Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

Jump to Last Post 51-100 of 118 discussions (1116 posts)

60
SpanStarposted 13 years ago
I will give it a try as to your title request

First I don't having the mind of God I don't have enough information to understand why he chose death as a form for the cleansing of sin but death is what he chose.

Sin stinks in the nostrils of God. Whatever the value of sin is I do not know I do know that God did require that sin can only be cleansed through the taking of a life. The death of animals were the substitute for man's sins. That was the rule, if you sin death is required.

After Adam and Eve basically sinned mankind was now lost to God which is to say all of mankind was on our way to hell. There was no hope for saving man until God presented an offer and that offer would be to find someone worthy enough to endure the suffering and death. The Bible says God looked everywhere, meaning in the heavens and on earth but only one person was qualified to undergo this task. As I understand it God did not commandment Jesus to undergo this task but rather Jesus volunteered and by doing so he provided the only escape from the punishment awaiting mankind.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you. But if god chose to things the way he did he is responsible for his actions. I am glad you are honest in saying you don't why.
  
  Still, to me, it seems strange. But it shouldn't, because most of the early laws mankind made were punishable by death.
  
  However they were not adverse to substitution. After the exodus from Egypt god told them he wanted all their first born, but then said they could substitute their kids for animals every year..
  
  To me it sounds more like man kind refusing to sacrifice their first born to their god. Their god could be cruel but they didn't think it was that cruel.
  
  This substitution then was common and that is why the Jesus story ends in him being the ultimate scapegoat.
  
  But no matter what god's reasons, the action speaks louder than words. Is that not how we are supposed to know the pretenders. by their actions?
  
  We know that substituting one the death of an innocent for the death of the guilty is not moral behavior.
  
  Again, I don't believe the bible stories reflect reality as in accurate history. I think man believed in a god and attributed everything to it.. People imagined hearing it's voice because frankly, the way humans think is often complex and when we get what we perceive as really good insights it often feels like they are coming from outside us.
  
  Moses was told by god supposedly that he would the words in his mouth and that he was doing that all the time anyway. So clearly Moses didn't think he could have great ideas on his own. Therefore they must be coming from outside himself. But that probably was never the case.
  reply report
60
Dingpoposted 13 years ago
What if God did not say that, for I’ve never seen it written by the hand of God
But possibly some scribe misinterpreted what was written, or some wagg of an ancient Hubber writing it just to start a debate at the time
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right. Well that's just about what happened. lol...
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

Surely the Creator God never murdered His son; He never had a wife or a son or a daughter; it is a misconception of the Christians.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ah, but the moon god Sin, which the Muslims worship, had children. The reason I know that is because before Mohammed the Arabs worshiped this Babylonian god, and they kept his symbol, a crescent moon. they turned a god from a pantheon into the only god.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Yet another thread that is beginning to wear on me...

"Resignation."
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Yet another problem/pesky thread. Tired of it.

<A FEE IS CHARGED TO ACCESS THIS LEVEL>

If you wish to proceed, go to <reserved>.
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Please stop. Another title tired off...
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you are so tired of it, piss off. lol... Who is forcing you to read it or respond?
  reply report
53
Wareboy316posted 13 years ago
Funny you athiest spend more time believing in nothing rather yhan giving him a try, I honestly believe most of you are to selfish to have faith in anything but yourself. Wow yeah we just started as particles and evolved, magically self producing legs,arms, and only the most amazing thing in the world a brain, come on but the bible is far fetch.
reply report
1. 69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Most non believers were at one time just as screwed over by religion as the rest of you are, we just got educated is all.
  
  Read something other than the tomes of psychotic threats and you can be a non believer too!
  reply report
  53
  Wareboy316posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No most of you are easily mislead the devil prey on the weak. I am well educated and also open minded to others opinion, at the end of
  the day and life my faith does not hurts me
  or anyone in any negative way so lets say the heaven you think is fake is real, what will I have sacrificed
  reply report
  53
  Wareboy316posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh and im sorry God didint murder nor sacrifice his son only the body he was occupying
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So what are you guys making such a big deal about then? It was all theatrics. If Jesus was god there was no sacrifice. It's a hoax.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Open minded and the devil dunnit? Sure!
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you are well educated but you believe in the devil? Well no one said you had to be uneducated to believe in nonsense. Your faith does not hurt anyone. Who said you had to stop having it? I'm just saying why don't you take a rational look at the lies they have been feeding you? It's not your fault. You didn't invent the religion. You were just conditioned to believe it.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Slarty, you are reconciling spirituality of the Christian faith with the natural world. Won't work. Never will work. Never intended to work. FAITH. Spiritual is in our deep inner mind.
  
  Please don't attempt to fathom the dept; as a nonbelieve you would lose your mind.
  
  God has never said Oops! God does not roll dice (Albert Einstein).
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No. I am not reconciling spirituality with the natural world. I have no problem fathoming the depths of your faith and it does blow my mind but only because I've seen what a crock it is.
  
  You have no idea of the experiences I have had. I wrote a book about them. Three books, actually, recounting my journey and spiritual experience. I have my mind well in hand, so don't worry about your god driving me mad. lol...
  
  Again you negate all your previous arguments about god not being responsible for anything with a quote from Albert. Well done.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You are doing it again! Reconciling in a negative sense as if you checked out god!
  
  I don't care how many books you have written, you don't know doolie squat about the human spirit and certainly not about God's Holy Spirit. I have experimented with mind alterring drugs, and they all put a cap on the heavens.
  
  Yes, you can sell books analyzing your experiences on such magnitude because your market is very large (true believer as small in number), but I know that your content is incomplete.
  
  Have you really read my previous statements? I made it very simple by summing it all to "Jesus did; God accepted." How much more simple do I have to express myself.
  
  Do you really not understand my Einstein quote? Or, is it that you have accepted the fact that Einstein was an atheist so much until you can't accept that Einstein, one the most intelligent minds of the 20th century, believed in God.
  
  Please show me where I stated that God is not responsible for anything? I did state that God demands perfection. God created the universe and all that is contained. God predetermined all in His design. God allows bad things to happen when separated from Him due to free will. Now, are you going to question God's plan to create eternal beings. If so, show me your god credentials.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is amazing how you say that I have never tried god without knowing anything about me. It's the typical Christian thing though, You can have the same experience and come to a different conclusion about it and the Christian will always say either I don't want god in my life or I didn't try hard enough or I didn't have enough faith.
  
  Sorry but I am not falling for it. Never have. I looked, I searched, I begged I got different answers than you did. But please don't pretend to know that I never tried or only half tried.
  
  I understand Einstein very well and in fact he is quoted as saying he was not an atheist. So no I don't believe he was. As I said he believed in nature as god, an impersonal god. The mystery of the totality. Not the Christian god, the Jewish god, or anything like it..
  
  Which post didn't you say that god was responsible for his acts? You blame man kind and give god a get out of jail free card with infallibility so that even if does evil it is not evil it is loving and good. And now you want to say you never said it?
  
  Before I show you my credentials show me your god. Prove he is infallible and that he gave you free will. I've asked for passages in the bible that tell you when he gave you this gift of free will and you haven't answered.
  
  The things you say are to me imagination because there is no way that even were there a god-being you can't know a thing about it. You read a book written by primitives over two thousand years ago and think it is the word of god, when it obviously is not.
  
  So tell me why I should believe a word of it?
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I beg your pardon, Einstein believed in God, The Creator. He spent his life seeking the after thoughts of God which was reflected in the nature in which God created. I am glad that you stated that Einstein was not an atheist.
  
  Slarty, all I can say and stand on it, is that the Holy Spirit is very real. Witnesses who experienced number in the billions over time. They all say just about the same thing in their witnessing. But, what should I expect, with all of the thousands of videos floating around showing UFO'S, there are still people who thing others are crazy for believing in their existence. What can I say?
  
  Slarty, all I can say is that God is the boss, The Big Boss. How can we question Him? One can blatantly oppose God, but in the end Jesus is the Man and God is God.
  
  "Be still and know that I am God."
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is simply untrue.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You won't know.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why is that I wonder?
  
  Studied much of Albert's work have you? Up on his work?
  
  Care to discuss what you know and compare?
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You rascal, I don't plan to help you write a book.
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Einstein said specifically that he didn't believe in the "god" of religion. He did believe in a higher power. So, get your facts straight.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  NAW fellow, check back and review good, Einstein believed in a Creator who is God. He did not believe in a personal God as we do in Christianity; he felt that the almight Creator was not approachable by any man and could only seek God's after thoughts. I might add that at a press conference in Chicago in 1934 Einstein was quoted as saying regardless of One's finesse and intellectual prowess no one can dismiss Jesus because He is too big.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Meaning how can you dismiss the influence or impact of the story. Doesn't mean the story reflects reality.
  
  As long as you admit that he was not a Christian I'm ok with it. lol...
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Always gotta love when the religious bring Einstein to the table. Willful ignorance always brings stupidity to the table.
  
  Einstein lived in a time where speaking out against a god was devastating. So please, whenever he spoke about a god, it was only to please those who were asking.
  
  Otherwise, the only thing he believed in is what he could prove. As far as he was concerned, there was enough evidence to believe in a higher power, and that power at times he did call "god".
  
  He always made the statement that he didn't believe in the god of religion(any of the world religions- get the point). And, even if he did say something with regards to Jesus it would only be because of the number of people who already believed.
  
  But, nice try.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And you know what Albert Einstein thought? You know how he felt? How?
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's called study. Something you might want to try sometime.
  report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You studied Einstein? Tell me more.
  report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not just Einstein. Try studying the time in which he lived. It might actually give you more information than just studying the man and his work. You want to understand him, then you need everything in context, kind of like you do with your religious book.
  
  Just a thought.
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If Einstein feared nonconformity so much, than why did he not cut his hair? As you know, this was a carnal sin during those days. Employers would send an employee home or fire him on the spot if employee's hair was to long.
  report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Now there is an indisputable argument about Albert!
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I can't believe it!! Finally, after a year you put a stone in my corner. Well, thanks earnestshub.
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right. I think witmiers77 doesn't understand the time frame or some of Albert's quotes from the perspective of the era.
  
  For example the idea that he wanted to know the after thoughts of god seems to mean he simply wanted to understand how the totality worked. Since most people believed in a god he put it into words they were most likely to understand. Atheism was just coming out of the closet so it is little wonder he didn't know enough about what it meant to consider himself one.
  
  But atheism was in it's infancy and even now to a lot of atheists there is nothing extra ordinary about the world. But these are disinterested people.
  I am an atheist and like Albert, I am passionate about the mysteries of the universe. That passion is a form of religion or religious feeling.
  
  Again, to me, scientific discovery is often a religious revelation and felt just as profoundly in me than any such feelings about an outside god.
  I don't even need faith to have them. Just understanding.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I wonder why it's so important that Christians need to spread lies about Einstein all the time? Why would they care?
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think they are lies. I think they are misinterpretations bias toward their own beliefs. But it is always a feather in their caps when they can tell us that some of the greatest scientists in history like Newton and Einstein were religious men.
  
  Of course they don't always realize that it is irrelevant whether they were or were not. They were interested in pure science. There is no difference between thinking you are discovering how god did it, or how nature does it, in practical terms. Saying god dun it tells us nothing at all about how it was done, and that is what science is all about. Not who or what, but how.
  
  The church didn't like finding out earth was not the center of the universe but they got used the idea after a while.. It wasn't until Darwin told us that we evolved and are a species of ape that the religious right formed. Up till then god and creation were safe and got along pretty well with science on the whole, even though there were moments they crossed swords.
  
  But even though the Church won the first round every time, they had to eventually admit defeat in the end regarding every discovery. That's why the Catholics accept evolution. Many Protestants around the world do too.
  
  The place where evolution is attacked most is the USA by the heretical right wing fundamentalist young earthers. Who would have all been rounded up and burned at the stake in the old day's I might add. lol...
  The 1200s to the late 1600s... Ah, those were the days.... I love the smell of burning heretic in the morning... It smells like... righteousness! lol...
  
  And with fundamentalism and Darwinism came Materialism and the resounding battle cray: "God is dead!"
  
  To which Frank Zappa later replied: God isn't dead, it just smells funny. Let's poke it with a stick.
  
  So ever since it's been game on between militant atheism and fundamentalists and fanatics.
  
  If it were up to me, I'd ring the Pope and have him bring back the inquisition. The Catholics are easier to convince of facts. Who cares who they think dun it?
  
  But that's why they think it's a big deal these days to tell us one of the great minds of science was actually religious. They aren't lying. They don't know we couldn't care less.
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Aliens are more likely in fact than your god. It isn't that I don't believe they are possible. I am not convinced one way or the other that they have visited here.
  
  I think life on other planets is likely, in fact. But who knows for sure yet? I am surprised you believe in life out there. I thought christians had a problem with god creating life elsewhere. I wonder if they would have similar religious beliefs or any at all.
  
  From science I know we are all connected in an intimate way. All things are. We are talking about a totality. Of course if you begin to feel that connection it is magnificent. That is what I think your faith does for you though you don't understand it that way. You interpret that connection to all as a connection to an outside god. Believe me the feeling is the same.
  At least from my experience.
  
  I can not believe an omnipotent god would want to be worshiped or get angry, or need devices to get things done. or want to be the boss. Such a god would have to be above all that petty nonsense.
  
  Your god sounds too human and always has for my liking with all the human faults but with a get of jail free card. I don't think Christians have any idea what omnipotent means.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I'll just let thousands of videos of UFO's speak for them selves. I don't care to argue an existence. Although, I'll pass this tit-bit of info. In my senior years of college my physics prof at the end of the course called a side bar for use graduating seniors for briefing us on UFO's. The pervailing belief was that the propulsion system was caused by a molecular modification allowing them to establish a state of antigravity. Twenty years later, I was informed that the system had a nuclear powered gravity wave generator which caused a local distortion of space with the effect of continually falling down hill even if the movement was vertical to the earth. This made sense to me because it would explain the crashes. The Earth surface gravity field varies, and is not the gravitational force constant everywhere. UFO's hits this discontinuity in the gravitional field and lose directional control. Enough.
  
  God's handy works is on display constantly; whereas, aliens has only been reported by a few eyewitnesses. It is easier for me to believe God, our Creator.
  
  Human are developing tech knowledge and evolving from the effects of the environment. God works with humans on their level at that time; emotions and beliefs. Our ancient civilizations were very brutal. So, their relationship with God was brutal. You probably have read some of the Old Testament; its brutal! Man was brutal. Jesus' Blood Covenant for redemption is based on love. One act to pick up the tab for all of our sins.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said,life on other planets is likely. Like you say, natures work is on display constantly. I agree that humans were brutal and their vision of a god was brutal. That's why they invented a brutal god. Nature itself can be brutal, but not with intent, which is the difference.
  
  But you still believe what they believed even though you know they were primitives. I think eventually your intellect is going to win out and you are going to see the light.
  
  As for gravity, it is slightly different in different places, but I doubt that it alone would bring down a space ship. We can make antimatter . But in very small quantities. .
  
  There are also theoretical ways to bend space so that distances actually become smaller.
  
  We have just discovered that the speed of light may be slightly miscalculated or. It seems that Neutrinos actually travel about 6 feet per second faster than light. Not a big deal when the speed of light is close to 700 billion miles per hour. I like converting it to miles per hour. It's a number the average person can relate to a bit better.
  
  Science is always finding new information about how nature works. It's great.
  
  But again, doesn't the fact that there are probably aliens put a wrench in your religion, which up till a few hundred years ago thought we were alone and the center of the universe?
  
  Are you revising the creation story to include separate creations for ever inhabited world? After all, the original one said the stars were put there as signs and doesn't mention other planets.
  
  Had god told ancient man that there were others out there it would now be a good bit of evidence that your god exists. But he seems to have missed opportunity after opportunity. Not a great indicator that a gods exists, but typical of the idea that the people who wrote your creation story were not actually in contact with a god. After all, god must have known about aliens and that the earth is not the center of the universe, is not flat, etc,etc, etc.
  
  I would expect a lot more stuff in it that would be written down and only start becoming understood now. But nop. Even incubation estimates for disease were off. There were no cures for leprosy given to us. Nothing to indicate that a god actually spoke to anyone. Just indicative of what a primitive mind would make of things.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The risk increases rapidly as the craft attempt to land.
  
  The collective nature of human knowledge has foundations from the ancient humans. There is a continuity of concepts on top of concepts beginning with our ancesters.
  
  I will have to check with my physics community about the neutrino, but as the big bang theory goes matter did exceed the speed of light within the first few seconds due to young (LOL!) gravitational and electro-magnetic fields.
  
  Yes, discovering secrets of nature is enjoyable; that's why I became a physicist.
  
  The Pope has modified his papacy to include the possibility of aliens. Remember, religion changes also. Due to the fact that religions are conservative the negatives are scrutinized more fuller. I would expect aliens to have a different religion but same God just as on Earth. I believe in the school of thought that optimum metaphysics becomes theology; although, this is not a religion, but is considered by all religions. Yes, religious people listens to the scientist.
  
  Once again, God knows all things perfectly. God knows the beginning and the end in one instant of time. The three omni's can not be realized fully by man.
  
  God's intent is always that man love him always unconditionally. Man's intent opposes God 99.99% of the time. The world demands the use of force in order to succeed. God wants these forces to counter in order to bring in His Kingdom; peace,love, and charity. Peace is the operative word. "Be still and know that I am God."
  
  Slarty, Christianity is more of a personal relationship with God thru Jesus Christ than a religions. First and thusly, it's a personal relationship; therefore, getting ourselves atoned to the Lord Jesus is priority, and than the collective which is quiet controversial and very not perfect. The collective can be only as good as the summation of it's members.
  
  No, I am thinking one creation for all, any aliens and us, at the same time of the big bang. Yes, I believe in the big bang theory.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's amazing the things believers will make up. LOL!
  report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They have a ten minute online course that makes you a physicist?
  Why wasn't I told?
  If I had only recognised that Wilmier was a qualified physicist I would have believed everything she/he wrote!
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sigma Pi Sigma Tel: 301.209.3007
  One Physics Ellipse Fax: 301.209.0839
  College Park, MD 20740 E-mail: sps@aip.org
  
  Inductee: W. G. Myers, 1992
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "The risk increases rapidly as the craft attempt to land.
  
  Due to what? Their propulsion system? I suppose we can say the same for any plane that is landing. I am currently waiting to see what will happen when Europe declassifies all the information they have on UFOs.
  
  Like I said, I don't know how many or which of the sightings were from other planets. They were unidentified so they fit the category of UFO. But how many were a hoax? How many were tectonic stress causing a form of ball lightening that behaves a lot like descriptions of UFO behavior?
  
  How many were tests done by various governments? Saying UFO is easy. You don't know what it was, so it was an apparently flying object that was unidentified. It is not so easy to say they were from another planet without real evidence.
  
  So till then I not actively believe nor disbelieve that aliens have visited the planet. I am waiting for evidence one way or the other If there is evidence to suggest they have, I will be only too happy to accept it. If not I will accept that too.
  
  You seem to advocate making a leap of faith one way or the other. I don't work with faith.
  
  "The collective nature of human knowledge has foundations from the ancient humans. There is a continuity of concepts on top of concepts beginning with our ancesters. "
  
  Well done. You have seen the pattern. The problem is never in studying the pattern, The problem is with interpretation.
  
  "I will have to check with my physics community about the neutrino, but as the big bang theory goes matter did exceed the speed of light within the first few seconds due to young (LOL!) gravitational and electro-magnetic fields."
  
  The study is just out in publication. There has to be a lot more verification done. But that's the news. As for BB, that theory has come under a lot of scrutiny lately and will need major revision. There have been some serious problems found with the current model. There are some other explanations in the works. One of them Penrose's proposal. Have you looked at it?
  
  That's what I love about science. Not only does it not require faith; faith is a detriment to it. The one thing I tell people is not take any model as the last word or literal truth. A working model is exactly that, a model to work from. When the model no longer reflects reality it's time to modify it or toss it.
  
  It's what our collective experience and knowledge throughout the eons has come to as the best way to discover truth. Don't assume, don't have faith, don't believe, because you never seem to have all the facts.
  
  But we do have some of the basic facts. And we are gathering more. But the picture is far from being revealed.
  
  Imagine having faith in the BB and staking your tenure on it and then finding out the model is so flawed it has to be scrapped? Probably hit the person as much as coming to the realization one day that the Christian god doesn't exist. Your faith can kill you.
  
  Which pope recognized the possibility of intelligent life on other planets? Has he ruled on whether they have a soul or not yet?
  
  I think of it as bit the other way around. Religion was a way to answer questions that had no answers. We evolved and found logic and the scientific method to find answers. Thus we are evolving away from religion which couldn't give us tangible answers. Science is what religion wanted to be but couldn't be.
  
  So now we wait and see, and that mans throwing faith and even belief out the door. You can't wait and see if you think you already know. Faith gives you the feeling of just knowing even though you can't explain what you know in words. I've achieved that state as millions of Hindus and Buddhists have through meditation. If you train he mind you can experience all manner of blissful states. You can reach a state where you are one with the all, with god, if you will.
  
  The reason I am telling you this is because the words you mention often at the end of your posts: "Be still and know that I am God."
  
  One of the ways to achieve all those states is by being perfectly still. That is to say, removing the consciousness and living in the now in the subconscious. You can even leave your body if you channel will without brining it to consciousness.
  
  It is called achieving the: "Quiet mind" I've also experienced it and written extensively about it and how to achieve it. And yes it does bring you peace and unity and love.
  
  You have the human condition confused with religion. You don't need the religion to get the religious experience. with or without a god.
  
  It's mind.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Heeey....I am a physicist, I have been aware of theories for quiet some time now. They are what they are called, theories.I did say "as the BB goes..."
  
  As far as the UFO's, I stated enough. Maybe you don't have the info that I have.
  
  "...human condition, not religion..." I quoted one scripture, you have over 6 thousands to go. They all mesh unto Jesus, the Son of God. I still think that you are speaking only of your brain. The brain stores data for recurring daily activity and facts of interest or necessity. The brain is part of the mind and short circuits farther fathoming into the mind because facts are already known and have been used over and over. Why should the mind re-analyze? Reflects!
  
  Ha! Ha!...physicist use faith most of the time during their research and development. Many experiments depend on two untested elements of the experiment. Must have faith in theory to spend million of dollars on one experiment with two unknowns or parts never tested before. Slarty, my man, you use faith whenever you are offered a seat in a strange and old creekie-dee chair. Hee! Hee!
  
  Slarty, there is an infinite void from conscienceous of the mind and into the endless id of the mind. This void can be filled, but not by facts and discovery of new facts in nature. We are more than computers.
  
  God is love. Love can not be put in a box. The proposed definition can not be only rational nor reasonable. When falling in love things become crazy and irrational behavior is expected even by a genius with a wealth of knowledge. As a matter of fact, geniuses has been known when they fall in love to act crazier and more irrational than the rest of us.
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, forgot to reply to the multiuniverse statement. I tend to lean toward the existence of multiuniverse, all created by God. I all so tend to lean toward multidimension universe. You mentioned anti-matter. This is a hint that another universe can exist in a different dimension in our space. Maybe there is a conservation of matter-energy mechanism between the two universes? Omniscience God could certainly create another designed existence with different physics.
  
  In this new existence, maybe God is not concerned with a person who has to shed his blood for the redemption of the Existentees. LOL!
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You don't think like a physicist and you don't write like a physicist. There isn't anything in your posts that would show a degree of education above that of high school, maybe.
  
  Why do you say those things? It only removes what little credibility you might have had.
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How do you think that a physicist think?
  
  Actually, you are complimenting me because the goal in any discipline is to simplify the data and relate them as much as possible to the fundamental precepts. If an elementary student read and told me that he understood my higher concepts I would jump for joy. Theoretical physics take on enormous problems and the one who succeeds is the one who finds the most simpliest solution, like in harmony with the fundamentals.
  
  If you need more proof of me being a physicist only ask me for the telephone # to the Physics Honor Society National Hq; ask if I am on the role for life as an inductee. I am a "national bird."
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh fellow! I should say that I am a Christian first and uttermost, Trouble Man.
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Trouble Man, since you have called out twice concerning my credentials:
  
  Sigma Pi Sigma Tel: 301.209.3007
  One Physics Ellipse Fax: 301.209.0839
  College Park, MD 20740 E-mail: sps@aip.org
  
  Inductee: W.G. Myers, 1992
  
  Fundamentally, I don't meet the challenge the first time. Same goes if someone come to my home and call me out for a gun fight. First call, I mostlikely would say I don't won't to fight, just go back home. Second time, brother, it's ON!!!
  
  Fundamental harmony. Now you can say that I don't write as a Christian, but don't do it twice. LOLOL!!!
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So now you are saying you have inside information on UFOs? lol.. Ok. I suppose if you told me you would have to kill me? lol...
  
  I am in agreement with A Troubled Man. I'm dubious about you being a working physicist. But I give the benefit of the doubt..
  
  No. Faith is not required and that is not why people get money. They get money for sure things or to falsify a model or to research for military or medical applications. They may want what they are researching to come to something but no amount of faith will help. Only good \science gets the job done.
  
  Like I said, as to your ideas of a god, they are your imagination. A metaphor for what is really going on which is infinitely more interesting than a tyrant egomaniac in the sky who threatens people with hell if they don't kiss it's ass willingly.
  
  Come into the twenty first century and the age of logic. Or waste your life on fantasy. It's up to you.
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What degrees do you have and where did you get them? I know a lot of people who have studied physics but that does not make them physicists.
  What is your field of research?
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you are referring to wilmiers, than it's theoretical physics with a specialty of nuclear physics, research and development. Also, metaphysics, integrating and reconciling the biblical scriptures harmonizing them with fundamental physical laws beginning with Newton.
  report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Forgot to mention the where abouts source of diploma: Cal State U. 1992. I sure hate to give out that info. Now, It shall be hard for me lure anyone into the big pond of physics where I am one of the barracuda predators.
  
  Please warn Trouble Man not to dive in the pond. He will meet only more troubles.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How far are you going to carry that charade?
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have a degree in physics. But sorry. Anyone who is specifically trying to reconcile biblical scripture with physics is not a physicist. You may have a degree but that doesn't make you a physicist.. You are a theist with a physics degree.
  
  Physicists are by nature skeptical and leave religion out of their research. Fundamentalists taking physics courses so they can reconcile science with the bible can not be considered to be scientists, they are theists trying to prove their god exists and discredit science.
  
  Unfortunately what you don't understand is that even if you proved tomorrow that evolution is not the way the world works, you would still not have proven your god dun it.
  
  To me, Christians that don't leave their religion at home when doing science are not doing science.
  report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  As long as you remain benign you can believe in all the gods and devils you like. To each their own.
  reply report
2. 86
  sparksterposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  bahahahahahahaha that's funny!
  reply report
3. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes the bible is far fetched. Even if you are right and science were far fetched and even if you proved it wrong today, it wouldn't prove your fantasy bible correct. or prove a god exists. Funny Christians forget that.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Don't make me get my hat.
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Fricken tired of this thread title being shoved in my face every day?
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
What to do....
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
What to do...
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
or not do...
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
or not, not do...
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Although 406 is a shot at 500..
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Let us do that.
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
I shall start.
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
407
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
409?
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
JESUS H CHRIST! I am sick of this title being shoved in my face everyday. Oh, well. What does one do?
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
I suppose one could do many things....
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Where does one start?
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Slarty? You there?
reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
@slarty

I somewhat agree with you, but go away anyway.

I mean really. Hammer them. Help them. But let them bury themselves in their own titles. Actually, maybe not. Just please come up with something more subtle, but more interesting.
reply report
86
sparksterposted 13 years ago
2 words (actually names) - Rockefeller & Rothschild
reply report
58
A.S.K.Preacherposted 13 years ago
God made a covenant (contract or testament) with His people. In Hebrews 9:12-17 is the reason the blood sacrifice was required. In short, a person makes a last will and testament in order that his wishes will be kept after his death. So in order for the people of God to be saved Jesus had to come to earth, be tempted as we are, shed His blood in order for the testament of God to be put in force.
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Pure conjecture and patently idiotic!
  reply report
2. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right. That's the story often told. But it does not actually tell me why an omnipotent god needs to do it all that way. Why does he need someone to die?
  
  When you say he made a contract with the Hebrew people, how many were present when the contract was forged? How much forging went on in the Hebrew camp? What did they bring to the table?
  
  It seems to me it is not so much a contract or agreement as a decree.
  reply report
  58
  A.S.K.Preacherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Think of it as you will it is in force because the creator paid the price for it. As far as where the people were; Abraham was the one the contract was made through for all his offspring forever. Jesus was the one the contract was made by for all people.
  You asked the question; I gave the answer; why the acrimony?
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What acrimony? I'm just saying I hope there aren't still people out there making contracts with god on my behalf which I will have to pay for for eternity. What gave Abraham the right to make such a contract on behalf of all his off spring?
  reply report
  58
  A.S.K.Preacherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Abraham did not make the contract - God did to show His unfathomable goodness. That is, through Abraham God made a way back to Him. It was the deceiving of Adam and Eve by Satan that began this process.
  It was the contract with Abraham that gave us all a way back despite our sinful nature.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So it is not a contract it is a demand. Abraham and his people had no choice.
  
  I still say your god can do what it likes, so why all the games? It didn't have to make a way back. He could have made it so. Simple. He is omnipotent is he is not?
  
  None of it makes a lot of sense to me.
  reply report
  58
  A.S.K.Preacherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Our God gave us free will. It is your free will to choose to accept Him or not. If you choose you can experience His goodness and nothing will be held against you.
  Intelligent creator wants intelligent willing response. When you choose a friend it isn't based on what you want them to do, I hope. It is based on a mutual understanding. Friendships all work through those types of problems. God wants you to come to Him willingly. His way is right and good. He knows more than we do because He is the creator.
  It is the same when you are watching after a child. You might tell this child not to run out into the street. But there are children who would defy you no matter what you said. Depending upon their response - depends upon whether they are hurt or not.
  reply report
59
Marcy-Liptonposted 13 years ago
hearing these 'christians' speak I truly wonder what separates them from harry potter fans?

Why would you put your faith in some magical creature that never has to look up anyways?
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Fear that it might exist I suppose.
  reply report
69
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
No you're wrong.

goddunnit.

He made himself, became his own son, then knocked himself off. It's all there in the good book.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If you have already done three impossible things this morning, why not make it four and go to Millyways, the restaurant at the end of the universe?
  reply report
2. 60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well, after he made himself it all begin to look good.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah. Something making itself from nothing is really possible. lol...
  
  What was it that made itself? And how did it do that when it was nothing before it made itself?
  
  What an illogical crock. At least go for something more plausible like it always was and always will be? Did it make the world it lives in too? What was there before that?
  
  For anything to exist now something must have always existed or there would be nothing. Neither you me or a god can make something from absolutely nothing,
  
  So if there was always something that something was the material all was made from.
  
  In point of fact that is the case. Energy/mass is all there is and what all things are made from. So no god is required and it is illogical that we came to be from a god that made itself from nothing.
  
  Now if energy/mass is what god made himself from then he didn't make himself, he was produced by the nature of energy/mass.
  
  So that's probably the real god no matter how you turn it. lol...
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My comment was a remote joke. I was feeling sarcastic. My honest belief is that God always existed. God is omnipotent and omniscience, and created all things including all life forms.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wouldn't make any sense at all the other way would it?
  reply report
69
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
Many people have laid down their lives for a friend. History is riddled with them.

What is not common is for anyone to wipe out the human race because they "sinned"
reply report
1. 60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God does need our a*sses...going to oppose Him always; cut their life line, and forget them. Make some better people. LOLOLOL!!!!
  
  Earnestshub and all others didn't work out.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I worked it out just fine.
  
  According to your religion a psychopathic fit of temper from a neurotic invisible entity took out it's own creations because he screwed up when he made them.
  That is not the actions of any god apart from the one's in Greek myths.
  reply report
  60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not necessary my religion, but rather wilmiers making an a*sshole shot.
  
  FORGIVE ME GOD! I did it and might do it again. Thanks for earnestshub holding me back. LOLOL!!
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I think the americans gave it a good shot at hiroshima and nagasaki.. the hutus in africa... catholics and the inquistion, pilgrims and the indians, spanish and the aztecs.
  
  The difference is sin. One good sin can ruin yer whole day
  The closest example above is the americans and that whole abomb thing.. japan did kinda sin against them. But man is limited. If there were such things as actual magic we might only see one race upon this earth. And then again, God has allowed for many races to be on the earth, yet He has the power to wipe out all.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  This is a primary reason why people should never listen to anything you put forth or spout. End of story.
  reply report
0
lavender3957posted 13 years ago
I always wondered that myself. Thou shall not kill, and did they not kill the son of God? Did God order this, or was this part of his plan to confuse us some more. I found alot of good answers, opinions and suggestions from alot of you and I am sure that it depends upon how believe in the way things happened in your own religion.
reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 13 years ago
Sounds good for reality TV ,but c'mon big people.

God didnt murder anyone
reply report
1. 69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  C'mon Kiwi, big people don't need a god.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dunno 100%
  
  Chances are ,we do
  reply report
  78
  kirstenblogposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they do, the way a local business needs protection from the Mafia
  God made us a Devil to need to be protected from
  Seems like mafia tactics to me!
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Big people don't need a god for this life, however they may have many little gods they rely on to get through this life: money, stability, toys to play with, whatever is held in high esteem and they rely on to assist them break the mundane and make life tolerable, can be construed as a god or a psuedo-god.
  On the other hand, to get through the NEXT life... God is very much needed, in fact, essential.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Which god? Your god?
  
  What second life?
  
  All scriptural nonsense.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
  scriptural
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And the most devious god of them all -self
  reply report
72
stanwshuraposted 13 years ago
That's part of what drove me away as well. A small part - given that I expect it has allegorical and/or "proverbial" meaning or significance as opposed to actual (and yes, in the academic eyes with which I am intended my next words) historical fact provable, or indeed published authentically from a researcher, survivor, witness, or legacy of Jesus' life.

I don't believe in the yin/yang thing - that, in the MORAL or "is life fair" question, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

In physics - damn straight and absolutely I agree. And I do believe (at least in terms of my moral/belief system) that you get (or SHOULD DAMNED WELL GET!!!!) what you give.

But having a sacrifice "made for me" nearly 2 millenia before I was conceived (whether in the back seat of a beat-up Chevy, or under silk sheets in the most luxurious honeymoon suite), makes NO sense to me.

Just as we can't "do a favor" for somebody just to hold it over their heads, neither can any just God.

I'm sure I gave you the answer you were pining for - but I don't want you to even begin to think that I take sides in, or give you permission to reference me, in your back-and-forth with others on here.
reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

The Creator God does not need any human sacrifice to forgive; it is a Christian misunderstanding.
reply report
1. 58
  A.S.K.Preacherposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A testament is not of force unless the testator dies. In other words if you make out a last will and testament - it is not effective until your death. This is how it is explained in the book of Hebrews.
  reply report
73
David 470posted 13 years ago
Whoa, these religious forums have a lot of replies! I take the neutral approach - I am an agnostic theist.

I would not use the word murder to describe that god killed his son. The bible confuses me, and sometimes I think there are contradictions...

What I want know is:

Are all sins created equal? I don't consider them equal, but does the Bible?

Surely stealing a pencil is not as bad as stealing jewelery..
reply report
1. 76
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Why not? Neither items belongs to you. And the value placed on them is of man's doing. I could have all the jewlery in the world and want to write something, so I would value the pencil more than the jewelry, simply because I want one and don't have one.
  reply report
2. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Stealing describes the act.
  
  The question could be how much value do we put on human life?
  reply report
3. 60
  wilmiers77posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There is no neutral grounds.
  reply report
72
rasta1posted 13 years ago
CHRIST cannot die. This was to prove that CHRIST cannot die. If we have CHRIST spirit inside of us, we will be resurrected also.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So the story goes. But if he did not die then there was no sacrifice.
  reply report
60
SpanStarposted 13 years ago
Corruption on Earth

Genesis 6:12

King James Version (KJV)

12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Genesis 7

18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
-------------------
7.Genesis 18:20
And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;

Genesis 18:19-21 (in Context) Genesis 18 (Whole Chapter)
8.Genesis 19:24

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Genesis 19:23-25 (in Context) Genesis 19 (Whole Chapter)

9.Genesis 19:28
And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.

Pharaoh of Egypt challenged God through Moses.

All these events demonstrated man's rejection of God so rejection of God today is nothing new.

Not that it's going to matter to the non-believer, however consider this. Should you come to find out the Christians were correct On Judgement Day God can say to you, you were made aware of me and you rejected me so you can stand in that other line over there.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  God can say I was made aware but he can't say he gave me a choice or a reason to believe because he never showed up. Forgive me, but you honestly don't think I should take your word for it do you? God shouldn't be that dumb either.
  
  Any nut job can tell me the sky is falling. If it falls then he was right. But so far all the nut jobs have been wrong.
  
  You believe in the words of a 2000 year old book written by primitives but you don't take all the other books written by primitives seriously. There are hundreds of god to choose from. I only believe in one less than you do. What makes you think this group of primitives had half a brain when the others didn't?
  
  Face it, Man kind made up the gods so we would have something to ask for help and get ever lasting life from. They don't exist except in our imagination.
  
  Besides, if there is a god he is probably laughing at you. When I die he and I are going to have a party, and he's going to give me all the answers I want. lol... Hey, it's no more absurd than what you are suggesting. .
  
  So what if it like you say? I'll go hell willingly rather than follow a tyrant egomaniac that requires blood sacrifice just to be able to forgive and wants everyone to worship and adore him. Sounds like the man has a real problem with self esteem.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But what if your'e wrong...
  
  See,If Im wrong.Ive still had a good life , and if I was right to beleive and accept what Jesus did for me then ,it will be a win /win situation
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well that's true. But if you are right we have a god I can't worship to save my life. So i will go to hell.
  
  Believe me it would come as a shock to me that a god would really tell me I had to believe it existed before I died or I will go to hell. I would think that if a god cared at all it would care about how I lived my life.
  
  I have no problem being judged, but if I am going to be sent to hell instead of allowed simply to die and stay dead, I would hope it is for a real crime, not just because I didn't believe the god in question exists. That's a really lame reason to condemn anyone, in my opinion, and not just because I would be guilty of it. It would be like someone charging me with assaulting a cookie if decided to throw it in garbage instead of eat it.
  
  There is a certain standard of fair play one expects from a god, and that just doesn't measure up.
  
  So if you are right I guess I'll tell god to go to hell and then take my eternal beating. I couldn't worship a god like yours. People who want to be worshipped and praised make me sick. I can't imagine a god being that much of a moron. But who knows?
  
  And no, I am not going to be a hypocrite and say I believe just in case to save my ass. I would think a god would see through that, don't you?
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well its called having faith for a reason.
  
  Hope in things 'unseen' not unknown, but unseen.
  
  We board a plane and we have 'faith' in the pilot being and doing what he should,now 'believe' hes trained, and we trust the airline has his papers etc.
  We trust someone else for our life,even though nothing is 100% fail proof.
  
  Hope in things unseen. There are of course many other examples of things unseen.
  
  I can not speak for other Christians (stories and circumstances are so different) but I know for me ,I read, watched other Christians,prayed ,visited several different churchs etc for months before I made the decision to accept that Jesus died for me and when sincerely moved toward Him, he moved toward me,and revealed more of his truths.
  
  His love and truths are not hidden from a sincere heart but God is not a man,and we are not God. I say this because we often look at God through human reasoning, we intellectulise,we analyse,we percieve with our human minds.
  
  It is a gift that God offers and part of that gift is the Holy Spirit, who intercedes on our behalf, reveals truth.
  Eyes that see, ears that hear and so much more
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well see, you are kind of making my point for me in part of what you say. You think we have faith in our pilot because there is no way to be 100 percent sure we will ever get where we are going.
  
  I have no faith for the same reason. Life is one gamble after the other. You pay your money you take your chances. Why would put faith in a pilot?
  I hope he hasn't been drinking but maybe he has. I hope she is certified to fly the plane. The odds are he or she is not drunk and they are certified.
  
  So I live/act by probability, not faith,
  
  Now, you have this great spirit of god in you. That's fine. But can you ask it if the bible is really a true representation of itself? No. So your god could be there, but your religion could be completely wrong about your god. After all, like you said, it's not human.
  
  Hindus have that spirit of god in them. Buddhists have it. I dare say I have it. Christians do not have a monopoly on it.
  
  Yet it seems impossible for Christians to accept that we have the same experiences they have, without a Jesus.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I was making the point that most people can put their faith in people and/or circumstances,without really questioning the outcome.
  
  I do it myself ,but its always amazed me why we do that -guess its the 'well he/she says its right' it must be.
  Then again I dont as well-
  Inconsistant lot are we not?
  
  The Bible to me is a book of instructions,NOT so much do this or else,but cause and effect,or guidance and why 'theories' and when I read the various stories of the people all through the testaments,although I can not always relate to their environment or culture ,I can relate to how they percieve, the emotions involved and the processes they use to find answers (or not).
  
  I have said many times how I feel about my faith and what God means to me.
  Others call him by a different ,others worship him differently,others have rituals that I do no follow.
  
  No I do not think because I accept Jesus ,that my neigbour for example does not have an equal spiritual/non-spiritual experience.
  
  Who am I to say who or what lives in a persons soul?
  
  Its not a test (IMO) of who is 'has it' and 'who hasn't'
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I see what you mean. Yes, I do that too. At least I don;t always question consciously. I also go with the flow a lot. If it happens it happens but I'm getting on the plane and going to Cuba for a vacation.
  
  Other things are left to the subconscious and feeling. They have their place. For example I was up in a mountain once and we stopped at the top to spend the night. The other person and I were not comfortable and a strange feeling about the place.
  
  I can't say anything bad happened because we left. We listened to our feelings. Now feelings can come from a lot of places. There could have been a high electro magnetic field. They can make you feel strange.
  Doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. I feel something is not right I leave.
  Rational? I think so. Instinct is still a good thing to have. The better it is educated the better it works for you when you need it.
  
  "Who am I to say who or what lives in a persons soul? Its not a test (IMO) of who is 'has it' and 'who hasn't' "
  
  From all the flack you get around here from atheists like me I didn't expect that response. I am pleasantly surprised that you are not as fundamentalist as many paint you to be.
  
  You are down right pleasant to chat with, actually.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks (I think)
  
  I like people, trust me,Ive chatted to some weird and wonderful people. No doubt they thought the same about me ,lol.
  
  You know what else I think, despite what or who we say we are , we ALL bleed the same colour blood, and in the morning we all have to put on our pants the same way-one leg at a time.
  
  The only thing that could possibly stand us apart is how we treat one another, in the end.
  
  Oh yes instinct you called it, I knew that as 'Wairua'(spirit) when I was growing up, then later Holy Spirit.
  
  Just jargon ,the main thing is you were aware and listened.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly so on all counts.
  
  Really good to finally get to know you a bit better, Kiwi.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ditto
  
  Thanks for the respect. Im not into labels too much ,but I am sure people just have to file me under something..
  
  So long as Jesus knows me (by my actions) not by what I say, then my worlds ok.
  
  On a side note ,I think its quite sad and immature to dislike people because they perceive knowledge /emotions/life experiences in a different way.
  
  I mean ,its ok to disagree. Even families dont agree on some big issues,but at the end of the day they still love each other.
  
  Good reason to not judge I think, of course we all do it,but that's why we have a conscience/spirit to keep us in check-guess its our choice if we listen to that still ,inner voice.
  
  Have a neat day Slarty O
  reply report
2. 69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Not that it's going to matter to the non-believer, however consider this. Should you come to find out the Christians were correct On Judgement Day God can say to you, you were made aware of me and you rejected me so you can stand in that other line over there."
  
  Yes a god with the conscious awareness of a 5 year old human who was poorly parented may make me stand in the other line.
  Think about what you write.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately i highly disbelieve there will be any lineup, especially for the unsaved. Maybe for the saved, because the judgment of those will be more like a homecoming.
  If we look at the parable of lazarus and the rich man, we see lazarus, risen first, and then the rich man sliding on by toward the lake of fire.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah. that's one sick fantasy.
  reply report
60
SpanStarposted 13 years ago
We all have freedom of choice in America and in Christian faith.

But believing in mankind is a choice I don't share with you because we tend to forget just how many times mankind makes mistakes before they get it right. So those that believe so highly in mankind then I'll let them be the first to take the newly developed medical pill.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Who said anything about believing in mankind? They are the ones who wrote the bible. We make mistakes? You can say that again, We wrote the bible.
  
  Seriously though, i agree with you. I won't be the first to take that pill either. So I am not sure why Christians automatically think that if you don't believe in a god that you believe in man or yourself or in science or some thing.
  
  You don't have to believe in anything. The less you believe in the better. If you believe your wife will always be faithful and then she isn't you are broken by the discovery. If you never had that belief nor any other belief about it all, you can accept the facts a lot better if they turn out not so good for you. Your belief one way or the other is not going to alter whether your husband or wife will cheat. It's just extra baggage,
  
  I'm not saying believe they will cheat. That's belief and can lead to all kinds of problems too. I am saying go with the flow. Wait and see. Don't be in a hurry to know anything. Don't believe anything in the negative or the positive.
  
  It can be done, and it is liberating.
  reply report
  60
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You've made a number of good points here about how one might live or want to live like believing a spouse might cheat on you.
  
  Like I said we are free to choose. Just like you have your ideas own how liike should go it's only fair to allow others to have their ideas on life.
  
  I personal don't see how we can avoid not believing-(not just in God but in live). At the beginning of the work week we believe we will be paid at the end of that work week. If we suffer from the lost of a loved one we believe this pain we're feeling will one day go away.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well of course everyone can believe what they like. It goes without saying. We are just debating opinions, not making rules.
  
  Not believing anything at all is not hard. You live by probability instead of belief. I will probably get paid at the end of the week but it is not a sure thing. S**t happens. We know all things change, even pain is not for ever. No need to believe it, you know it.
  
  You know there are not always going to be good times and you know there will not always be bad times. It is not a matter of belief.
  
  Some one said I had to believe the sun would come up in the morning. But i don't. The odds are it will. It is a really good bet today, But it is not a sure thing, and someday it probably won't.
  
  You accept facts, and one fact is things keep changing.
  
  Not believing anything doesn't mean you have no opinion, it just means you know your opinion is based on evidence and probability, not certainty.
  It doesn't mean you don't have hope something will turn out the way you want it to. It just means you do not invest yourself in a certainty that isn't certain. Do you see what I mean?
  reply report
  60
  SpanStarposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes your focus seems to focus on what is evidences and you are correct in manys ways with this idea. However belief is who we are as you point out about hope. Take a child the day before Christmas they hope and believe they are going to get that favorite toy. How about someone that's gotten up the nerve to talk to that one they've admired for so long and now they hope they'll be liked and believe they can have a future together.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  People set themselves up to fail by investing belief in ideas that may or may not pan out. People have self esteem issues, they do not know what their limitations are nor that they can do almost anything they set their mind to.
  
  Those issues have to be sorted out. They can be sorted out better without faith or belief.
  
  This gets complex and takes a lot of time to explain. I wrote a series of hubs on this called The Road To Becoming a Warrior. If you are interested give them a read.
  
  But yes, learning to cope with life and coming to terms with yourself, gaining inner peace, are worthwhile pursuits.
  reply report
70
somethgblueposted 13 years ago
Everyone on this planet chose to come here, simple because we don't remember doing so doesn't mean it didn't happen, that was part of the bargain. To achieve further enlightenment we chose to become incarnated on this planet.

Jesus is no different, he chose to come here to further his and our spiritual enlightenment.

Did God know the outcome ahead of time, certainly, but your claim that it was about forgiveness is a human concept or interpretation and a quite narrow one at that.

Jesus is still here just in a different dimension that we haven't gotten to yet. You don't really believe the son of the Creator of Everything actually died on the cross do you?

That would be another silly human assumption and almost laughable if it weren't so sad as I suspect you wouldn't be the only one and that 90% of the human population shares your narrow vision.

The Son of God dying that is good, what other absurd notions do you have?
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  One absurd notion i do not have is that we chose to be here.
  There's no part to having a bargain if none of the populace knows about the bargain.
  "you chose and went back but did not enlighten yourself, now go again"
  (2nd time round) You chose and went back but did not get enlightened now go again
  (3rd time)
  how useless is this?
  And one would have to take into account that the place from where we made our choice, was not a place worth staying in, in the first place.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Strangely there are those like Mormons who think we chose to be born. I have always thought it was a rather strange idea.
  
  But most people that believe in reincarnation do not believe we chose to be born again and again, it just happens because we are not ready to join god or the universal consciousness, which yo can only join when you become perfect like it is.
  
  Of course I don't believe any of that either. Just saying there are a lot of strange ideas out there..
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  There are indeed a lot of strange ideas.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brother, I appreciate your passion.
  
  Is it really absurd? Do you need to judge it as such when there is so much that each one of us does not know?
  
  Were we each not in the Garden of Heaven and decided to turn from God and spirituality, and look instead through physical continuity? Could it be that the sin was our choice? I'm not talking about the physical body, Brother, but the true self, immortal child of God, within. The physical body is recent and temporary. Your true self (soul) is immortal.
  
  I'm not so sure I agree with SomethgBlue's assessment that we came here with the explicit purpose of gaining further enlightenment. It seems to me that coming here was a decision of selfishness (ego), and now we're digging our way out of oblivion with Christ's help.
  
  Brother, your 1st, 2nd, 3rd times around, and your question "how useless is this?" And you said, "There's no part to having a bargain if none of the populace knows about the bargain." Oh, but they do know. And they are ignoring it. Ego is that sense of entitlement and "I'm right." "My way or the highway." But how can we find truth if we obstinately sit in the road hugging our preconceived notions?
  
  Each incarnation is another opportunity to open our hearts and listen to the quiet, still voice within. The hardened heart of criminality in one life may be softened by the karma received in the next. "Why God, oh why is this 'undeserved' misfortune happening to me?" If the individual is grateful for the karma instead of resentful, then the sacrifice is made and the debt paid.
  
  Undeserved? Read Numbers 14:18. And read Malachi 1:2-3. The sins of the fathers are visited upon themselves when they might open their eyes in the third and fourth generations after their initial crimes.
  
  If you think with the physical brain, you will not understand our spiritual nature. If you think, instead, with the spiritual heart, you will understand the bargain.
  
  May God bless us all in Christ's name.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "Were we each not in the Garden of Heaven and decided to turn from God and spirituality, and look instead through physical continuity?"
  
  No. I don't think so. I honestly think that's all superstitious speculation. I've experienced the spiritual in depth. I can tell you, it's all mind. Subconscious mostly.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Our minds are pretty amazing ,(some obviously more than others ),lol
  
  But dont ya just wonder a teeny weeny bit about that fact for a moment!
  
  The brain so intricately wired, accidently?
  
  I means its the 'motherboard' of motherboards-right?
  
  See, my brain tells me that it all came from more than 2 lonely cells who just happened to multiply and divided and section themselves off,creating circuits ,nerves and heaps of other amazing facts!
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well this isn't something I have come to lightly. There are no accidents. Cause and effect don't allow for them.
  
  I can see why you believe what you believe, The totality is complex. But again, to explain my reasons to you in full would take a book. That's why I wrote three of them on the subject.
  
  I'm not suggesting you read any of hem, I'm just saying it can't be properly answered in a short post.
  
  Yes, I think nature is fully capable of producing all this, the nature of energy/mass. I see no reason for a god. I have been looking for a reason for for 50 years. None of them pan out logically.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Good points, Slarty. But logic will not get you from here to there. And I'm no slouch on logic. But a certain amount of logic, combined with faith can help in understanding.
  
  Nature is beautifully capable of a great many things. Evolution is one of them. Life itself is another. So many of the weakly "faithful" may fall apart when science creates life in a test tube. Science seems to be getting closer to this. But was that really "faith" on their part? I think not.
  
  But if you see a painting and say "there is no reason for a painter," that would be illogical.
  
  If you see a physical universe and say "there is no reason for a creator," that would also be illogical.
  
  Hawking can say that gravity created everything, but his pronouncements do not make them so. Gravity is not an end-source cause. Gravity is an effect. God, on the other hand, is cause, not effect -- pure source, not even consisting of space, time, energy or matter, for these are all created effects.
  
  I agree, one post is too small to say it all. I'm writing a few books, myself. And I've been working on this subject for 58 years. I think I'm a little closer. Creation, the Bible and the relation of spirit to the physical all seem to be basically simple, like programming code, but the realm of spirit seems superior to the physical, just as the programmer and engineer are superior to the code and the hardware.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But did i say there was no need for a creator? No. I said no need for a god. In other words no need for a conscious being to have created it. Rather I am saying that which produced all this is the nature of the substance we are made of; energy/mass.
  
  You might say the painting is not made by nature, but we are that nature so it paints through us.
  
  Like Eaglekiwi said to in a post a few minutes ago, it's all jargon. You call it god I call it the nature of existence.
  
  The only difference is I don't see my version as being a conscious separate entity, you may.
  
  I don't agree with Hawking either. But not for the same reasons. If i were to take your words I could apply them to my version. The nature of existence is the source, and the cause, not an effect, being that there is nothing but energy/mass.
  
  Spirit to me is the same as saying subconscious instinctive.
  The consciousness is a tool to educate it.. It's all about the mind. But the mind is also all about imagination. That's a double edged sword.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bible doesn't teach that the soul is immortal.
  Adam and eve were removed from the garden that they would not eat of the tree of life and become immortal. Immortality is a gift of God so scripture plainly says.
  Ezekiel 18 is a prophesy about God changing the visitation of sin onto other generations, so, if the scriptures you asked me to read were an indication of reincarnation.. then ezekiel 18 says there is no reincarnation.
  There are other places in the bible where reincarnation is bluntly refuted.
  
  I firmly believe karma (governed by a blue and angry hindu elephant - and which of the three types of karma do you subscribe to?) is just a reworking of Gods, "reap what you sow".
  
  Thanks for the attention
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Brother, I think there is a great deal we both can learn, if you're up to it. I know I am.
  
  Is your interpretation of scripture equivalent to that of God? Mine isn't. There is so much more to learn and I hunger for it.
  
  You say, "Bible doesn't teach that the soul is immortal." This is an interesting interpretation. And I have to agree that the Bible does not literally say this anyplace. But immortality is mentioned.
  
  You say that karma is a reworking of God's "reap what you sow." I don't think karma is a reworking of anything. It is what it is. I don't know about the elephants. I have only a meager knowledge of Hinduism. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. The word "karma" is not in the Bible, but the meaning is there. As you say, "reap what you sow." Also what our Lord and Master said about living by the sword and dying by the sword. Karma. Newtonian action-reaction.
  
  Thanks for the passage in Ezekiel. Instead of refuting reincarnation, it only reinforces it.
  
  If you read Numbers 14:18 and Ezekiel 18:20 for their literal meaning, then both passages seem to contradict each other. However, if you read both with the understanding that truth lay in each, then new meaning emerges.
  
  "The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation" (Numbers 14:18).
  
  The first part tells me that the Lord is patient. He is full of great mercy, but the idea of making the children of the wicked pay for their father's mistakes seems quite unmerciful. What is this passage really trying to tell us?
  
  In fact, Ezekiel 18:20 reinforces this idea that the innocent children will not have to pay for the sins of their fathers.
  
  "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezekiel 18:20).
  
  And still, what does Numbers 14:18 mean?
  
  Looking at Matthew 26:52, "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword," we see that Jesus is talking about karma -- the spiritual equivalent of Newton's action-reaction. But how can this be true? There are so many criminals who die quite comfortably without suffering such reaping. Did what Jesus say apply only some of the time? Of course not! And yet, how can the mob boss receive his "sword" after he dies?
  
  (1o2 continued...)
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (1o2 continued...)
  immortality of the soul
  
  Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, LEST he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:
  Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin IS DEATH; but the GIFT of God IS eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
  Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men ONCE to die, but after this the judgment:
  (no reincarnation BUT one resurrection, there's more but again this is what the bible teaches in short form and i have no desire to go into it in long form)
  
  The concept of the human soul is a Platonian teaching. Socrates taught it to plato and the egyptians believed in it also, but the bible does not teach immortal soul. In fact, the soul is the body and mind of a human, the soul does not separate at death at all, but everybody "sleeps" until resurrection. This is what bible teaches and is not open for debate, sorry, its a lengthy teaching.
  
  As to your interpretation of - Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins, it shall DIE. - having something to do with reincarnation. NOPE.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  (2o2 Continued...)
  
  Looking again at Numbers, the sinful father, according to Ezekiel, will receive his "sword," and the innocent children will be spared. But Numbers talks of children suffering. Which children? The reincarnated children of the fathers who did evil! The only one who pays for their crimes is the one who committed them, but three and four generations after the original crimes. This gives the father enough time to live out his wicked life, die, be born again of the flesh and grow up to be old enough to appreciate the boomerang he himself had thrown in his prior life.
  
  When Malachi and Genesis talk of God hating Esau, even in his mother's womb, it was because Esau had done something -- wielded some "sword" in a prior life (perhaps stealing someone else's birthright).
  
  Immortal souls? Genesis 1:26 says that God created man in his own image. That makes us non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation -- baby gods. But we threw away our birthright in the Garden. God said we would die immediately and we did. We died spiritually. And if Ezekiel 18:32 applies to all of us, then it should also apply to Adam. If he could "turn" himself and regain life, then what was it he would regain? Would a new spirit suddenly be created? Or would his old "dead asleep" spirit (true self) merely awaken from the soporific of iniquity?
  
  "For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye" (Ezekiel 18:32).
  
  If one who sins can reclaim their soul and give it life, that soul, though it had died, had continued to exist for its reclaiming. That "continued existence" despite death is a form of timelessness or immortality. We each carry with us the stain of original sin, because it was our soul's sin, committed by our true self.
  
  Yes, immortality is a gift of God. Only through God will these "dead immortals" regain their life.
  
  Do you think God is really interested in these Homo sapiens bodies? I don't think so. He is only interested in his children -- flesh of His flesh (spiritual, that is). That is why He could destroy all life on Earth with Noah's Flood. Something had threatened the reawakening of His children and a bad crop of Homo sapiens bodies was not going to stand in His way of that rescue.
  
  And you mentioned the "Tree of Life" in the Garden. Yes, and the actual "Tree of Life" (the Kabbalah's template) is embedded in two chapters of Genesis. I found this only through great patience and humility -- something I still need far more of.
  
  You also mentioned that there are many places in the Bible that refute reincarnation. I would love to know them all.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You have an amazing imagination. I will give you that.
  reply report
  70
  somethgblueposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the narrow minded speaks out, that which we don't understand we justify. Contempt prior to investigation.
  
  You live in an enlightened world but can't understand the 3rd dimension, how people can kill, rape, murder, ect., the only way for you to achieve enlightenment is to actually incarnate into a 3rd dimensional being.
  
  A retarded dixlixic monkey could have figured that out on his own.
  
  try again . . .
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Narrow minded.. hmm... lets examine that shall we.
  One opens a book on geography to discover canada from Newfoundland to Vancouver city is 7,250 km. Someone says the distance is 8,000 km and of course the narrow minded person restates, 7,250 km.
  
  A person believes in the God of the bible and uses that as the book of reference; this does not make them narrow minded at all. There is much truth in that book even hard truths. But how shall we know of spiritual things except we be taught? The book is the guideline, so that when someone says, for instance, canada is 8,000 km, coast to coast, the one who knows the book and/or has researched that particular area can then say the distance is 7, 250km and others can agree.
  
  We do not need to be incarnated into a 3rd dimension, exercise our 3rd eye, concoct potions and chant spells, sit on a hilltop for 3 yrs, clear all our chakras, meditate, do yoga, experience the mind of Buddha, contemplate unsolvable paradoxes as tools for emptying the mind or even become a vegetarian to find God. He is so very near and able to hear our words and read our hearts.
  
  Romans 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaks on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
  
  Romans 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
  
  Romans 10:8 But what saith it? The word is near thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
  
  Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
  
  Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
  
  Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed.
  reply report
0
brotheryochananposted 13 years ago
ive recently had this thought concerning "why did Jesus die on the cross".

Because Jesus came to redeem humans. The OT way was to use animals but if a full redemption were to occur, one cannot use something of less value to redeem something of greater value.

An item costs 100 bucks but i only have 50. The shop owner will not allow the purchase until i have the full amount.

It is logical to assume then, that in order to redeem a human one must use a human.

hebrews 10:1-4
1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Why do you think a human life is worth more than the life of an animal? It is to you, but what I mean is do you think it is objectively so?
  
  I don't think so.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We need to look at this from a biblical perspective and NOT a humanistic viewpoint.
  Can animals be saved? Can they choose God? Can they appreciate, respect and worship Him? Can they then lead others to God? Did jesus spend anytime preaching to animals? Did Jesus come to preach salvation to the animals? Did God ever make any promises to animals?
  
  Hebrews 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He takes away the first, that he may establish the second (testament, covenant or dispensation).
  Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the BODY of Jesus Christ once and for all.
  
  Read verse 4 again, we are told that it is NOT possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
  
  Why i think they are not equal is because i know what the bible teaches about the differences between animal and human, concerning their souls, where each go after death. I know there is no resurrection for animals.
  The whole bible is people oriented.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. I understand that the bible is human-centric. And it would be wouldn't it? But while Jesus may not have talked to animals, Saint Francis seemed by all accounts to be able to get through to them.
  
  Oh well. I suppose it is best not to think that what you are about to eat had a soul. Could get tricky ethically. lol...
  
  But of course I don't think we have a soul either being we are a species of ape and therefor as much animal as any other.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, you may have to rethink what you said about the bible. It occurs to me that Psalms has a recurring theme telling us everything in creation: man beast and plant, I think, has the ability and duty to worship god.
  
  Again, Francis is said to have preached to birds and they stayed and listened.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, another catholic saint doing things that are unscriptural. Why am i not surprised. I put as much faith in this talking to animals ministry as i do, well, other things that i have no faith in.
  
  The part about all nature worshiping is a poetic literary style and also some other styles, although i cannot account for each style in the examples, i am quite confident in saying, animals do not meet the requirements for salvation and etc, as per my prior post. It is very accurate and exact, in fact, if any have doctrines about animal value or natures value, over humans, i strongly suggest they change their doctrine. The thing created cannot be greater than that which created it.
  reply report
  0
  Virgil Newsomeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I know nothing about Saint Francis but I do know a little about the Bible. The theme in Psalms you speak of is about praising God. There is a difference between praising God and Worshiping God. Anyone or anything can praise God. Even the birds praise God with their singing. To worship God one must be in the Spirit and in Truth.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's a bit of self serving hair splitting if I ever heard it. lol.. But thanks for the opinion anyway.
  reply report
  0
  Virgil Newsomeposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have to ask, how is it self serving?
  
  Now the difference between praise and worship. Anyone can praise God by thanking Him. No one can praise God unless they are in the spirit.
  
  Praise
  PRAISE, n. s as z. [L. pretium.]
  
  1. Commendation bestowed on a person for his personal virtues or worthy actions, on meritorious actions themselves, or on any thing valuable; approbation expressed in words or song.
  
  WORSHIP, v.t.
  
  1. To adore; to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If they praise him, they know he exists. So why could they not also adore or love him? People can not love and worship and adore god without being in spirit?
  
  Have you told that to the members of all the religions in the world that worship god? They probably don't know that.
  
  Anyway, when you praise you are in adoration to a certain degree anyway, otherwise you would not praise. The two seem to go hand in hand to me. I see little difference.
  
  The reason it is self serving is because you seem to want there to be a reason animals can not worship god. They can praise it with their song, but not worship with their praise? lol... Like I said, you are splitting hairs.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The soul is the body and all the parts that animate it. The Hebrews made no distinction between soul and body, it was/is one and the same, including the thoughts also and i applies to animals as they too, have bodies.
  Exodus 1:5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.
  So its not that tricky to eat a soul, lol.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well ok but who said anything about the thing created being greater than what created it? But I am not sure that's true. Do you not want your kids to be greater than you are? Anyway, no one was talking about animals being of a greater value, just the same value objectively. Obviously subjectively to a human, human life is worth more. But in reality it isn't.
  
  So you are saying animals do have souls. That's a new one coming from a Christian. Most tell me animals don't have souls. Oh well.
  
  And according to psalms they can and it is their duty to worship god. So why can't they qualify for heaven exactly?
  
  But you say psalms talking about nature is just a literary style. What else should we ignore in the bible?
  
  Being an X Catholic I should be insulted that you malign one of the greatest saints there ever was, you heretic. lol... You better watch they don't have another inquisition.
  reply report
60
SpanStarposted 13 years ago
somethgblue,

I'm guessing your comments are directed to me. Another adsurd notion is my views are different from yours yet I don't feel the need to try and belittle you because of it.

Why does what I believe bother you so badly when it's something you don't have to believe?
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well in a place like this it is just a matter of anything is on the table for discussion and everyone is free to tell everyone else what they think of their ideas.
  
  Some people come stronger than others. But don't take it personally. That sort of thing happens in religious debate forums.
  reply report
2. 70
  somethgblueposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, my comments weren't aimed at you and I hadn't even read them, sorry!
  
  You are free to believe anything you wish . . . must have a guilty conscious about something.
  
  My contention is that we all are guilty of looking at the whole Jesus thing from a narrow minded perspective.
  
  A God, by very definition cannot be killed, so assuming Jesus (the Son of God) died from crucifixion is absurd. I believe all developing species are given a Son for the purpose of enlightenment and often the results are the same.
  
  Remember hate is easy anyone can do it, but unconditional love and truth scares most third dimensional beings. When we are scared we deny or avoid, rarely do we embrace. 9/11 is a perfect example, most of the population doesn't believe the official version, but to investigate the truth would mean accepting that our govt. has lied to us . . . so we avoid, ignore and deny.
  reply report
74
lone77starposted 13 years ago
Slarty, again this is such a loaded question: "Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive?"

One could ask you why you murdered your first three wives! Non sequitur? Exactly!

Read Dickens' "Tale of Two Cities," and Sydney Carton's sacrifice for Darnay. What Sydney did was not murder or suicide. It was the act of a hero. And in that act, Sydney was cleansed of a host of sins from a wicked and selfish life.

Christ's sacrifice was similarly the act of a hero. His act was a bridge to help us ultimately forgive ourselves for the original sin we each committed in the Garden of Heaven so long ago.
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well I don't think it is the same thing. Dickens being a Christian wrote Christian themes. It is little wonder Sydney was cleansed of a host of sins from a wicked and selfish life. So that is a novel, not real life. Since I have not read the book I don't know what he sacrificed so I can't comment on that.
  
  I don't believe Jesus died for our sins. I think if he lived he died because of unfortunate circumstances of his time. He may have even believed he died for our sins and that would make him a hero.
  
  But working within the myth It's the god's part I am talking about. There was no need for such a god to have his son murdered. You can call it what you like, someone murdered him and according to the religion god planned it. I'm not sure what your problem is with that idea or why you think it is loaded.
  
  An omnipotent god could do what it liked in any way it likes. That it chooses blood sacrifices does not bod well for it's moral character.
  
  You would judge any character in a book who ordered a murder in payment for forgiveness harshly. But because this is about a god, you have a double standard. Black is suddenly white. It some what amazes me.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Slarty, sometimes you are wonderfully logical. I like that. But here you're missing on something big time. Calling it "God ordering the murder of His son." That's what's loaded.
  
  It wasn't a murder. God did not order the high priests and the Romans to take out His son. But that's what you're saying. God considers their actions evil; He didn't condone what they did, but He knew they would do it because of their inclination toward evil (ego/selfishness).
  
  Like I said 23 hours ago, "One could ask you why you murdered your first three wives!" That's a loaded question. Just because I asked it doesn't make it so. Did you really murder your first three wives? Of course not. Did God order the murder of His son? Duh! No! Another loaded question.
  
  I'm afraid your logic slipped a cog on this one. I tried to be gentle about saying that, but that didn't work.
  
  As for Sydney Carton's sacrifice, Darnay, a French nobleman, was slated for the guillotine. Darnay and Carton looked like twins, even though they weren't related. Darnay wanted to live and share his life with his love, and Sydney liked this idea enough to trade places with his look-alike.
  
  Just before the executioner performs his duty on Carton, Sydney Carton says, "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known!"
  
  If Dickens' story were based on fact, God didn't order the murder of Carton, either. The French mob was already bent on mayhem. The active ingredient was not "divine murder" but Carton's sacrifice.
  
  I'm sure your original idea seemed quite logical to you. But any idea can seem logical to someone, even though it may not include all the facts. That's where bias comes in.
  
  You seem to make a big deal out of working so hard to find a "logical" place for God in this universe, but that you couldn't find it.
  
  That reminds me of the story of the VCR customer who read the instructions but couldn't get the device to work. He throws the VCR in the trash and a neighbor snatches it up and makes it work even without the manual. The only difference was in the perception of the individuals. One felt it was too hard to make it work, so gave up. Finding truth about God is not easy. Too many give up before they find what they need.... and say that there is "no reason for God."
  
  This is some universe! And some Creator!
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See, I don't get it. You don't seem to be able to make up your minds as to whether god planned this event or not. It is the crux of Christianity and it so messed up. You claim he planned it, some say from before time. But then you say he used men who were inclined to do it. Well duh, you don't go to a priest to have a murder done.
  
  And then you say god thinks they are evil. Sure he does. Most hit men are and those who hire them know it. What was Jesus supposed to do?, nail himself to a tree? If god uses evil people to do his dirty work what does that say about him?
  
  You say he needs a blood sacrifice, some say because of the covenant etc, that's irrelevant. He needs a blood sacrifice so he can forgive us original sin.
  
  Then you say he didn't order the murder of his son? It was an accident? He didn't plan it?
  
  No my friend. You are the one who is dropping the ball on logic here. You can call it what you like, but an innocent man died and Christianity depends on the idea that their god planned it. The euphemism is sacrifice, the reality is it was a killing. Some one died in payment for forgiveness of others.
  
  Big difference between the story of a man who actually sacrifices himself for something he believes in on the spur of the moment and something planned before time. Come on now. You can see the analogy doesn't work. One involved a god and one did not.
  
  What is loaded is the spin Christianity puts on all this, and you have fallen for it. It has made you see black and say white.
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
"Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive"

640 posts and you guys still haven't figured this out yet?
reply report
1. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For God so loved the world -he didn't send a committee
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh but that's the problem. He did leave it to a committee to write and then to compile the bible. It would have been so much simpler had he written it himself. Shouldn't be hard for a real god to do? After all he created an entire universe. A little hand book that came with it would have been a cinch, lol...
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, when anything commands mankind to change,he is going to spit,scream,threaten,protest-I have rights!
  
  Finally just as Christs very existance is denied ,so too would any book.
  
  I mean they called Jesus a fraud to his face, its not surprising that many still do,without having seen him.
  reply report
  76
  DoubleScorpionposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Jesus was called a fraud by his friends and family as is noted in the Synoptic Gospels. Others accepted him. And of course the Jews of the time denied him as it would have put them out of a job and out of power.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes indeedy!! and when mankinds power and pride is threatened-look out
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So you think god could not write a book that all of us would instantly recognize as coming from him? Maybe it would automatically be readable by any one and yet not in any human language.
  
  I think an omnipotent god should be able to overcome any obstacle, don't you?
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  For sure ,but you see I dont have any problem accepting that writers spanned over many years (ie not knowing each other) were inspired by God.
  
  Often throughout history we have all witnessed all read of 'gifted' humans who wrote,sang,painted,sang etc.Most people are in awe of them ,relising that this is not common.
  
  Yet we will not or can not accept that
  
  You see ,the words have to match how one not only feels ,but also whats the wisdon in this parable or spiritually does this word, situation witness to me?
  
  The Bible is God’s letter to humanity collected into 66 books written by 40 divinely inspired writers. These writers come from all walks of life (i.e., kings to fishermen) and spans over a period of 1,500 years or more.
  
  http://www.allabouttruth.org/who-wrote-the-bible.htm
  
  P.S An ominpotent God works in His time,not our time
  
  With such diversity and completeness ,why is so hard to not accept these messages are from the Spiirt of God.
  
  This is how God decided to write His book.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Because that would be dishonest. You don't know that and are only saying that because you want to believe it, but no one can show that the Bible wasn't written by men who were just believers like yourself who really, really, really wanted to believe the voices in their heads was God talking to them.
  
  Institutions are filled with such people.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well it may have been written by 40 or more people over 1500 years, But those writers were interpreting stories told in different parts of the region by different tribes.
  
  They were inspired by the idea of a god, no doubt. But so were the writers of other ancient myths. So many of those stories were left out so they could get some sort of continuity out of the mess in the end.
  
  If that was the best a real god could do it's failed miserably. if it's intent was to actually get it's word out.
  
  See, that is the problem. There is nothing to point to and say this could only have been said or done if some being with a higher power was involved.
  
  If there were real cures the people of that time could not have known about or something that can only be understood plainly now. Some kind of seem in the fabric that could only mean it was created by an intelligent being.
  
  But there isn't. The bible is full of mistakes about the way the world actually works that a god could not have made, but that are indicative of mankind .
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  2,000 years later ,and Hes still being talked about,Bible or no Bible?
  
  There has been no man in history who has evoked such passion,or emotion.
  
  And I do think where there is smoke -there has been ,will be ,or is FIRE
  
  (Cause and effect)
  
  Sure we can dissect books of the Bible ,debate who said what ,if they even said it all-but, we can not deny the essence (since that is what has mankind stirred up)..
  
  I tend to think if something/story/theory is so faulty,contrived or a sham, it would not still be around.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well had this story not had the help of the Roman Empire to spread over all the known world and had it not been forced on the Europeans and in parts of asia it would be a dead story by now.
  
  You have to understand that even after Rome fell the Roman church held power in it's place for most of the rest of that two thousand years. It was illegal not believe in Jesus and god on penalty of death and torture.
  
  It was rammed down everyone's throat and everyone born was baptized and brainwashed.
  
  The reformers were no better, holding heir own inquisitions.
  
  It is perhaps one of the first religions that was treated this way on such a large scale. And it all started with the idea of one Roman Emperor, and embodied in his motto: One Emperor, one god.
  
  Constantine adopted that motto and that is part of the reason he chose Christianity.
  
  Yes, the story is compelling. It touches the heart strings, as they say. But it is contrived just like any myth is. You can find myths from all over the world with regional heros just as compelling as Jesus. But you don't hear about them.
  
  Countless gods in mythology rise from the dead after sacrificing themselves for man kind. The mystery religions all had that theme including Mithraism. Even the Greek and Roman pantheon has similar stories of sacrifice, death, and resurrection by a hero god or half god.
  
  It is also worth note that Jesus was never considered god by the church until the Roman takeover. Another noteworthy item is that in Rome and in the mystery religions it was common for god to be grouped together in trinities. Three gods in one.
  
  Even the Egyptians combined two or more gods in to one. Even if some talk was had about a trinity before Rome took over the religion, they were under Roman rule and Roman influence for centuries.
  
  No, Kiwi. Once you know the history and politics that went in to both books of the bible it is impossible to think it was anything but man made.
  
  In Jesus time there were other cults and religions pooping up and being imported from Rome and the colonies. The Cynics and the Stoics had similar ideas to Jesus. Love strangers was a new directive of that time, but it did not originate with Jesus.
  
  There are so many new social ideas that were already there. Jesus seems to just been a focal point for many of them, and he seemed to capitalize on them. That or his writers did. Doesn't rally matter which. People wanted a kinder and more just society and he embodied that idea along with the religious aspect.
  
  Nothing he said was all that original and he seems to have borrowed ideas from the mysteries in such phrases and symbolism as "This is my body and this is my blood." There is some evidence it is actually from the Roman version of Mithraism where the body was bull meat and the blood was bulls blood,instead of wine and bread.
  
  I'll tell you, if you really do your research you will find it harder and harder to take this religion as the truth. If you want to remain a believer, best not look at it too critically.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is also worth note that Jesus was never considered god by the church until the Roman takeover.
  
  What church are you talking about? The early church considered jesus' deity very strongly. The gospels and pauls letters strongly imply deity. Jesus spoke of his deity. The Roman church was so busy trying to appease everyone of every belief that it used every book and every compromise to gather everyone into the universal church, but the Early church was not part of this at all.
  
  And it all started with the idea of one Roman Emperor, and embodied in his motto: One Emperor, one god
  
  This motto was talking about the emperor being god. There was no difference to rome, their emperor was an incarnate god.
  
  But it is contrived just like any myth is. You can find myths from all over the world with regional heros just as compelling as Jesus. But you don't hear about them.
  
  This myth as you put it is a continuation of the OT. Its not something that just sprang up outta nowhere. Other myths from all over the world, which are human imagination are not as compelling as jesus. Jesus points the way to God and says things that no other religion says, Jesus ministry is unique in so many ways and is so much better than the other regional heroes, plus we cannot forget that regional heroes all over the world are not the Hebrew/Jewish people whom God chose from thousands of years ago. This limits the playing field to only israel and only the now called Jewish nation, so forget all the rest.
  
  Countless gods in mythology rise from the dead after sacrificing themselves for man kind
  
  Not the same as christianities jesus and not resurrections:
  Osiris is killed by his brother Set. Isis BRIEFLY brought Osiris back to life by use of a SPELL that she learned from her father and then Osiris died again, permanently and became god of the underworld and stayed there in non physical form.
  Mithras is depicted as being born from a rock. He is shown as emerging from a rock
  There are many 'said to be like' resurrections and virgin births but none of them are as the christian resurrection or VB, none attone for the sins of mankind.
  
  The Cynics and the Stoics had similar ideas to Jesus
  
  Greek thinking (platoistic) and Hellenistic philosophy had similar ideas but not the same beliefs. Cynics = socratic beliefs = Nature offers the clearest indication of how to live the good life, which is characterized by reason, self-sufficiency, and freedom - no god needed.
  Stoics = divided into three parts: logic, physics, and ethics. Stoicism is essentially a system of ethics which, however, is guided by a logic as theory of method, and rests upon physics as foundation, again, no god needed.
  These are not similar ideas to Jesus, Jesus was god centered, god based and God dependent. There is sin and a redemption, again, God centered.
  
  People wanted a kinder and more just society and he embodied that idea along with the religious aspect
  
  The 'religious aspect' was all the Jesus was about. He knew they were looking for a messiah that would free them from roman rule - through violence, but did not get that. Rome was fine fighting to keep its perimeters and control the peoples it already governed, through military force. So which people are you referring to?
  
  Nothing he said was all that original
  
  Nothing anybody says is all that original lol. Every belief every known has some basic rendition of something else. I do believe, however that a lot of what Jesus said, was original... love your enemies, loose your life, what the father does, i do are just a few examples.
  
  If you want to remain a believer, best not look at it too critically
  
  If just reading books were the way to remain a believer then this would be a lame religion for sure, BUT, it is ones experience with God and personal relationship that seems to be forgotten here. Remaining a believer is to be focused on Him.
  
  thanks
  reply report
61
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
"Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive"

Who says? And says who? And who cares?
reply report
1. 74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Artists like to be dramatic
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just like morons love to be stupid.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You speaking from first hand experience
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I would know, only because I can point them out when I see them. Not because I am one.
  
  Edit: You're a little slow on edit your posts. Hmmm....I wonder why? Then again, I don't need to wonder why, when I already know.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hahahaha..youre such a funny wee man and good for a laugh
  
  (Better watch that talking and answering ones self Cags-ya know what they say bouts that )
  
  Slow to edit? theres no time frame..lol
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It's a misconception about talking to oneself. If you don't talk to yourself, then how would you ever get any real answers? It's already been proven most people tell white lies(not me, but most), just so that they can make other people feel better about themselves? Yet, fail to realize that a lie is a lie and does damage to both people, regardless of how that individual feels at the time you tell them that white lie.
  
  When you search for answers about yourself, do you ask other people or do you search introspectively? If you ask other people, then you are only fooling yourself. If you actually introspectively search for answer, then you will find them(providing you're honest with yourself to begin with).
  
  You've not learned enough.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  Cracking up,next you'll be sending me a bill
  
  It is true one knows a great deal about ones self ,however if we are truly objective ,we often will openly, and inwardly analyse opinions or comments from other sources, accepting or rejecting.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sending you a bill for what? You make no sense.
  Wrong. You assume too much, just like you assume the god of religion is real.
  
  A lot of people know a lot about themselves. Why? Because they want to learn about their own capabilities, limitations and improve upon themselves.
  
  Again, you still have a lot to learn. You may be intelligent, but you lack an awful lot in the department of wisdom.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh Cags , your post before was so serious and long winded ,and I almost thought you were analysing me ,then diagnosing me-hence my comment about sending me a bill.
  
  I was being lighthearted, share your opinion by all means, but dont speak it like its fact
  
  Yes, I do have a lot to learn,I hope I never stop.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Irrationality always gets defeated by rationality. Just in case you didn't know, facts? are objective, but since you can only see and understand through your subjective perception, I don't expect you to recognize anything as a fact.
  
  So, even if I shared one with you, you're not likely to see the truth. It does however lead to other things, but since you're attempting to be lighthearted, I guess I'll leave that alone, because then you'll claim I'm analyzing you. It's a shame you don't analyze yourself. You'd be so much of a better person than you are now.
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The problem (as I see it) is that you think you are right-about me,yet you tell me one doesnt need anyone to tell them who or what they are.
  
  So from any angle ,your defination of me would never be correct
  
  You just behave like one big huge contrary,gobbly gook ostrich
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Introspection is the key EK. But, not everyone knows about it. Why do you think that Jesus told people that others did not know what they say or do? Because, they're not in the know of themselves, much less know of the god of religion.
  
  I'm not trying to tell who or what you are? I'm attempting to relay to you an understanding about human beings, so you can learn more about yourself, like I did about myself.
  
  Who you are? and What you are? is determined by your perception of yourself. If you don't know something, then you need to learn what's wrong. It boils down to perception. Perception is either subjective or objective. Subjective is based on self(ego). Objective is based on learning and seeing things and discerning wisdom(without ego). This is why I've asked you before if you understood yourself? And, you continually tell me that no one knows a lot about themselves and as I said before, that's false. Did you think I was lying to you?
  
  I don't care you want to believe in a higher power, but under no circumstance are you to equate that higher power with a higher authority or the god of religion. I've said this before, strip out Jesus' teachings from religion and leave the mystic BS to religion, and you will find truth.
  report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Eaglekiwi wrote:
  
  It is true one knows a great deal about ones self ,however if we are truly objective ,we often will openly, and inwardly analyse opinions or comments from other sources, accepting or rejecting.
  
  Cags
  
  This is why I've asked you before if you understood yourself? And, you continually tell me that no one knows a lot about themselves and as I said before, that's false. Did you think I was lying to you?
  
  Contrary-see what I mean. I conclude YOU misunderstood my earlier post.
  
  The rest of your post ,I will sleep on
  report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo, Eaglekiwi.
  
  I was thinking that Cags could send out bills based on all the laughter he's eliciting. Even stand-up comics need to earn a living.
  reply report
  74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, Cags.
  
  And if you really had the proper mirror, would you see a moron? I wonder.
  
  We each have blindness, especially those who say that they can see everything clearly.
  
  Some scientists do this and find themselves in bias (preconceived notions) -- the very thing their skepticism was supposed to protect them from. But even skepticism has a built-in bias. Incredible that scientists haven't wised up to this blunder. And then they get really kinky when the descend into the darkest form of skepticism -- self-indulgent ridicule of something they supposedly "know" not to be true. And a great many scientists have learned the taste of crow.
  
  Your certainty that God doesn't exist is entirely funny and simultaneously sad.
  
  Perhaps you too are missing in the wisdom category, because you're letting your own apparent intelligence blind you. That's called bias. And it's tripped up many a good scientist as well as many others. I suppose I could say "you're in good company," but ego (selfishness) is never good.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm pretty sure you're still having issues seeing beyond yourself.
  Sounds like you've been reading distortion again and yet again believing it.
  Skepticism? Oh please.
  And, too bad that people continue to think that spirits, and spirituality is still something that's actually real. Yet, their own willful ignorance prevents them from truly understanding their own life, much less anything else. Remember, spirituality is based on mysticism. Mysticism is intellectual dishonesty of the individual. So, I guess you're being dishonest with yourself. Good show.
  You see, that's where you seem to be saying something profound, yet not actually do so. There was nothing in the statement I said, which you responded to, that was "self-indulgent ridicule". You do know that "morons" do exist? And, most of them are happy in their stupidity? If not, well consider yourself informed.
  And, your insistence on the god of religion being in existence? Is completely and utterly ridiculous. It lacks common sense of all things.
  Actually, you would be wrong yet again. Stop now...there's no rhyme or reason for you to dig the hole you're already standing in any deeper.
  No bias here.
  I'm sure it's tripped up many of the gullible folk. Proof positive. You're a shining example.
  Check your own ego dude? I checked my ego years ago. I told you before, there's a key to ego and you haven't found that key. However, I'm sure you'll twist or turn this back on me yet again, in a feeble attempt to gain composure and save face, just so your ego doesn't have to take the hit. I don't have to think I am wise or have wisdom. Even with that said- I do however continue to have people tell me I am wise. But, I don't let it go to my head and am humbled by each person who actually recognizes it for what it IS. Which seems to escape you.
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Dude escaped is a tame action more like catatonic I suspect
  
  Sad it's permanent
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  And if even the scientist who has been trained to be skeptical falls into the trap of unreasonable faith from time to time, what chance does the average person have when everyone else is telling them faith is good?
  reply report
57
lonnie1118posted 13 years ago
god did not kill his son or order his son to be killed his son died willingly on the cross in order to save us because no person on earth is pure so all he asks is that we believe in his father and he will make our souls pure so when we are judged we will go to heaven instead of the other option now give me one answer please i am a christian and i believe jesus died for our sins if i die and i am wrong so be it what have i lost nothing if anything i have gained a more satisfying life with a better end but if you are wrong what will you receive think on that not all christians are bible thumpers but even at that do you want to risk an eternity of fire and brimstone being a christian and believing in something makes you a bettter person not better is in im judging you but better than you were before you believed im not asking you to believe but honestly what harm could believing possibly do not nearly as much as the harm caused by people who dont
reply report
1. 74
  lone77starposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, Lonnie. You said a mouth full and all without any punctuation or capitalization. Hard to read, but full of meaning.
  
  I disagree about harm caused by those who believe and by those who don't.
  
  Some believers have caused a great deal of harm. Some believers have created great good.
  
  Same goes for non-believers.
  
  The great evil lies not in doing harm or even not believing, but in ego -- the heart of selfishness.
  
  Each person has an opinion. Some are more attached to their opinions than others. That attachment is the hand of ego. Like Cags saying that someone lacks wisdom, even if they have intelligence, because they dared challenge him and his ideas. That's ego -- the root of all evil.
  
  It may be that most believers are following ego rather than Christ. That distresses me. The fact that we've had Crusades, Inquisitions, burnings at the stake and the like, is only a small indication of the evil that has lived on Earth in the "name of Christ." It is a deception and a delusion.
  
  Others, like Slarty, pretend to search really hard, but give up early, pretending to live in logic, but instead fondling ego as a replacement for truth.
  
  All God wants is the rescue of His children, but some of them are rowdy enough to murder the messenger. While others are deluded enough to blame God for the murder. Go figure.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not ego as a replacement of truth, Lone77star. At least try to make your insults hit the mark. lol.. You say I gave up too easy and I could say you failed to get it because your imagination is too good and it has trapped you in a world of mysticism.
  
  Which one of us is right?
  
  Without ego you do not exist. Now, ego as I see it is measured on a sliding scale between negative and positive. Taking yourself too seriously or telling me you have the answer and I am absolutely wrong may be your definition of evil, but you engage in it as much as everyone else around here does, I find that ironic, don't you? "Go figure"
  
  The ego is the subconscious instinctive. It is educated through experience and conscious deliberation. The consciousness is too slow to react in the time it needs to. No time to deliberate when the chips are down. The instinctive has to react.
  
  So consciousness helps educate, it is a tool. Most of our lives are on automatic. That automatic is the subconscious. The subconscious is conditioned to respond both genetically and by the outside world..
  
  All mystics want to get rid of consciousness and logic. That's a huge mistake. The better we can train/educate the subconscious/ego the better it serves our lives.
  
  Yes meditating and reaching the quiet mind results in all kinds of pleasant and profound inner experiences. To do it you have to shut out consciousness. Been there and done that and have the experiences of bliss and just knowing and even out of body experience to show for my efforts.
  
  Perhaps you have too. We got different answers. As far as I am concerned you missed the big picture: It's all in your head. They are all ways to play with the mind and get the experiences we enjoy.
  
  Those experiences are good for centering ourselves and seeing the connection we have to the all, But they do not point to a christian god or any other conscious god or cosmic consciousness or ever lasting life.
  
  There are many possibilities concerning these concepts. But they are all speculation. I will wait and see what the evidence brings over time rather than believe in speculative concepts like god and ever lasting life without evidence.
  
  The point is not to be an egotist. That's negative ego and can be destructive. The point is to have positive ego.. The only road to positive ego is logic. In my opinion the logical mind is what we have to cultivate.
  
  And yes the logical mind includes love. Love is our desire to be one with something or some one else. To make them part of our "I". If you know the mechanism you will see the logic in that effort.
  
  To me it is illogical for a person to be so wrapped up in eliminating ego, and at the same worship and make excuses for the most egotistical god ever devised by mans imagination.
  
  Like I said, you have a fabulous imagination. So do I. That's why I guard against it leading me by having me accept speculative ideas as fact.
  reply report
  53
  liamkinkeadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you can try to deny it, but this entire thread its just a way for you to validate your own intelligence. Your sitting in your basement laughing about how much smarter you are than all the silly christians. You have it all figured out right? If God were to knock on your front door with an army of angels, you would walk right to your desk and continue to write about the nonsense of religion. I haven't the slightest clue how someone could come to feel so superior to another person.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Trolling are you?
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If god showed up at my door with an army of angels I'd say "Oh shit. I was wrong." Do you think I am an idiot who doesn't accept facts?
  
  I have no agenda other than finding out what the truth is. Sorry that offends you. I don't feel superior. Perhaps you are projecting? You feel your view is so superior you have to chastise me for having an opinion and trying to use some logic.
  
  Christians get upset when others don't buy in to their beliefs. They think we should all be humble and grovel at the thought of god. What gives us the right to deny it exists without evidence? We must have a superiority complex and think we are god. What utter ridicules nonsense.
  reply report
  53
  liamkinkeadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not chastising you for having your own opininon, I'm chastising you for spending half your life writing articles and threads in an attempt to dissuade people from their beliefs. I have no problem with athiests, I have a problem with the people who smirk because they have it all figured out. For me to be projecting in no way falsifies anything that I say.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You have a problem with me writing articles and threads in an attempt to dissuade people from their beliefs. But you have no problem with people trying to spread the word of your church, writing articles and threads in an attempt to turn people to your beliefs?
  
  A bit hypocritical don't you think?
  
  If you have a problem with people who smirk and think they have it all figured out you are projecting because that's you, not me. Perhaps now you know what projecting means? It means you project your own faults on to others, attacking them for what you can't see in yourself.
  
  So if if you are projecting then it doesn't falsify what you say, just who you say it about.
  
  Look. Most Christians think atheists are deluded because we don't believe. We think you are deluded because you do. Accept it, get over it. We are even. Move on.
  reply report
54
MITCHELTOPACposted 13 years ago
hi
reply report
1. 81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey
  reply report
0
kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years ago
Earnest said omniscient

so bloody confused :
reply report
1. 69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Just need to keep it simple?
  Goddunnit Kimberly.
  
  My way of seeing it is a bit more complex than that.
  It's Goddidn'tdunnit
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Hey Earnest,
  
  Have you read this thread?
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/83927
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My God is all I have to say
  
  give thanks I won a Hubbie and am completely self consumed hence why I study all the time
  
  tic tac?
  
  Bible?
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Tic tac. thanks!
  \
  Glad you hooked that rascally Cags, he's been on the run too long around here not to get lassoed.
  reply report
  70
  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://youtu.be/1HkWTfc4nFs
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Not all that peaceful eh?
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ok made me pee AGAIN!!!!
  reply report
  0
  kimberlyslyricsposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://youtu.be/vOuL2AnJPok
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Cant load it Kimberly, taking forever.... but I think I know the clip.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

This is a erroneous belief of the Christians; the Creator God does need no such killing.
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  So are you also saying that there was no purpose behind the sacrificing of animals?
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sacrificing animals is another thing; killing human beings is another.
  
  Those were the days of barter trade; and animal were thought to be valuable.
  
  Animal could be killed for food purposes; not the human beings.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  They had been sacrificing animals for thousands of years, obviously it was not enough. Something else had to happen, something grandiose, something big, enormous.. something no one could miss. A human being was needed. This fleshly manifestation was not about forgiveness, it replaced sacrifice which represented forgiveness. By one big gesture, God in the flesh; a man offered himself for sacrifice, without blemish, volunteered to surrender his life so he could be resurrected again and prior to that resurrection, he could teach and heal many many people.
  Its brilliant! really brilliant.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's fantasy, pure fantasy.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  brilliance, pure brilliance!
  reply report
61
Kiss andTalesposted 13 years ago
comming from you I would not exspect you to say anything positive! and you have that choice to say as you wish and so do I.I have not learned anything from you that I can say l would repeat to someone else for encouragement ! you are Funny! thats nice!but I stick by my words Empty speech , my years as a bible student would not mean anything to you !and I would not consider my education as a subject based on your approval.
reply report
69
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
For anyone wanting to see some half decent arguments and rebuttals that have some substance(unlike the goddunnit replies here) this is a good link to see reasonable people having a discussion and find material to strengthen your arguments.

http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  "In 1415 the Church of Rome took an extraordinary step to destroy all knowledge of 2 2nd century Jewish books that it said contained the true name of Jesus Christ."
  
  Firstly this is second century not to be confused with the first century writings on the eyewitnesses of Christ and secondly, Jewish books... what does that mean exactly? Talmud? a book written by a jewish person? The true name of Jesus Christ? - whats that all about?
  Rubbish
  
  Epiphanius, the Essenes, Nazorenes, Ebionites, and Sampsaeans thought very highly of a certain ancient document called the "Book of Elxai. I would not sweat this book missing either.
  
  "In an attempt by the church to remove damaging Rabbinic information about Jesus Christ from the face of the earth, the Inquisition burnt 12,000 volumes of the Talmud"
  The Talmud portrays christ as a magician (they do not say he did not do many magical/miraculous things) but they are angry that he did not restore Israel at that time and reject him as the messiah. So no need to sweat this book missing either.
  
  "It was self evident that James was not competent to check their work and edit it, so he passed the manuscripts onto the greatest genius of all time... Sir Francis Bacon"
  "The first English language manuscripts of the Bible remained in Bacon's possession for nearly a year. During that time ... "he hammered the various styles of the translators".
  This kind of garbage would have flown in ages gone by, but when we can view the authentic language manuscripts for ourselves, it does not take a genius to see the conscientious translation. The king james bible is still of popular opinion that it is a word by word translation. Yes there are a few tweaks but certainly not to the extant this snake oil salesman has pitched it.
  
  I found this information to be completely biased and conveys much misinformation.
  reply report
2. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I don't go for half decent arguments.
  I only listen to solid arguments.
  A half decent argument is just that, half decent and just an argument.
  reply report
69
earnestshubposted 13 years ago
Why would any sane person have respect for a psychopathic despot?

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

I feel confident that some here will explain why this is all love, and it will make about as much sense as the rest of it does.
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Its already been explained 3 times that i know of.
  How you can never learn nuthin amazes me.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's funny!
  I thought that since your religion has been shown to be just a bunch of old recycled retold superstition, I'm amazed you still have the front to post.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  recycled, retold, superstition, front to post
  
  take another look sunshine, your speaking into the mirror!
  now that IS FUNNY
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, what is funny is it is 2011, you are a grown man and you still believe you have an invisible friend.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You forget the personal relationship aspect.
  
  My invisible friend was nonexistent to me before, 2,008 and now that it is 2011, He is so much bigger and better. Go figure huh.
  I guess some can find Him and some can't.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's OK, my invisible friend left as soon as I gained a decent education.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  yes we have seen so many examples of your decent education go spinning down the toilet drain.
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We as in plural, or the holy we?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  plural
  Why would you think diff.... oh right.. interpretation.
  
  plural
  as in others who read the posts
  reply report
  69
  earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't heard anyone else agree with you, so I assumed you meant the royal we.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  anyone who reads the posts knows.
  
  If i were telling lies the Christians would be all over me and i would expect no less, either publicly or by email.
  Some have agreed. I get way less flak than you do.
  reply report
51
paarsurreyposted 13 years ago
Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive?

The Creator God never did such a heinous cruel act; it is only an evil imagination of Paul; it has nothing to do with Jesus.
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  He didn't do it to forgive he did it to end the OT way.
  
  Jesus often said he would rise again and that he must lay down his life.. how can you say it has nothing to do with jesus.
  
  Paul rocks!
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Bible (NT) does not report things correctly as no eye-witness wrote the event of the Cross.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The whole new testament is all eyewitnesses.
  The event of the cross is detailed quite specifically and inclusive are small details that give huge information.
  The gospels are definitive to my researched understanding.
  I can go through all the details if you want. In short all four gospels cover this paramount situation, a number 1 focal point of all christianity, explicitly paving the way for the resurrection.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How can it be? Only two of the writers were supposedly eye witnesses. Paul never even met Jesus except in a vision after he was dead. Sun stoke and guilt can do that to you. lol...
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Paul eye witnessed jesus on the damascus road and then Paul spent 3 days in conference with him. Paul saw jesus after that as well, once in prison.
  Mark was peters writer and luke was Pauls companion. John of course was the disciple john, son of zebedee. John mark was a disciple who wrote Peters inner circle eye witness reports, hence the gospel of mark.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Paul eye witnessed nothing. He was delusional and guilt ridden and was seeing what he wanted to see. Mark and Luke never met Jesus either.
  
  You are taking hear say and visions as eye witness reports. Not very good evidence if you ask me or any court.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I've already said mark and luke did not have to meet jesus to be qualified to write what they did; their mentors saw jesus.
  IF you want to disbelieve the bible account about Paul then I won't go at you, but I will not labor extensively to convince you either.
  
  What did Paul have to be guilt ridden about? When he acted as a pharisee he was doing 'Gods work' - persecuting the christians and he did this in all good conscience.
  Acts 23:1 "And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day".
  And after Jesus, he lived in good conscience also, realizing Jesus was the messiah, he risked his life repeatedly to preach Christ.
  
  1 Corinthians 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I DECLARE unto you the GOSPEL which I PREACHED unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
  1 Corinthians 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
  1 Corinthians 15:3 For I DELIVERED unto you FIRST of all that which I also RECEIVED, how that Christ DIED for our sins according to the scriptures;
  1 Corinthians 15:4 And that he was BURIED, and that he ROSE again the third day according to the scriptures:
  1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was SEEN of Cephas, then of the TWELVE:
  1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above 500 brethren at once; of whom the greater part REMAIN (are alive) unto this present, but some are fallen asleep (dead).
  1 Corinthians 15:7 After that, he was SEEN of James; then of ALL the apostles.
  1 Corinthians 15:8 And LAST OF ALL HE WAS SEEN OF ME also, as of one born out of due time.
  
  Sometimes people switch around when they realize they were wrong. Such is the case with Paul. And i am sure he regretted his prior persecutions against the christians but i am equally sure he was glad to know the truth and to be a christian. He spent much time wrestling with the jews about how christ is the messiah.
  Delusional... nope... guilt ridden... nope.... seeing what he wanted to see? How would a pharisee persecuting the christians in all good conscience, convinced he was doing the right thing, see what he wanted to see? This is your assumption and i'd like you to back that up please.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Paul was a Jew with Roman lineage. His father was a soldier in the Roman army. Tarsus is known as being a hotbed of Mithraism at that time. While he may have felt he was doing the right thing at first killing other Jews who had turned Christian it is without doubt that he carried guilt for it. He also supposedly helped torture them. Torturers and even soldiers are often guilt ridden even though they think they are doing it for their country or their god.
  It is said he had a vision of a light upon him, heard a voice, and then he went temporarily blind. Such blindness can be caused by psychological effects due to extreme emotion, extreme stress, or trauma. This is known as conversion, where the mind converts an emotion in to a physical symptom.
  Paul, from how he is described in the bible is a very emotional complex man. It is not much of a stretch to assume he wanted to be rid of his guilt, hence hearing what he wanted to hear.
  I have had a similar experience where I felt guilt ridden and had a vision of three oval pulsating spirits above my bed. One wanted me dead, on wanted to spare me if I changed my ways and the other was neutral. I was not asleep, but rather exhausted and between being awake and asleep.
  Now, my crimes were against myself and not as terrible and haunting as Paul’s must have been. I know it was my mind and my guilt that created that vision for me and I had already known I had to change. So I never took it as real spirits visiting me. Never the less, I did change just as Paul did. But in Paul’s day visions were considered real visitations.
  Hence Paul must have thought that his best penance was to preach and become a super-Christian.
  The bible goes on to say that he had to suffer, and surely he accepted that and in many ways welcomed it. Suffering for humans is often a way to repentance, and to pay for what they consider the wrong they did. We punish ourselves over and over again.
  However, he changed Christianity and fought with some of the original apostles over doctrine, saying he had the last word from Jesus. And yet his attitudes to woman in the church, for one, was a great departure from the original ideals of Christianity where it was mostly woman who hosted meetings in their homes and preached. There are other differences of course, and he gets angry that the original apostles are not teaching what he is.
  This is funny since Christianity does not assume god changes his mind about things. Why would the teaching of the real man Jesus differ from the dead/resurrected Jesus?
  Paul Romanized Christianity which led to it being more easily adopted by Romans and eventually the Emperor; though that was more of a political move than anything else. Never the less, had he not done that the religion might not have made it far, as it is Roman rule over the religion that spread it worldwide, featuring Paul’s version mixed with a bit of paganism here and there.
  The Jews who had converted under Matthew rejected Paul’s teachings, but were soon forced to adopt them under Constantine. And then, of course, the blood was shed between Roman Christians and those the new Church deemed heretical. Paul’s teaching went full circle from wanting to fight persecution to causing it. Not his fault, of course. He was long dead before that happened. But it is a bit ironic.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's all nice and fine but incorrect, its a very humanistic summation but of course leaves Jesus completely out of the picture and this is the first mistake.
  Say what you want about his guilt. Christ changes people. Paul being given the chance to turn it all around was certainly a balm to the guilt. That guilt probably had a large part of Paul not becoming proud which is not a good christian trait. We see that God was in the picture of Pauls conversion by yet other scriptures:
  Paul wrote:
  Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit". I will not waste time debating about Pauls guilt, I imagine he thought about it often, but, guilt is not a passive emotion, it can produce results, BUT, there is a difference between guilt and condemnation. We can feel a bit guilty but never are we to condemn ourselves. So what about guilt, it is a moot point, certainly not a detrimental point.
  Acts 9:10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
  Acts 9:11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he PRAYS,
  Acts 9:12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
  and another:
  Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a CHOSEN vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
  
  Paul never changed anything. He preached christ, christ crucified, and christ resurrected. He put things in perspective with the church and did not put down women. He allowed them more freedom than they had under the OT law. For him to assert the man is the head of the household is not unchristian. When Paul rebuked Peter for eating apart from the gentiles, Paul was right, Peter was wrong.
  
  Hence Paul must have thought that his best penance was to preach and become a super-Christian.
  One cannot think they are to become a super christian, because this is christianity by works and not by grace. If all we had to do was put our own efforts into christianity, then God can take a holiday - which he does not.
  John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abides in me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
  The above is not a one time shot through repentance via the sinners prayer, its a daily seeking God and his will and a continuous wanting God to have his way. This verse is literally, quite true.
  
  I think we are done here. Your views omit God and Gods spiritual ability to produce the will of God in Paul as the lead apostle to the gentiles, contrary to the words of the bible.
  Romanized christianity was elsewhere, but not with Paul. The Early Church was happy to receive Pauls letters and circulated Pauls letters. We read pauls letters today and for those who understand them -
  2 Corinthians 10:10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.
  - they convey christianity more than adequately.
  
  Thanks for the chat.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Well that is the problem. You are a Christian and so believe it all from a faith perspective. I am an atheist. What did you expect my perspective to be?
  
  Nice chat anyway. Thanks
  reply report
  60
  peterxdunnposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  If John was a disciple: a Hebrew speaking and writing native of Judea, why did he write his gospel in Greek?
  
  John was a Greek speaking diasporic Jew and probably never set foot in Judea never mind met Jesus; if ever he lived - which isn't certain.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Right. And he probably was not the same John that wrote Revelations either.
  reply report
  60
  peterxdunnposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The vast majority of biblical scholars reckon St John of the gospels and St John the Divine to be two different people. Although many reckon that St John the Divine and Presbyter John of the Epistles were the same person.
  
  St John the Divine should really be called 'the Diviner' because Revelation abounds with astrological symbolism. The 'star that fell to Earth' - for instance - is the constellation of Ophuichus the Serpent Bearer which some considered to be the 13th sign of the Zodiac: although it stands in the ninth position along the ecliptic. This places it between Scorpio and Sagittarius. Read Revelation with this in mind and the astrological references become obvious.
  
  Also many believe Revelation to be a prophecy that might yet still come true. This is totally unsupported by St John's own words. He is calling for the Jews to unite under the banner of his new solar deity: Jesus Christ, so that all out war can be launched against the 'Whore of Babylon' otherwise known as Rome.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The trouble when people resource outside the bible is that they tend to grab a little here and there and then blend them together or they ignore the bible and adopt a tasty tid bit even if it is biblically unfounded.
  At this time there is currently no viable bible based support for the star that fell to earth to be ophichus, the star that falls has a name and that is wormwood, if you want to research wormwood you will see it has a completely different meaning that an asteroid or planet or constellation.
  
  Firstly the writer is john the disciple, whom jesus loved.
  Revelation 1:9 " I John, who also AM your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ".
  There is no theological dispute that John, the son of zebedee was on Patmos. There are flags in the book of Rev that point very much to john, son of zebedee and not the fellow you mention.
  and:
  Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou SEE, WRITE in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;
  The few astrological signs in this book, if indeed they are just that, are nevertheless what rev 1:11 indicates. Visions given to the writer.
  
  There is always information to be gathered from left wing radical theologians or some self proclaimed blessed of biblical God knowledge off shoot branch, but certain things are in stone. John wrote Revelations which are visions from God is one of them.
  reply report
  81
  Slarty O'Brianposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  John the Apostle, John the Evangelist and John of Patmos are thought of by most modern scholars as three separate people because of the vast differences in their writing style. Some have even suggested John the Baptist is a candidate for Revelation. Others have sighted John the Hermit. But few if any believe it was John the apostle.
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is not uncommon for people of that area and even at that time to speak many languages. If they were learned people they would have also been taught in greek, how to write. The nuances of johns writings show a good grasp of greek interlaced with hebrew terminology.
  it is a universally admitted fact that the Apostle John was accepted without question as the author of the Fourth Gospel and this is an early church canonization. Debate about authorship comes much later in the 3rd century.
  To judge from the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who was acquainted with the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He also displays accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine, even in many incidental references. He must have enjoyed personal contact with Jesus and must even have belonged to the circle of Jesus' intimate friends based on the style and content of the gospel. The style shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events he mentions.
  Having mentioned in this 4th gospel of the Crucifixion that the disciple whom Jesus loved stood beneath the Cross beside the mother of Jesus (John 19:26), he adds, after telling of the Death of Christ and the opening of His side, the solemn assurance: "And he that saw it hath given testimony; and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true: that you also may believe". John himself is the "disciple whom the Lord loved"
  John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
  John 20:2 Then she ran, and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved , and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.
  John 21:7 Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord. Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt his fisher's coat unto him, (for he was naked,) and did cast himself into the sea.
  John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrays thee?
  The same john who wrote the gospel wrote 3 epistles. 1,2,3 john and revelation.
  1 John 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which WE have heard, which WE have SEEN with our eyes, which WE have LOOKED upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
  That john refers to himself as the elder (greek presbyteroos) in the second and third epistles ought not to confuse. As we see in john 1 quoted above, the john referred to here obviously had close personal contact with Jesus, making his a disciple.
  John was called by Christ to definitive discipleship (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20). In the lists of the Apostles John has the second place (Acts 1:13), the third (Mark 3:17), and the fourth (Matthew 10:3; Luke 6:14), yet always after James with the exception of a few passages (Luke 8:51; 9:28 in the Greek text; Acts 1:13).
  From James being thus placed first, the conclusion is drawn that John was the younger of the two brothers. In any case John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body.
  Irenæus also positively designates the Apostle and Evangelist John as the teacher of Papias, and neither he nor any other writer before Eusebius had any idea of a second John in Asia (Against Heresies V.33.4). In what Papias himself says the connection plainly shows that in this passage by the word presbyters only Apostles can be understood. If John is mentioned twice the explanation lies in the peculiar relationship in which Papias stood to this, his most eminent teacher. By inquiring of others he had learned some things indirectly from John, just as he had from the other Apostles referred to. In addition he had received information concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus directly, without the intervention of others, from the still living "Presbyter John", as he also had from Aristion. Thus the teaching of Papias casts absolutely no doubt upon what the New-Testament writings presuppose and expressly mention concerning the residence of the Evangelist John in Asia.
  
  So you see the gospel of john is completely and utterly written by the apostle john for the above and many more reasons.
  Sorry for the length.
  reply report
  60
  peterxdunnposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Throughout the period of Jesus' 'lifetime' Judea was a seething hotbed of insurrection. This eventually exploded in the Great Jewish Revolt. Why - apart from refering to Barabas an an insurrectionist - are we not told about this state of affairs in the New Testament?
  reply report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is written that at the time of crucifixion; the 12 all of them fled away; so how could they be eyewitesses?
  
  "Then all the disciples deserted him and fled. "
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Matthew 26:56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.
  
  Matthew 26:58 But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest's palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.
  
  Matthew 27:55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
  
  Luke 23:27 And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
  
  Luke 23:49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things.
  
  John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
  John 19:27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
  
  The argument of they fled and never returned is weak supposition to say the least. The fled from the garden when the 450 strong cohort came to arrest jesus, but we see, Peter followed, john stood in the crowd and many stood afar off. Can you imagine them not sneaking back to see the events of jesus on a cross on a hilltop.. from afar off...
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Previous 1 23 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Why would a god need to order the murder of his son inorder to forgive

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies