the beauty of actual reality around me.
I'm sure there are a few people out there who would be happier as Christians but for me personally the Christian beliefs I was instilled with as a child plagued me with fear, guilt, self-doubt and twisted morals. On top of all that add the fact that Christianity makes numerous false or unproven assertions regarding the natural world and the existence of supernatural beings, abilities, etc.
So Christianity can be both emotionally and intellectually toxic on an individual and societal level. I escaped that toxic religion and it's the least I can do to try and help others do the same.
My story is much the same, as is my current reasoning.
I couldn't have said it better myself. However, I do NOT try to CHANGE peoples minds I just try to tell them to look up the facts, do some research then IF you choose still to be Christian have at it. But have the ACTUAL facts first.
Lets say you dont believe in christ ,lets say you dont belive in God because of what happen to you in the past what ever could have stumble you to feel the way you do! regaurdless , the sun will still shine ,themoon will still show light ,the earth will give a today and a tomorrow, and the true fact is How can anything evolve when mans body decays so fast, he only lives to be 100 years of age! now most only live to be 60, about now, we have not evolved to anything lately we die to fast! there are trees older then us. and this is fact.
Well a lot of trees are probably smarter than some of us.
No doubt about that, Earnest! It's proven on these forums every day as we've just witnessed. Hope you're doin' well!!
It's all good here Randy, weather and all in this early spring. The birds are at it, as are all the other animals and plants around me, so I'm a happy little Aussie bleeder.
Great weather here too, Earnest. Finally got some needed rain and the temperatures are mild too. Staying busy going on camping trips to the east and gulf coasts myself. Plenty of ideas for articles, but not necessarily hubs. Life is good!
Nice that you got the rain Randy, if we only believed in the sky fairy we would get exactly the right quantity of moisture all year round!
The Jesus Christ "by faith only" is a clever deception compared to the living (immortal) one unmistakably knowable by personal and direct revelation in his death on the cross, a.k.a., "the Good News". (1 Tim. 1: 10-11)
I have to agree with Paar on this one. There is no gospel of Jesus or Christ. There is only gospels written about him and not even written by eyewitnesses for that matter.
Let's see....most of the disciples were indeed eyewitnesses!
But the apostles didn't write any of the books of the bible. None of the books of the NT was written by Eyewitnesses. At best they were written by second hand knowledge many years after the fact. Only the Book of John directly references his information coming from an eyewitness. But it was written close to 60 years after the fact.
all wrote books of the Bible and were apostles.
Attributed to those individuals, not actually written by them. Big difference.
Mathew - copied from mark, with so many historical mistakes including Nazareth.
Mark - Not a disciple, but a supposed follower of peter.
John- He waited till the end of his life to write it down???
Paul- didn't even see jesus or studied anything from his disciples, nor wrote anything about an earthly jesus.
Peter-Didn't write any gospel.
Not true. Only Paul can be confirmed as writing Books of the NT. And he never met Jesus. John was written by an author who used the "beloved Disciple"s teaching as the base for his book. Mark was a follower/interpreter for Peter and never met Jesus, author for the 4 gospels is unknown, these books were attributed to well known names to lend to their authenticity. The Apostle peter never wrote any of the books of the bible. He was killed in 64CE and the books being his name weren't written until 85-95CE for 1 peter and 130-150 CE for 2 peter, which would mean neither book couldn't have been written by Peter.
The only person that you named that was named as one of the twelve (apostles) is Matthew. That book was written based from Mark and the "Q" text, why would an eyewitness need to copy another when related the story of Jesus?
Paul claimed Apostleship due to his revelation of the risen Christ. And he had to defend this claim on multiple occasions as he writes about in his letters to the different churches. 1 Corithians is a good example of this. Paul was the first "Christian" to actually write anything about Jesus and his letters were from 50-62 CE, prior to that timeframe nothing was ever in writing about Jesus. Paul converted in about 32ce and began his preaching at that time throughout Asia, it was 3 years before he ever went to Jeruselem to meet Peter or other leaders of the Jeruselem Church.
To add, that would make Paul a contemporary of Jesus, yet he never saw him or went out persecuting him when he was alive.
And it seems that he didn't have direct knowledge of the type of death of Jesus either. Which I find strange considering he converted within a year or so prior to or directly after the timeframe Jesus was supposed to have been killed. And he was persecuting Christians directly prior to his conversion. Paul was supposed at and in support of the Stoning of Stephen which happened in 34-35ce and this was after Paul's claim of being converted. Certian timelines don't add up. So either the author of Acts got his timeline of events mixed up or...well I'll leave that for others to decide...
these books were attributed to well known names to lend to their authenticity
Matthew the TAX collector, by reputation, hated by the jewish community, not good PR to have that name on top of the document.
Only Paul can be confirmed as writing Books of the NT. And he never met Jesus
I corrected you on this one before. Pauls conversion was all about meeting Jesus. One of the criteria for being an apostle in the first place was meeting christ, which he did, albeit briefly one the damascus road and then during his next 3 days of blindness. To be an eyewitness to the resurrection does not mean a person has to like eat dinner, go to movies and hang out for a long period of time. An eyewitness, in our society only has to witness with the eye which is just what it says.
which would mean neither book couldn't have been written by Peter
We already know that Mark wrote for Peter and that Peter was a fisherman. It may be safe to assume that Peter did not write any letters - not books - at all, and that perhaps Peter was not that literate.
That book was written based from Mark and the "Q" text, why would an eyewitness need to copy another when related the story of Jesus?
Can't believe your still on about this one. John mark was a disciple, and accompanied peter and paul on their respective missionary journeys. Why would an eyewitness need to blah blah. The answer to this is obvious, he didn't NEED to but he did because as any normal person would be, he was so very curious to read what was written that it influenced him greatly, enough to elaborate, but nowhere does he correct it. Why do we when writing term papers quote from other authors? Same sorta thing.
Nothing wrong with the Q text, as it is documented sayings not narratives and this may well be where some of the quotes come from, ya think?
And he had to defend this claim on multiple occasions as he writes about in his letters to the different churches
Absolutely, as one who at one time persecuted the church extensively the other brothers did not easily accept him because of the persecution going on at that time and thought him to be a trap. Understandable. Luke writes that Ananias was told of God to go to Paul and even Ananias was hesitant. Eventually though, Paul gained the respect, love and admiration that was a part of Gods blessing to him.
Paul was the first "Christian" to actually write anything about Jesus
And so we see another reason God selected Paul to be an apostle - his zeal. As zealous as Paul was in his pre-christian life, he took that same zeal and applied it to his christian life. God made a wonderful choice.
it was 3 years before he ever went to Jeruselem to meet Peter or other leaders of the Jeruselem Church
Acts 9:19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days WITH the disciples which were at Damascus.
Acts 9:20 And STRAIGHT AWAY he preached Christ IN the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Acts 9:23 And after that MANY DAYS were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him:
As per Galatians 1:17,18 he spent 3 yrs in arabia. Then he came back and was wisked away to tarsus because of the jews wanting to kill him. Pauls mission was not to the jews but to the gentiles. God said it and we see jews always causing paul problems.
You have a low timeline for pauls conversion. Is it not accepted that Jesus died prior to 34ad? Stephen was stoned closer to 35ad and shortly after, Pauls conversion, oh say in 35ad. Stephen had a short but powerful ministry.
Lets look at:
In "Ethics of The Fathers" 5:25 - the following age milestones are listed:
At 20 - it is the time to pursue matters
At 30 - the time for strength and power <-- jesus' baptism
At 40 - we reach a level of deeper understanding
At 50 - we advise others.
I said I wasn't going to respond to your post, due to the fact that you what to insult instead of discuss, But there is one part of your post that I would like to address. The rest of your responses I have already talked about and will leave it up to those who read these posts to decide for themselves.
You quoted Acts (a book supposed written by Luke, not Paul) Chapter Nine as to when Paul went to Jeruselem the first time.
For rebuttal I will quote Paul himself.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
So do we take the word of the man himself or one who only wrote about him from research. (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1)
Either Paul is right and didn't lie as he staes in verse 20 and "Luke" is slightly off in his research, Or is "Luke" right and Paul is off, or is there a contradiction in God's Word?
I'll leave it up to you and the reader to decide.
I agree with you; I further have to add that Paul was the first Christian having founded Christianity; Jesus was not a Christian; Paul, Church and the Christians never followed Jesus; they were never inspired by the Holy Ghost. Only to add a little credence to Bible, the Church publicised that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
The early church canon specifically agrees that the names on the gospel are the names of the persons who wrote them. Enough of this garbage. The Early Church was there and they had them hand delivered. There is no dispute about who wrote them at all.
Rubbish, you christians can't even agree on it, and there is no proof, not a single item, unless you're gonna quote the book of myths at me again and call that proof!
Why would you say that?
Is only bulldust calm now?
Why should Christians agree? Do scientists, mathematicians, historians, archaeologists, politicians school teachers, dentists, lol.. agree... Agreeing is not a big part in the right to denial, is just some lamo excuse to create the facade that just because we don't, there isn't. Christians agree well enough on the basics. I mean you read the bible for 30 years and you don't agree lol.
As for proof well thats complicated, isn't it. There are many christians here who do not have the need for the proof you require, myself included. We have our proof and are contented and calm.
As to quoting the good book, yah you will read more and more and more and the proper context will also be given as well as some skookum interpretations. Learn if you will.
yah, calm down maybe take a vacation
People who see through the myths need a vacation and to calm down do they?
People who don't agree with your particular slant are all wrong remember? No unity amongst the christians, muslims or any other religion.
They are either flogging their version of their myth in a forum or killing each other over variances in doctrine.
Simple, they have one book that tells them everything they need to do, a manual for life, so to speak. Hence, they follow it and should never disagree. If they do, they are disagreeing with their God, which is another matter altogether.
Yes, for the most part, they do agree. Of course, it is through hard work, rigor and solid evidence of the world around them that they must find answers. In this way, it is not easy to agree, but they eventually figure it out.
It is common knowledge that there is dispute. Why would you lie about something so well known? More importantly, why does this matter to you? Unknown authorship has nothing to do with the debate of the veracity of the information written.
When this rumor gets passed around about the anonymity of the writers it only produces doubt in peoples minds, and its another atheist bit of untrue ammo, therefore did i comment as i have before in length "when will people realize etc.. page 2" about the unstoppableness of the canon, OT and NT midway down the page.
There are so very many good answers about this question in favor of the names they go by, that there is no doubt in my mind at all.
Considering that both religious and secular scholars would disagree with your assessment, I can only assume you (in the words of A Troubled Man) really, really want to believe that; in spite of clear evidence to the contrary.
Lets not forget the ones who would also agree with me. And there's bible evidence for a smaller time line of the gospels writing than what your precious scholars state.
You have no clear evidence to the contrary all you have is contrary evidence. Although you would like to believe that i am wrong, I wish you would try harder next time and assume less.
There's an excellent book called "the case for christ" if you would like to examine evidence from a fellow with a heap of amount of letters behind his name. But since i take my information from him and a few other scholarly sources, why believe me huh since all i do i repeat what i have learned from them.
Do you knit?
Well, that's the liberal mantra on the Scriptures. However, a fair investigation will show that every book of the New Testatment was written either by an apostle or under his authority. Can there be certainty? Of course not. But there is enough evidence to warrant a reasonable conclusion.
The education system during the time in question isnt the one we have today. Literacy was very rare. It is highly unlikely that a carpenter or a common fisherman could either read or write. The "Gospels" were penned in Rome Italy by the Roman Senate 300 years after the death of Christ.
A tax collector could write.
the author of mark was john mark a rich young kid.
John was written in greek. (The languages spoken in Israel at the time of Christ were Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Most Jewish people spoke the first THREE, and some were conversant in Latin as well.)
Luke was a doctor
Paul very highly educated in the roman system.
None of these are carpenters or fishermen.
Virgil, I wish you luck on this one. Well, I don't believe in "luck" but I guess you know what I mean.
So far, they're bent on distraction.
I don't know that I have ever stood in the way of someone considering following Jesus. I do stand firmly against evangelical, fundamental or 'Bible believing' Christians. But, that's not in anyone's way of following Jesus, that I'm aware of.
I am going to say this first. If you do not stand in the way of others, that is good and this thread is not directed at you.
For those who think they don't stand in the way but try to make things right according to what they think, anytime you sway a person's decision, you help them change their mind. How can a person make an honest decision about anything at all when so many speak against what they are considering?
So many believe they know what Jesus taught and meant when they do not have the same spirit that Jesus had. They in fact cannot have the same spirit if they do not believe Jesus is why he said He was. What this ends up being is teachers who do not really know what they are teaching. They will teach their own ideas and thoughts, but not what needs to be taught.
I wonder how many 3rd grade children teach college courses. Can an English teacher teach nuclear physics? Of course not, unless they have a degree in that area also and the credentials to teach it.
The disciples of Jesus were ignorant and unlearned men, yet they wrote the New Testament. God can use the small things to do great things. The world these days wants men of renown and college professors to teach them. I wonder how many of those college professors can go out on a boat and catch fish for a living?
See the post before yours and learn something new.
Teach is the opportune word.
How many threads have you started speaking out against followers of Jesus? How many against the Bible itself?
How many posts have you posted speaking against Christians? You stand in the way even if you don't realize it.
Is there something wrong with speaking out against delusion?
Speaking out against followers of Jesus? That implies I have to meet someone who is actually following Jesus, before I can speak out against them. And, had I actually met one, then the likelihood I would be speaking out against them is slim to none and slim went on vacation.
There's a reason for speaking out against the bible. It was manipulated long before it was ever put into book form.
Are you Christian? If so, then what are you doing here? Wouldn't you have something better to do with your time instead? You talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.
That's what you think. If Christians actually understood Jesus' teachings, then NONE of them would be here in the forums talking up smack or preaching the bible. They would be doing something MORE productive.
I don't stand in anybody's way. I only point the chosen ignorance of believers who make claims to walk the walk, when their own actions show that they only talk the talk. So please.
You point the way to self being the highest denominator in a persons life when clearly Jesus pointed to denial of self so very blatantly and so very often and so does the rest of the NT and the OT as well.
Therefore you are wrong, having no christian insights, about how you know what the bible says.
Who put YOU in charge of Christians ie What they should be doing?
You wrongly assume they dont serve God or at least not in the way you seem to think they should
Perhaps we should all be doing something else ?
So, basically, what you're saying is those who agree with you are right and everyone else should back up and shut up. I certainly understand where you are coming from. Those who agree with you should certainly be allowed to actively pursue converts without opposing views being heard. That way, it would follow that the proposed converts not be expected to think for themselves. Simply allow you, and those who agree with you, to tell them what to think.
It seems to me that truth will out. Anyone advocating what they consider to be truth should not fear opposing views.
No I am not saying that at all. I am saying those that piss on believers should not do so, nor should they try to make up the minds of those who are pondering turning to Christ.
Now you are being sarcastic or trying to turn the thread into something else.
Opposing views is fine, but pissing on believers is not good.
What is below is not directed at anyone in particular.
Many think they know what is right and what is wrong. They think for themselves and figure it all out, they say. Of course none of them has had any type of education that might have influenced them in their thinking.
This is true of both sides.
I myself hold a PHD in Biblical Studies, and yet I still have those of "faith" tell me I am wrong when it comes to the text of the bible (not belief or doctrine), because it does not agree with what they been taught (in church) or have found in thier search.
Just because one person thinks a certain way does not make them right, even one who holds a degree. It is more about the majority of the scholars. there are certain things that are split about 50/50. but for the most part, when it comes to the bible, it is about 95% one way and the other 5% is varied directions.
scholars are the main reason christianity has not grown in the last 100yrs. Everybody is in awe of letters after the name. The spirit quickens the believer not the piece of paper. In theologian school, which christ never indicated we should all go to theologian school to be a good christian, lol
It's the lack of respect for courteous people who have put a great deal of time and effort into studying scriptures under the tutelage of others who have done the same that makes it abundantly clear that fundamentalism is ego. Fundamentalism appears to lack spiritual wisdom on any level.
I myself, don't refute a person's beliefs. I post information,based on my education, that I had hoped would be of use to both believer and non-believer alike. But, as can be seen with some it just doesn't matter.
Which leads me to believe, that some will not accept facts that oppose thier opinions, even when they are in support of their religous text. The message is still the same, regardless of the facts of the text itself. And I try not to dispute the message itself. And if I do have an opinion of the interpretation of the message contained in the text, it is only that, my opinion. No more right or wrong than anyone elses.
I appreciate and respect your input. Where else could we discuss the topic and have the benefit of participation by someone who has spent years studying the topic matter?
I agree, in that some are less interested in facts than they are in belief. The two should be as close as possible, I would think. Everything is a leap of faith, but I'd like to leap from a mountain of fact, not a mole hill of disinformation, if possible.
Agreed. And to add, If I don't have the mountian of facts, I want as much information as can be found before I jump to a decision of faith.
We see that even theologians do not agree on just about every topic.
Christ did not come to make all Christians theologians.
He said, paraphrased, the holy spirit would teach all his children and that's a fact. Sure we can google all sorts of topics but this is not the pattern of the christian way. Leaning on Him for understanding and guidance is the pattern.
But how can people who do not understand God living in his people ever come to that conclusion?
Theologians become proud, theologians graduate because they learned what they were taught. People with high IQs lean more to their own abilities than reliance on God for truth.
I will accept truth from people who praise God fervently and pray often, than i would from those who spend far too much time in books. There's a lot of christian books out there that I would not even touch, so unless God is guiding the study program and choosing the books, any person can easily read a wrong book and gain a false understanding.
Christianity is not based on a mountain of facts, although its nice to have these from time to time, but the real teaching of Gods word comes from reliance on God, prayer and a sincerity for understanding what God wants to teach, not what tomorrows class schedule dictates.
Oft time i think we would better off without theologians, although i have read from some i enjoy.
You know, I agree with you; if you are claiming that it is not necessary to be a theologian to be a Christian. And I agree if you think it is not necessary to understand the Bible to claim to have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
But, you cannot argue that simply because someone believes in God that they automatically understand what different Bibilical authors intended. You have to allow for the fact that someone who has studied (in an institution of higher learning, not in their Sunday School class) the history of that people, the history of surrounding cultures; the religions of surrounding and prior cultures along with myriad things that I'm sure I haven't mentioned is in a much better position to give an even and educated opinion on the topic.
It is simply ego that would argue otherwise.
Googling may give you information. It can't give you wisdom. Wisdom comes from incorporating information attained from a well rounded education into your philosophy. Reading one source, and one source only is not wisdom, or even knowledge. That is simple learning.
That type of response only serves to cover up (in your mind only) the fact that the Christian has no base of knowledge other than their own beliefs.
I think anyone with a brain in their head, whether they be a believer or not, knows the answer to that question. I think you do to. The question I have is, will you be honest enough to admit it?
If you refuse to allow for the fact that an education is, well... an education; than, I suppose you wouldn't think an educated person knew anything. I'm curious, do you go to a plumber with a medical problem?
I've got to say, you are definitely giving ample reason here in this one post why it would be foolish to listen to your opinion on anything, in a theological discussion.
What you are basically saying is that you cannot read anything not sanctioned by your sect. This tells me that you are only studying in a circular pattern. You have no way to broaden your knowledge. That's a pity. I guess you'll never know if what you believe is truth or fiction.
Its never satisfying to read what you think is your good response
The only correct line was the first one.
Everything I have seen posted by you is always well thought out and courteous. I respect that.
Education itself is not the end all of everything. A person can be educated in every known field possible, know everything that is known and still know very little.
Thank you DoubleScorpion for being courteous in your posts. In fact, most of the posts on this thread have been courteous. It is a nice change of pace from the norm.
Virgil, when you insist that an opposing view is tantamount to being 'p*ss*d on' then, I assume I could retort with the statement that believers 'p*ss' on non believers every day. But I won't. Because you are basically calling the opposing view nothing but urine. It's kind of rude.
I can tell you, no one adopts a religion via the internet. Not that I've ever heard of anyway. What would happen? A virtual baptism?
And of course I was being sarcastic. Just as I would be toward anyone adamantly insisting every believer shut up.
I have no idea what point you were attempting to make with your last paragraph. That statement is true of everyone.
The point is, this is an open forum. People will post.
You are reading more into it than what I wrote above. It is not opposing views, it is the pissing. Believers have tried many times to get a thread started just for them, but to no avail because of the crap that is thrown. You cannot deny it.
Yes it is an open forum. Atheists have the right to post crap if they want. Why do they always post so much in a thread about Christianity?
Your first comment on this thread is above. I commend you for not standing in the way of those who might want to follow Jesus. But yet, your actions seem to contradict what you said first.
There's no such thing on Hubpages. The forums are an OPEN place for all members. No thread can be exclusive. If you want exclusive threads on religion, then start a forum of your own or go to a forum that is designed for religion.
Your post shows that you have absolutely no respect for anyone who believes the Bible. Of course it is an open forum, this does not make it a shooting range.
I will not be posting anymore on this thread tonight. Have fun!
I have no respect for people who don't bother to understand their own beliefs, much less believing in the bible.
The bible is a joke in and of itself. Sure, I'm positive you could learn something from it, but when people blatantly dismiss reality, then it shows that they do not understand their own life, much less understand their beliefs.
An Open Forum means that ALL members regardless of belief can post at any time they so choose.
My actions stand in the way? Other than disagreeing with you, how?
One of your earlier replies on this thread.
No where in this thread did i say anything like what read into my posts. You twisted my post around and added to it what you wanted to to make it look like I am the bad guy. I see this a lot from atheists.
I'm not an atheist. But, I see this insistence that one be allowed to say whatever one wants, without rebuttal, from christians
I know you are not an atheist. I also perceive you to be a nice person.
As I stated before, rebuttal is OK but insults are not.
Virgil, the problem is that people define insult differently. To continue to speak, in what has been defined as an insulting manner by your opponent, only exacerbates the problem. You've always seemed like a nice guy, but if you look at the bottom line message of the evangelical it is an insult to those who disagree. Hell for the unbeliever. No spiritual truth for those who don't toe that line. Cut off completely from God if you disagree.
I don't see how it is possible to imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be adamant and forceful rebuttal. I know it gets ugly, but I can almost empathize with those who get heated about it. The Christian line is very uncaring and less than compassionate toward their fellow man
The message of Christianity is repentance from wicked ways. Look at it this way. Man is a wicked entity. Look at all the past wars and present wars to see this. The US wars alone, revolutionary war, war of 1812, civil war, Spanish American War, WW1, WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Grenada, Desert Storm, Afghan war, war with Iraq. (I feel like I missed at least one war here)
Wars are still going on in many African nations. Israel and Palestine are always at odds.
I will finish with this. A heated debate or discussion does not have to resort to name calling or insults. Politicians use those tactics all the time in their campaigns. I hate it then also. It takes away from a discussion when such tactics are used. I have walked away from many threads because of this very same thing. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort.
Who actually has the right to say Atheists are wrong and Christians are right or vice versa???
Or for that matter that ANY religion is wrong or Right and vice versa??
It just makes no since to me how anyone can say they have the one and only proper religion.
If there was one and only one proper religion wouldn't it be the FIRST religion that was EVER here?? Which by the way is NOT Christianity or Aetheism.
Furthermore aren't Christians taught NOT to pass judgement for everyone will be judged in death???
So then why is it that Christians judge MORE than any other religion out there??
Ok, maybe not ANY other religion cause I'm seeing A LOT of JUDGING coming from Aethists.
In the beginning God....
Although there are older 'religions' - God did bring his people out of Egypt who we know had beliefs - The oldest religion does not necessarily mean it is the correct one.
In the bible we see that Cain offered sacrifice to God, as taught by his dad, who was taught by God. In Genesis 6 there is a reference to the lineage of cain and seth, one being more godly than the other, but the godly fell to the wrong side, being swayed by enticements of the flesh. We see later on the pharaoh of Joseph - the kid with the coat of many colors - recognizing the God of Joseph after Joseph interpreted his dream - the one about the 7 fat and thin cows, the great famine - Then along comes Moses albeit into a time of that present pharaoh not recognizing the God of Joseph. But Moses showed that pharaoh a thing or 10 and the whole ball of what we have today starts.
So in a sense we have the oldest religion being that of Moses and by extension, Christ, today, the best way.
You are right the oldest religion may not be right, but to say that ONE religion is the ONLY way is not true either. When Christianity came into this world it came with a vengeance!! That is NOT a religion I would follow for ANY reason. I do NOT believe in forcing free will and THAT is what Christianity did. Pope Gregory (590-604CE) was the first to decide the "New Religion" of Christianity would be the ONLY religion and started rededicating temples to it. And eventually it all lead to the Inquisition. I could go into grave detail but I won't here. I have a history book on world religion in the beginning full of the actual dates and things that happened.
Illiterate men writing down words from a man they never met. Yep, sounds about right!
I did (reject the gospel of Christ) and will not (stand in the way of Christians believers).
I'm perfectly happy with Christians being good Christians. The problem is that relatively few Christians are good Christians. In fact, those that scream the most loudly about being proud, bold Christians are usually terrible Christians, ignoring most of what Jesus commanded his followers to do.
The question I have to you, Virgil, is this: is it more difficult to challenge fellow Christians to be good Christians, than it is to challenge non-believers?
You know, it is hard to have a discussion with fellow believers here because of so much crap that is posted by non believers, mostly atheists I believe.
Whilst I have long ago lost my faith, and feel it necessary to disagree with the religious beliefs of others, if they try to convince me of the truth of their beliefs, I nevertheless recognise that no one has the right to try and stand in the way of anyone else's religious beliefs. Yes, some of the beliefs of Christians and those who belong to other religions now seem absurd to me, however I understand where people are coming from, because I too once shared their beliefs. And I understand that people believe because they are looking for hope in what for many can be a very difficult life.
Following our Lord Jesus is a very simple task. Simply understand that he was sent by the father as the last Adam, since the first Adam fell into sin; " Which was also pre-destined by the creator". There isn't any human being that has ever lived that will be able to explain God or Christ, if that were the case we would be Gods also. We are not Gods, but it is our nature to have the desire to be so due to the curse that we all have as humans that came from Adam when he ate from the tree of good and evil.
Many many people spend there whole life frustated because they constantly try to figure out God the creator, but God was never supposed to be figured out. That is why he didn't explain, or try to prove his exsitance during the first book of the Bible. He has no definition, nor is he limited by time as we are, or any other form of life on the earth. If we give God a definition, we put him on our level and that my brothers is impossible. When a person opens there spirit and surrenders their pride and all the things of the flesh, only then will God start to do a work in you through the holy spirit, and then our eyes are opened to understand that God is God and we are not, and that our only purpose in this life is to Glorify him in everything that we do; and when we have the gift of the holt spirit that God gives we do not frustrate ourselves trying to do things from our own strength, but the opposite. We rely on God to use us, live in us, and do his work through us to complete his perfect plan. Praise be to the Lord God Forever and ever.
If you need this crutch to get you through each day, more power to you. I personally don't need to identify the forces that rule the universe as a "god" (or goddess) while living by non-denominational "rules"..i.e 'do unto others as you would have them do to you'...'judge not lest you be judged'...and be tolerant of the beliefs of others.
Too many so-called "Christians" simply use their faith as an excuse to indulge in debating contests with those whose beliefs differ from theirs, ignoring that Basic Marketing 101 applies to religion:
If your product is better than a competitor's, people will buy it. Otherwise, no amount of advertising can force them to buy a product they don't want or don't need.
No debate here, no sells pitch either. and yes I do need the crutch, for his strength is made perfect in my weakness. I enjoy my walk with Christ, and I am happy to say that he took my pride and anger away, and I no longer want win a debate or a forum battle, I simply thought I would post something that the Lord laid on my heart. But it does please me that the post stirred something in you, a conviction that we all need. God led you to this forum, and is doing a work in you whether you agree or not.
No, hrsidekick1h, your god didn't lead me to this forum. Another hubber named earnestshub did, and by now you should've figured out your god didn't bring him here either.
ANYONE who professes to be a christian yet still is plagued by guilt, obviously doesn't understand the story line. Once saved, you can't doubt, for in doubt, you reject the sacrifice. Those who say they were once christians but are no longer are usually called "backsliders". You are actually only considering what YOU desire, and the greater good can be hanged! Good day!
That is the truth Druid Dude, is has nothing to do with the person who is saved through the grace of our Lord Jesus, everything God created he created for his on glory. If it were any other way, we would be saved by our own " works" and not of God's work he did out of his own goodness and grace when Jesus was hanging on the cross; right at the center of that cross where horizontal and vertical meet, facing in all direction was the heart of the son of God, and when the spear pierced his side and blood and water ran out of his side is when the new birth took place. May the son be glorified and worshiped forever. Amen.
Never let it be said of me that I would come between God's appointed king and his his followers ,That is not my purpose when I speak. My purpose is to speak word of truth encourage more bible reading and support of Gods word! many will not care ,some will ,some just want to argue because they are athiest! either they will get something out of hub or they will not ,this is still a personal matter between them and God in the end. what I get out of it
is faith building ,and true picture .of what people think, rather they believe in God or not ! and personaly I should know that God knows better then me whats out there in peoples heart ! no wonder Armageddon is around the corner ! so many opinions disgusting! to hear. this is the true world!
And your opinion tops all others, right?
Despite my obvious Christian bent - I'd hang out with Randy and Ernest anytime I got the chance!
Thanks mate! I would break out the ole D28 and we could rattle a few strings.
Sounds good, Earnest! I have enough guitars for everyone, in case Wesman doesn't! Not to mention fiddles, banjos, and mandolins!
I don't really even know any Gospel tunes - just old fiddle tunes, and some Celtic stuff.
I wish I could sing.
Oh sounds like a good ole jam session ,count me in.
Oh goody! A female lead singer would be nice, or another instrument perhaps?
I'd love to just be the guy that plays backup for some lovely female singer - If I could play a bit better, I'd happily travel the globe and sleep in cheap motels for such a avocation. :-D
You could do a heap of songs I know.
Remember some of the best songs only have 3 or 4 chords.
We could start of with "Sarah" Or something by Neil Young.
Eagles music is easy too, but you must have two lead guitars for Hotel California.
and some good harmony.
I just remembered "Sugar Mountain" and broke out the old axe.
I still got it!
Oh well, practice practice. I haven't played much lately, gotta get back to playing daily.
Ha! I've neglected my music too much since I started this stupid writing thing, but I'm making up for it now. I pulled out a 40 year old acoustic I love and restrung it with the most expensive strings I could find. The sound from this old guitar is indescribable. I'd forgotten just how wonderful it is to wring music from mere wood and steel. I won't do so again.
I love that stuff!
I really prefer the acoustic bases songs though - I used to knock out a good Seven Bridges Road - but anyone else singing it would surely sound better than me!
I prefer acoustic now too, Wesman. I've spent too much time standing in front of loud amps and monitors to ever miss them much. I still have several electric guitars but favor using one of my acoustics most of the time.
I doubt I could get along with many folks who DIDN'T like Neil Young!
Music is great like that - it can unite people despite other sorts of differences.
There is no Gosple of Jesus or Gospel of Christ; he never believed in any Christianity.
Paul was the first Christian having founded Christianity; Jesus was not a Christian; Paul, Church and the Christians never followed Jesus; they were never inspired by the Holy Ghost. Only to add a little credence to Bible, the Church publicised that it was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
by paarsurrey6 weeks ago
Was Jesus a Christian?If yes, kindly quote from his writings. PleaseRegards
by paarsurrey5 years ago
Hi friendsThe Gospel writers could not be inspired; they deserted Jesus at the hour of need. Did they desert Jesus from an inspiration from the “Holy Ghost”? Does the “Holy Ghost” inspire people against Jesus?...
by boyatdelhi4 years ago
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
by Captain Redbeard22 months ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Julie Grimes8 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
by rdhowell5 years ago
Some prominant theologians have asserted that St. Paul's theology appears to be universalistic in its overall thrust. One isolated passage can be used to illustrate the idea:Romans 5:18 â��Therefore just as one...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.