If jesus died for the sins of men, it would be all men. I think (if Jesus existed) that Jesus was trying to get people away from religion instead, people made a religion of the saccrifice. Something that was supposed to pertain to all men, was reserved for the few. If one can say they are part of an exclusive club, they can draw in more followers. If it was said that it applied to all people, none would be interested.
No, it pertained to all men at all times. Yes, He came for the Jews first, but He also interacted with the Gentiles.
Your logic is phallacious. Something that applies to all men applies to all men (and women.) Something is what it is. Because many people weren't (and aren't) interested does not make it less valid. Nor does trying to redefine something using nothing but vague psychology make it true. In Jesus' own day, He encountered many people who were uninterested in something that applied to all men (remember the Pharisees and Sadducees?) They were the members of the exclusive club, Jesus pointed the way to God.
If that is so, how can one tell me that I have to be christian to find God? If Jesus died for all men's sins, then they wouldn't have to accept him as their savior. A true hero saccrifices for the whole of humanity, not for the needs of the few.
Being a Christian simply means accepting Jesus the Christ as your Savior. Why would He die for anyone just so they could follow someone else who isn't divine and has no power to save anyone's soul? He didn't die for you so that you could follow Buddha or some other man or statue. HE is the one who died for you and for all mankind to have the opportunity to be born-again and go to heaven.
His sacrifice is only "in vain" for those people who refuse to follow Him.
Can I not just follow the meaning of the teaching? I am not of a Buddhist, Christian, Hindu or any other religion. I see them all as equally valid perceptions, they all point in the same direction, just the motives of the individual differ. If Jesus died for all man, as it says in the bible, then he also died for those that would never know his name.
The whole world knows, or will know, His name. Christians are commissioned by Him to tell the world about Him. That's shown in the Bible. For anyone who's never heard of Him, then I believe He reveals Himself to them at some point before they die (He IS God, after all, and the sacrifice of Jesus is the only Way that's sanctioned for anyone to be saved).
What if I don't believe that? What if I am already with the creator? What can one say then? To me, Jesus was just one of many pointing out a path... I walk the path I was born to walk. If my path brings me to my God, how can anyone tell me otherwise?
You can believe whatever you want.
I'm just wondering why you wouldn't believe in the God who Loves you enough to die for you.
Perhaps, for similar reasons why you don't believe in Allah, or Zeus, or ...
Nope. Those "gods" didn't make sure to tell me they Love me, nor did they die for me.
Brenda, only the god in your imagination told you he loves you and died for you. In this Hub you will only preach to the already converted.
Troubled Man: Seems like you always have to spew out your garbage, even if you are not invited into the conversation, you simply leap in and mess things up. Get a life.
Thanks Dave, I always appreciate whenever you post to show us what Christian love is all about, it's true nature.
ATM - The problem is that you don't recognize Christian love when you see it, but are quick to recognize and sure to point out when you think it's lacking.
I'm sure you'll have some intellectual comment on that, but I learned long ago that actual conversation or debate is not what you're interested in.
"Christians are quick and consistent in showing us their love all the time, you included."
I'll give you a little hint. After trying everything from adult conversation to attempted persuasion to cajoling to joking to reasoning with you, I found that the one and only thing you respond to (in other than some default way) is when you are insulted. And, sadly, it's been easy for me because I realized early on what kind of game you play and found that I did it better than you. I shouldn't have done it, but you never responded to anything else.
And, yes it's a little juvenile to say "you started it," but you didn't just start it. It was your default mode. Anything anyone ever said to you became a basis for blasting them, no matter what. And it would have been different if, like some of the other atheists in these forums, you used some kind of consistent argument, but you don't. You just blast away. You don't even give a life story as the reason.
"This is what you deem as a "real adult" conversation, and it doesn't even occur to you that your religion is not just wrong, it's just pure unadulterated nonsense."
No, what I deem as real adult conversation requires give-and-take. Exchange of ideas. Listening to and then (if necessary) refuting or accepting the other parties' argument based upon some kind of consistent reasoning. Any kid can just stand up and say "You're stupid" without ever providing a reason. Or sit behind a keyboard and do it...
Oh Troubled Man, I suggest to you that your posts here are similar to the young guy who roars around suburban streets on a big motor bike, making as much unnecessary noise as he can manage.
It's done to draw attention to himself. Once he has done that he is satisfied for a short time. Then it progresses to a sort of addiction, where he continually needs to satisfy his ego so he hoons around more often, annoying everyone in the neighbourhood.
You annoying posts, as Chris Neal has just pointed out equate to the Harley Davidson.
HOWEVER! Troubled Man, I now come in defense of your position.
It is never easy to confront the religious point of view. You and I and everyone else who feels compelled to counter fanaticism and dogma, will always find a brick wall in the shape of "God tells me it is true."
Having come from a christian background, where I was first a "high Anglican Church" attendee, (all the trappings of the Catholic church, without the Pope's presence) and then in the evangelical "free churches" where I was talked into being a "born again christian," which at first I accepted and believed.
I also went through the self-righteous stage of standing around the public bar, where people drank alcohol, and trying to tell men that I had an answer for their lives, and I had the authority to tell this, because "The Bible" said I had. I felt great. Power for a change. But I was wrong! I was a hypocrite. The body of people whom I was representing encouraged me to believe that I was "saved." From what no one could say exactly. Yet I was thus placed a degree above those people in the bars who were not "saved."
I now look back on the dreadful stuff that the christian churches have done to peoples lives down the years. Yes, true, individuals have done some selfless service to many people. Beautiful people, who had their faith and lived by it. But these were not the norm.
More often the belief that the bible gave clear answers, coupled with the idea that god was sanctioning it, entire communities of humans have been disenfranchised by christian groups. I am thinking of the christian attitude to aboriginal peoples of Australia; African tribes; Amazonian tribes; unmarried mothers; homosexual people; Afro-American; North American aboriginal tribes; South Pacific Islanders; always being told that they need christianity in order to avoid a burning eternity in hell.
There will always be some biblical text to justify their actions. Rarely will any christian person turn round and say, "This is not what My Lord would accept. I must find love and humility in admitting to my fault and my misunderstanding."
I, therefore, no long feel allegiance to the christian church. Chris Neal, you might feel that you are accepted by your christian community as being a lovely man, a wonderful pastor, "true to the Lord." Have the courage to look beyond that, and find some more, new, truer revelation in your life. The Ego can be in what you accept as final understanding.
Please don't do that, I have no need for your defense, sir.
I agree, but you are certainly in need of a broader life.
In reality you are very similar to Chris Neal. In a past life you were probably brothers, or bed-pals. You could even have been sisters. I wonder where in the world that was....Eastern Europe maybe, or Siberia... it must have been very boring living there, and having a good argument would have been the best fun possible.
Just thinking aloud.
Sorry, but I don't see much thinking in your response at all, Jonny.
The only reason I am writing here at this hour (4.00am) is because it's been blowing a very fierce gale here, and woke me up, otherwise I would not be wasting time posting to your nonsensical threads, ATM.
So, according to your logic, you're wasting your time focusing on me personally. I would agree. Had you actually spent the time focusing on the subject matter instead of me, it may not have been a waste of your time. In fact, I wholeheartedly encourage you to do so.
And, if my posts are so nonsensical, why then haven't you stepped up to plate to refute them or show how they are nonsensical instead of focusing on me personally?
Are you unable to do that?
Unlike ATM, I thoroughly enjoyed what you wrote even though you disparaged me in it. You miss a lot of points, but on the other hand you do also hit a lot of nails right on the head, not just about ATM but about the self-righteousness of certain people who call themselves Christian. I wish I could say that I've never been guilty of it. But I think you've also learned the futility of jousting with ATM. He's not interested in anything short of abject agreement with what he says, and even then he'd probably find a way to insult you!
It's hilarious when believers here are compelled to focus on me personally even when I state time and again not to do so, and then say I'm the attention whore. Classic!
Feel better now, Jonny? Got it out of your system?
You are not exchanging ideas or using any reasoning whatsoever, hence you fail miserably at exactly what you expect others to do. I refute your arguments if and when you actually present them. But, when you spew nonsense, it's just laughable.
Then, when you make false statements and are dishonest, that is also pointed out, like that statement, for example.
But, I know you don't get any of that.
You refute my arguments? Come again?
This is, what? Forum number 6 where we've sparred? And which of your "intellectual" refutations have stood the test? When you decided to trade Biblical verses with me in order to show how the Bible is actually wrong? You folded faster than a house of cards on that one...
Your "refutations" almost always boil down to telling me I'm too stupid to understand the high intellectualism of your argument. The few of those that went beyond saying that literally that have "stood up" only did so because I didn't have the time to answer them.
But this is (finally) your real favorite game. Point the attention at yourself, then tell everybody they spend too much time talking about you.
You love this.
Yes, I understand how the zealous believe their irrational beliefs are victorious in light of reality, at least, when presenting Biblical verses.
So, you put words in mouth to describe yourself or is that how you actually see yourself?
Even though I ask repeatedly to not point the attention at me?
I really do love it when you make my point for me!
Well done, sir!
Because I have a personal relationship with the God I've created for myself. I walk the path of my perception, to me God is not out there, God is everything, everywhere, all of the time. God is not something I seek, I have found my God within my self. My God has no name, but that which I percieve.
In fact any christian has also designed a god for him/her self within. That god suits the individual down to a "T" so that it's comfortable, certain, gives a lovely feeling, allows one to spout it to others around. Because that image of god is so deeply embedded in the individual psyche, it's impregnable by anyone else. Totally secure. And you will notice that no one else can boot it out.
You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you can never convince a Born-again about anything else.
Why do many religious believe that they have to search? I'm not religious but I'm also not atheist, I see it as all the same thing. I only have the perception of being separate, but looking past my perception, I see it all as one idea. Why do many people try so hard to make it an outside influence, why can't it already be apparent?
The way I see it is that if you don't search you don't find. If you don’t search for something to eat, you'll be hungry. If you don't search for a date, you might not find a wife. I have already looked at God and liked what I saw. That’s why I’m a Christian now. If I want to continue to look deeper into my God, I have to constantly search. And every time I search for more, I somehow always find answers and thensome.
"I have no choice but to be human. Why should my God be any less important? I've said it before and I'll say it again "The whole my God is better" garbage is getting old. Why should it matter?"
This assumes that there isn't really an external, personal God who has revelealed Himself. I know a lot of people believe that, but it's not true. It's not a matter of "my God" vs. "your God." It's a matter of "God." Either He exists or He does not, and if He does then we must find out everything we can about Him. If He does not, then we're all just wasting our time.
Ah, but that's not true. It's true way too often, to be sure, but for those who are prepared, God will let us all know that He is not "within" us that way.
God is not the God of psychology. He is the God of the living.
Chris Neal, I don't agree with this statement of yours:
"You're right that the entire scope is confusing. You're right that God is not contained in a religion, although His teaching is contained in the bible. God is an external, personal God (meaning He is a person, not that He's your personal God.)"
I am aware that the "god" within me is the same as, and one with, the "god" which is external. My beliefs are similar to those of "mischievousme"
Initially I wrote a long letter in reply to yours, but all it boiled down to was: you have your beliefs, I have mine, and the world is big enough for both of us to disagree yet coexist.
I have no choice but to be human. Why should my God be any less important? I've said it before and I'll say it again "The whole my God is better" garbage is getting old. Why should it matter?
"am aware that the "god" within me is the same as, and one with, the "god" which is external. My beliefs are similar to those of "mischievousme"
Initially I wrote a long letter in reply to yours, but all it boiled down to was: you have your beliefs, I have mine, and the world is big enough for both of us to disagree yet coexist."
Yes. And no. If the God who is within you is the same as the God who is external, then you know that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. Certainly the world has room for people to believe all different things, but if people believe all different things that are wrong, then "live and let live" is not necessarily the most humane, or human, thing you can do.
This is what you deem as a "real adult" conversation, and it doesn't even occur to you that your religion is not just wrong, it's just pure unadulterated nonsense.
And also, I think the logic is a little too convenient. I wasn't always a Christian, didn't come from a Christian family, so I'm all too aware of the difficulty of talking to someone who has made up their mind without actually investigating the facts. It's not just the image of God that's "so deeply embedded in the individual psyche, it's impregnable by anyone else. Totally secure. And you will notice that no one else can boot it out." And it's by no means just Christians where "You can argue until you are blue in the face, but you can never convince" them "about anything else."
My family consisted of:
My father, a Buddhist.
My mother a Sufi/Hindu.
My grandmother a Luthran.
My sister a Catholic.
My other granmother a evangelical.
The list goes on for a while, but I had the great privilage of growing up with many forms of God consciousness. Of course I went to church every Sunday and Wednesday, sometimes on Saturday for Confession. I spent time at a Sufi retreat every year for many years and then I had the opportunity to meet interesting people like Kitty Davey, among others.
I never had to search for God, it was right there in front of my face the entire time.
I've been thinking about this for a while and I don't want to diminish the value that family has nor the influence they have. I guess my main question at this point is if you really believe that all these different (and differing) religions can be synchretized?
I can't resist asking, though: Sufism is monotheistic and Hinduism is pantheistic. Was your mother first one then the other, or did she somehow believe she could be both? It's not accusatory, I'm genuinely interested.
But that would mean that these "Christians" have never met God. In fact, my God is certainly NOT "comfortable, certain, gives a lovely feeling, allows one to spout it to others around." My God constantly tells me that the things I do I should not be doing and the things I should be doing (like telling other people about Jesus) I don't do. Suiting me to a "T"? No. If He did, I would not be here now.
God is not the God of psychology. If you actually read the Bible, you find that He does not sync with it at all. No matter how hard believers try to make Him someone who's okay with whatever they do, and no matter how hard unbelievers try to make Him someone who hates them and is totally unfair.
The meaning of the teaching IS that you must follow Christ. Of course He died for all men, but those who reject Him will be rejected by Him. That's pretty clearly spelled out several times in the Gospels. Yes, God is love (as it says in 1 John) but He is also justice and righteousness.
Yes, that's real "love" - pure rejection.
You know, the sad thing is that if you would ever actually open up and have a real conversation, we might actually get along. I'm the first to admit that the church isn't what it should be and Christians don't always do what they should. But then you go and make blanket statements like that, what should I think? That you had a horrible life? If you did, then I'm sorry. That you just like making statements like that because it gives you some kind trip to think you're "sticking it to the Christians?" I'm too old and have been too many places to buy that.
Saying that you've received "pure rejection" would be sad if it were true, but even from me that hasn't been true (come on, I'm still talking to you! If I completely rejected you I wouldn't do that!) I mean, there are enough stories about Christians and other religious folk who have been unnecessarily hard on people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all you ever faced from Christians is total rejection.
Having a "real" conversation would not include the religious fantasies you embrace and shove down throats as it only shows there is nothing "real" at all about anything you could possibly say.
But, I know you'll never get that, because Jesus is the only way to Heaven.
No, having a real conversation would involve acting like a grown-up and realizing that just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean that you have to make blanket insults and juvenile assumptions about everything they say.
But, I think maybe you like it that way. I wonder if maybe you like to say things that will push the buttons of Christians because then when they react badly, then you can say "total rejection." Because self-fulfilling prophecies can be very, very comfortable indeed.
And certainly easier than actually putting yourself on the line.
Believing in fairy tales and spewing religious nonsense is acting like a grown up?
I have a question for you, is Jesus the only way to heaven?
I see where you're going with this....
Tell me, what thing do you positively believe in? Because so far all you have done is yell about "fairy tales."
Someone who is so quick to totally reject shouldn't be so quick to claim it!
I don't positively believe in anything, but I understand your religion is equivalent to a fairy tale based entirely on everything believers say about it.
"I don't positively believe in anything,"
Yeah, I find that very easy to believe...
What I understand is that as long as you have a wall to push against, that's what you do and say you're trying to break though to the other side.
It's easy to yell. It's difficult to lead.
In my experience and in my studies, I have found that those who believe and accept that their is life after this, and go towards goodness will be in heaven. There was this tribe in Africa where the women are brutalized daily and the men are taught to be "master" to the wife as if she is a dog. When missionaries went there, to tell them of Jesus, the women all ready knew even though no one was allowed to tell them about him before. They had a different name for him, but they had all the core values.
Brenda, you said it all. Truth shall set people free.
Actually, you don't have to be Christian to find God. People who are anything BUT Christian do it all the time. It's just that if you DO find God through His Son, Jesus Christ, and understand just what He did for us, then of course you become Christian after that.
But I never said you must put the cart before the horse!
And by the way, He did sacrifice for the whole of humanity. Whoever has told you that His sacrifice was just for the chosen few has led you badly astray.
I find the entire scope of Christian belief confusing. I was a die hard Christian for over 20 years then one day, I woke up. I realized that God was not contained in a religion or in a teaching, I realized that the only God I truly percieved was a part of my perceptions. I saw that God was an aspect of my consciuosness, not so much a fairytale being. I saw the universe as one large living entity, in which God was but one small part; perception.
You're right that the entire scope is confusing. You're right that God is not contained in a religion, although His teaching is contained in the bible. God is an external, personal God (meaning He is a person, not that He's your personal God.)
The universe is certainly in motion, but it is not alive in the same sense that you and I are.
I don't want to be hard on you, but I think that your failure to understand the basics of Christianity (that Christ died for everyone's sin, that He was raised on the third day, that we must accept this free gift) or at least that it got lost in the clutter, means that you were probably (I don't know this for certain, of course) a die hard for a specific teacher or church, and not for Christ.
I respect the teachings of Jesus, not so much those contained in the bible. There are other books written at around the same time and many of the gospels are lost to history and the Nicene council. I see the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama just as valid, I don't discredit Meher Baba, Ghandi or Sai Baba either. To me there are many paths and I am on mine.
I understand where you're coming from, and even understand why it might sound good. Do one thing, start listing out what each book actually teaches about God, sin, man, the afterlife and grace. They all disagree with each other, even many of those "lost" gospels disagree on very important points with the books actually written by men who knew Jesus. If the paths lead to different places, then not all the paths are valid.
I am glad of Chris answer. Actually beside paid the price by Jesus for our sin He came also to restore faith trashed in Garden of Eden. The faith is the certificate of Governor while we in jail, that we are free.
BTW we were children of God but by sin we were adopted by Satan.
You spelled one word wrong there and I'm hoping it wasn't Gentiles.
" Chris Neal wrote:
He also interacted with the Gentiles.
Your logic is phallacious. "
Hahahahaha!!! I could add some more gen,,tle humour but it would get banned pretty quick.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that we need to recognise the Pharisee and Sadducee in our individual self, today, in reality. It is no use harping back on history, as vague as some of it is, trying to decide how we should live today, UNLESS we can sort out our own inner attitudes and the outward hatred/cruelty which emanates as a result.
This Hub, and others like it, is full of "Zealots" arguing ad infinitum about the theoretical aspects of christism, yet our world has so many practical problems which we could be solving with good common sense and caring.
It's always been difficult to look inside of one's self for the answers because there is much more fun looking outwards at other people, and trying to solve their problems for them.
However, although I do agree with you, let me be clear that there is nothing theoretical about Christ, or what He did for us. I'm not too sure what you mean by "christism," (google has nothing) but what is theoretical is any one given persons acceptance of it. Chistianity IS a practical approach to solving the world's problems. However, we must start by practicing it ourselves so that others can see what it really looks like. One of the drawbacks to this forum, and forums in general, is that it favors the argumentative over the practical.
"Christ-ism," because I want to get away from the habit of using "Christianity," because the latter is used by christians to set themselves apart from "other religions."
Now I'm intrigued (no kidding!)
Christianity is seperate from other religions, as is Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and (whether they want to admit it or not) Baha'i. I mean, the central beliefs are all different. So, I am really interested in knowing what you mean by "Christ-ism," especially that would make it different from Christianity.
BTW - this is not me being argumentative, it's me geeking out. Even before I became a Christian I was interested in learning about different religious and philosophical thought systems and beliefs!
One way in which christians tend to put themselves, and their religion apart, is to call it Christianity, and use the "-ism" to describe other religions. I see it as a way of putting christians above the other religions in terms of authenticity and relevance.
All religions in my opinion are there to satisfy the human's innate need to believe in and worship a higher being.... I have no quarrel with this. I will never try to pull a genuine belief apart, as long as it is used to satisfy the individual and his/her life needs.
I perceive the Ego as that which puts "myself" and/or "my needs" first, raising my own importance above anything or anyone else. Of course I am personally inclined to do this.... we all are to a greater or lesser extent. The path to Enlightenment is a process of becoming aware of this ego and the way in which it poisons one's own pathway.
I am very aware of the christian's ego, this again was very much part of my make-up, probably still is. The life task is, again, becoming so aware of this that Ego becomes negated and is no long a stumbling block to Enlightenment.
It is possible to see Jesus' journey as being just this pathway. He obviously had courage, conviction, awareness, wisdom. And presumably he was well aware of the stumbling blocks in his own life, so thus was able to see them in others. At the last moment, having felt that he had done his Father's work through extreme trials and tribulations, having gathered around himself those special friends whom he loved; THEN he felt so let down in that final effort of the Ego (Satan, or any name you wish to give it) to retain its importance.
Can you imagine what that man went through? The humiliation of being called wrong by the hypocrites of the time; being stripped naked before a jeering crowd; made to carry a heavy "tree" on which they were going to hang him; seeing his loved ones, his family and friends, standing down there absolutely distraught by his suffering and embarrassment; then hanging there for hours, bleeding, in pain, barely able to breath because of the weight upon his lungs; AND HE ASKS his father, "after all I have strived to do in my life, why has it come to this? "
That was Ego having a final fling. Trying to prevent the Unconditional Love from winning.
I personally do not see Jesus as being a Son of God apart from the rest of humanity. I see him as having been just a human person. When I delve into the deeper meanings of what is written in the New Testament, it is the personal lessons I can learn which are important to me. It is not an excuse to place myself above others, or to declare Jesus, whoever he was in reality, as a demi-god or anything more than he was in reality. That would be pandering to the "worship" bug. I could equally believe in a star football player.
There is a lot for you to consider here. Good luck.
"One way in which christians tend to put themselves, and their religion apart, is to call it Christianity, and use the "-ism" to describe other religions. I see it as a way of putting christians above the other religions in terms of authenticity and relevance. "
Without getting into everything else you said at this time, I might point out that the term "Christian" was actually originally a derogatory term that was adopted by the early believers. The same is true for "Quakers." So it is not a self-coined term, and in that sense is not meant to place us "above" Hindus, Muslims or Jains. That the others (mostly) have "ism" after their name is more a matter of semantics than psychology.
There is a further point I would like to put here, also for discussion with others interested.
I submit that the "religions" as practiced by Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are very different in the way they are practised by the general populations. The methods of prayer, devotion, chanting, music, pomp, decorations of the church/mosque/temple, etc. are different.
However, the "pure" disciplinary spiritual practices in the background of each religion are essentially the same. The process of meditation, focusing on the soul, or self, is understood by all the devotees, and you would find they all focus on the Divine Consciousness.
Yes, the "pure" disciplinary practices (if you are talking about the mechanics) have substantial similarity. But the "Divine Consciousness" is a (sometimes very) different thing. Islam does not point to the same divinity as Christianity does not point to the same divinity as Hinduism does not point to the same divinity as Native American religion. For some that consciousness is an internal process or goal, but for the monotheistic religions it is very much an external, and self-aware, "consciousness."
If what you are saying is that all roads lead to the same destination, then I would have to disagree with that. If that's not what you are saying, I apologize and admit that maybe I'm not quite gettiing what you are saying.
Ok, I hear what you are saying: "If what you are saying is that all roads lead to the same destination, then I would have to disagree with that.... " We will have to agree to differ. It is one of the reasons I don't call myself christian. I can understand how you would see your point of view as fundamental to your calling yourself christian.
With respect to what you have written and your point of view, Chris, but I see you as caught up in the "religion," so you cannot bring yourself to see the Divine Consciousness as being anything but alien to the christian way of thinking.
It is not different at all, except in the name given to it. Divine Consciousness is an undefinable quality, a spirit, something all-pervading. In this respect it is synonimous with Holy Spirit. It's everywhere, without form, only manifest by the actions of "beings."
Some have argued about "Nothingness," and been unable to get their minds around accepting it. I see "No-thingness" as being what all living things return to upon death of the body. With "no-thingness" you have no defining, no boundaries, no form. There is no differentiation, e.g., light or dark, big or small, high or low, black or white, colour or no colour, etc.
Conversely, when there is "some-thingness" you have differentiation. You then have our Finite existence. When something is finite, everything is changeable, there are boundaries, areas, up/down, wide/narrow, colours, blacks, whites, greys, loud, soft, far and near. There is a constant movement by degrees from one condition to another. So, to be conscious of this finite existence depends on change. Without change there can be no consciousness.
Change is thus the fundamental factor of our existence, all the time we are living, and finite. Without change there can be no consciousness. Once the body and the consciousness dies, there is Nothing.
God is infinite and therefore Nothing. You and I are finite and therefore Something.
Divine Consciousness therefore must be a Something in another dimention.
Will this cloud the issues for everyone here in the forum? Or is it too deep and difficult to grasp? Maybe needs to be a new Hub.
Most people are so caught up in what they think they know, that your above satement could be seen as a form of heresy.
LOL ! So you think Heresy has form? Bring it on! Better to enjoy it in this world than miss out when there is nothing left.
People fear change and almost hate giving up what they are accustome to. It's easier to judge and be negative, than to judge the self and be positive.
Very much so. I see this as the basis for that Monotheistic god which Chris Neal speaks of. It's much easier to look outwards for a cure, a release from having to do anything about "myself," than to look inward at where "I" am going wrong.
Again speaking as a former christian, I see the popular sayings of Jesus as pointing inwards, to the Self judgment area, for answers to life's problems.
E.g.- It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for
a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone.
"What do I need to do in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?"
Follow Me. (Pointing to the Inner Person.)
Following on from this, it is easier - and more entertaining really - to concentrate on the sins and misdemeanors of others than on what "I" get up to in my own life.
If my habitual thinking prevents my mind from expanding to these interpretations, then I will fall back on comfortable, accepted interpretations.
In this sense, Christ was telling his followers to meditate on themselve's, not so much outward perceptions. The material world has very little to do with the intangible self.
And with deeper self-knowledge comes more understanding of my neighbour and his/her needs. It's then a union, with two or more minds in empathy. With the union, each feels for the other's needs. A sense of belong results. When I feel at one (at-oned) with my brother/sister/wife/children/family then hurting them hurts myself.
I suggest the "awareness of belonging" is the true nature of Love. If, because of this Love, I willingly give up my life for my friend, that is "The Greatest Love a Man/Woman can have."
And yet a dog would do the same for it's master, for it pleases the dog to please the master. We are the masters of our own paths and we should be pleased to have a path at all.
Do you think that could be because the dog does not seem to have "ulterior" motive(s) beyond the need to eat, sleep, be housed safely and have good companionship?
Is it the complexity and sophistication of our human minds which have given us all the burden?
Was the "Garden of Eden" story an attempt to show how we moved from that simplistic life of the dog, etc., into a life of choices, and knowing we have choices and an awareness of right and wrong brings the ability to "sin?"
Not being mindful of how one affects another is part of it. We have a tendancy to judge and we don't even acknowledge that the fingers are pointed in the wrong direction. We see the actions of others as sins, yet we in our infinite wisdom, fail to see our own.
To love, to be loved.. To care, to be cared for.. we are no different from the dog in that respect, the problem is that we look for love witout first loving ourselves. We think we are on top, but in thinking we've lost touch with the commonality of our relationship to all things... The pedestal is quite high.
When I point with my index finger, there are three fingers pointing back at me.
Must get out of the house for some exercise now, not healthy sitting at the keyboard too long, so will not be answering more for a few hours.
"People fear change"
That's why I never use money, only plastic!
(it was a joke...)
"Again speaking as a former christian, I see the popular sayings of Jesus as pointing inwards, to the Self judgment area, for answers to life's problems."
Sort of agree with you do I. Speaking as a former atheist, yes. Jesus does tell us to examine ourselves. "Judge not lest you be judged" was Jesus talking to religious leaders of the day, saying it was not their job to judge who would get into Heaven and who wouldn't. God will take care of that. But he also made it clear (read almost any of His parables) that if we didn't follow Him then we would be rejected by Him at the Judgement. And He made the alternative sound pretty unappealing.
Chris, you have come back again to that adamant, arrogant, christian presumption that you know what is true and that you know what is good for yourself and others!
You say that you have proof that what you believe is true, yet you have simply come to a conclusion that a particular view of everything suits your own mind; it satisfies your particular way of seeing things.
It is highly egotistical for any christian believer to assume that what he or she believes is the one and only path.
Yes, you say you were once an atheist. That is an acceptable statement. You have found a pathway of understanding and acceptance which suits YOU. This does not make you right and others wrong.
This is the major reason I remain an atheist, (i.e. the type of god which sits in judgment of humans because "he" put them on the earth in the first place).
The judgment is done by other humans, like yourself, who find it convenient and ego-lifting to be able to declare yourself a christian when the other person is not.
You will find all manner of word twisting and attitude to support your position, as a christian, but it is only EGO speaking. And it is never the "Jesus" who rejects you or me. It is You or Me that rejects. A human construct.
God is infinite, therefore he is everything. He created it all. We are finite in this physical realm, to be sure, but our souls will live forever. However, unlike God, we have a beginning.
"Chris, you have come back again to that adamant, arrogant, christian presumption that you know what is true and that you know what is good for yourself and others! "
There is, of course, no presumption on your part right? I mean, you've got me figured out from the get-go, so whatever you say is right, right?
So, no chance that maybe, I don't know, GOD might have actually spoken to me?
Less sarcastically, I don't presume to know anything. I wasn't looking for God, or anything else. He spoke to me. And if what I believe is true, then it's true for everyone. If it's not, then it's true for no one, not even me. There is a mystical dimension to Christianity that is too easy to either get caught up in completely or dimiss completely. You are a smart person, you say you were a Christian, I would think you'd anticipate this line of reasoning.
"You say that you have proof that what you believe is true, yet you have simply come to a conclusion that a particular view of everything suits your own mind; it satisfies your particular way of seeing things."
Again, nothing dogmatic in your statement, n'est ce pas?
"It is highly egotistical for any christian believer to assume that what he or she believes is the one and only path. "
It would be if this were truly the sort of purely subjective reasoning you claim it is then reject. But it's not. I've heard from God. Believe it or don't but I claim nothing from my subjective motivations.
"Yes, you say you were once an atheist. That is an acceptable statement. You have found a pathway of understanding and acceptance which suits YOU. This does not make you right and others wrong."
Again, you assume that I was searching for a pathway. I wasn't. I was just toddling along in my own life. And again, if I were simply looking for some path of psychological ease, I would be you (by which I mean I would speak the way you do.) Christianity certainly is NOT the easy path to a wonderful life.
"This is the major reason I remain an atheist, (i.e. the type of god which sits in judgment of humans because "he" put them on the earth in the first place)."
I've wrestled with this one and still do. But the fact is, if God put people on the Earth and He has told us what is going to happen after we die, then it's kind of pointless to shake our fists and assert our rights.
"The judgment is done by other humans, like yourself, who find it convenient and ego-lifting to be able to declare yourself a christian when the other person is not. "
This is where the logic boggles my mind. Your breathtaking assumptions about me, bolstered by nothing more than your ready-made convictions and often despite things I have actually written, just baffle me. And the worst part of it is, that finger you point at me is connected to the three pointing back at you.
Human beings do judge. I do it. And if you think you're not doing it when you write this, then imagine that someone else was writing this to you. But God has pointed out how we so often judge wrongly. And that goes for everyone, you and me and everyone else.
"You will find all manner of word twisting and attitude to support your position, as a christian, but it is only EGO speaking. And it is never the "Jesus" who rejects you or me. It is You or Me that rejects. A human construct."
Again, how the fact that what you say applies so equally to you escapes me. But let me be clear, Jesus was not a "human construct." People don't willingly go to their death for something that ephemeral. If you have actual facts to support you, I'm interested, but otherwise that is just way, way too easy a thing to say.
Chris, I have not denied for one moment that my statements apply equally to myself.
Thank you for addressing my post so thoroughly and thoughtfully.
You're welcome. Nor do I deny that many statements I make apply equally to myself.
I haven't ignored your other posts, I just haven't had the time to thoughtfully respond. This particular one kind of needed a more immediate response. But I generally enjoy what you write, even though I don't agree with a lot of it.
A personal insight comes to me through this: that when I address you with some "zeal," for want of a better and more adequate word, I am in reality using you as a graffiti board on which to express my thoughts. As though you represent all that I feel critical of in the christian pursuit. So please forgive me for that and continue to be patient.
Obviously not every criticism can be leveled at you because I don't know you well enough. And maybe some of it I am directing back at myself, for the hypocrisy which I felt was part of my life back then, 40-50 years ago.
Having moved on from that, and having acquired lots more understanding which sits well with my mind and life at this point in time, it can be fun expressing my points of view in this forum. Hopefully not at the expense of some other person's right to be heard.
One of the joys of a good discussion IS to come out the other side, still respecting and re-joining with the opponent.
Hi Chris. I'm curious about something. You say you've heard from God. I wouldn't argue that point. What bothers me, to some extent, about the religious argument is that many times the convictions of the believer appear to function far outside of the boundaries of what God might have said to them. I'd be interested in the exact words you heard from God.
To claim to feel the presence of the spirit is one thing; but can you say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God backs your opinions? Or (and I think this is more likely, simply because it is the conclusion I came to) is it simply that you assume you are correct and your religion is the ultimate truth because you felt the spirit while practicing Christianity? That you dove into the scriptures because you wanted to feel more of that spirit?
Claiming universal truth is a slippery slope. It rarely leads to anything other than attempts at spiritual enslavement. Many from different walks of life and belief systems claim a relationship. To believe one is to believe them all. Which means that, although I have no doubt that each person is loved....religion is not the impetus that drives the love projected onto this plane. Religion is more of a desperate attempt to get more of a good thing.
I wish that I could express myself as well as you do.
I like these of which you speak am certain that I've been contacted by some kind of higher inteligance. Whatever this intelligence is; is what people are calling GOD.
Can I draw a picture of it" NO! Can I explain it adequately; certainly not!
Does it express itself to everyone else the same way that it does to me; NO!
So what am I trying to say?
I don't know. Maybe? everyone has a different journey through life, and "IF" we were to never go off track, our directions for arriving at the desired destination would be more universal.
I know that I didn't stay on track. And maybe I need to take a left turn to get back on track where you need to take a right turn.
I can't follow your directives and you can;t follow mine.
I love peanut butter and you may be allergic.
Yep! I'm having another BF
You've made several good points and asked several good questions.
The thing about your first point is that you need to know exactly what God said to the believer, and how it was said and through what forum, to make the judgement about whether their convictions "function far outside of the boundaries of what God might have said to them." Although there are certainly the Westboroites who seem to have their opinions etched in stone, most honest believers are constantly examining what they think and why.
Which basically answers your second question. I've written before that there is a mystical component to most religion (and certainly there is to " (which I have) then yes, you do dive into the Scriptures in order to feel more of that. I don't assume that I'm correct about anything except that there is a God and Jesus is His Son. But in reality this is not even an assumption because I've felt the Spirit, seen prayer answered, and seen the working of God in my own life and the lives of others. Some of the "finer points" I try to search out and reason out, but I don't assume I'm automatically right.
Your third point is in fact not invalid. Most honest Christians, including both liberal and conservative theologians, agree that the universal truth claims made by the Bible hold true, but there is room for difference of opinion about a lot of things. I'm a Calvinist (which I'm sure surprises nobody) but I don't think that Armenians or even Catholics are excluded from Heaven. Everyone has to work out their own salvation "with fear and trembling" and although we are responsible for telling other people about Jesus, we are not responsible for deciding who will or won't make it into Heaven.
I appreciate the response; although, I'll admit, I find it uncomfortably lacking. Only because I think religion is all over the map when it comes to a God. The reason I suspect that believers are falsely claiming they have the benefit of God's guidance is because God cannot be telling each believer something different. God cannot be telling the devout of other religions something different.
I find it admirable that you appear to believe a Christian is a Christian, but that doesn't appear to be the general consensus within Christianity. And others who put their faith in God, whom they know by other names, appear to fall short in your estimation as posted. And you claim guidance by the spirit, so to believe you would be to believe that it is not only the will of God that you believe this, but it is his desire that everyone else who seeks his guidance are being led down completely different paths. That God is purposely setting our world at odds.
The only way to accept this as truth is to believe that God, for some mysterious reason, wants to foment war and unrest within our plane of existence. I don't understand why a god might consider that desirable.
Yes, "religion" is all over the map. And it is true that people who believe they have God's guidance yet claim vastly different things can't all be correct. We could all be wrong, but we can't all be right. This is something that apologetics has dealt with for centuries.
To be honest, I deal with your second point by struggling. Jesus did tell us to not judge lest we be judged, and that was specifically a command to not decide who will be saved because that decision is God's alone. But a decision to abide by Jesus' command is not the same as an embrace of universalism, even Rob Bell-style. God has no other names. Islam, Hindu, Buddha, Aboriginal religions do not worship the same God I do, and claims to the contrary are (at best) just papering over real disagreements about fundamental issues. And yes, even within the faith I don't believe that everyone who claims the name of Christ will be saved. Jesus said as much Himself. This is why honest believers must constantly examine their own beliefs in light of Scripture and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.
To be a little more specific, it's not His desire that everyone who seeks His guidance be led down different paths. Those who are going down different paths have different guides, and the paths do not all lead to the same destination.
God does want to foment war and unrest, but people do this anyway. There has always been some reason for this, large and small, and sometimes it's religion and sometimes it's land and sometimes it's oil. God doesn't desire it (read the Bible!) but He doesn't actively stop it the way we think maybe He should.
One of the biggest mistakes most people make (and I have often) is to measure God by human standards. It would be better to measure humans by the standard of God. And we must strive every day to understand that standard to the best of our feeble ability.
The fact there are other religions with other gods with followers who claim the same thing is enough to show gods don't exist let alone speak to their followers.
Hearing voices is schizophrenia. Please seek professional help.
"The fact there are other religions with other gods with followers who claim the same thing is enough to show gods don't exist let alone speak to their followers."
This logic SEEMS so self-evident to a lot of people that it's easy to subscribe to. I know I used to. But it's actually more like saying: "The fact that other versions of the Mona Lisa that look like what we think of as the original shows that there is no original Mona Lisa."
Your generous offer notwithstanding, I'm older and smarter than that. Don't be so naive.
Obviously not, if that's the example you gave.
There is an original Mona Lisa and it can be discerned from non-originals and shown. Duh.
So, with your example, you must be implying that you're quite able to show us your "original" God. Can you?
I tell you a true-life story and you dismiss it out of hand.
If that doesn't say it all, nothing will.
Everything I've ever said about you is true with one exception...
You are definitely too dumb (by choice) to (want to) understand what I say (because then you would have to act like a real human being.)
Can I show you my God? The "original"? Yes, I can.
I asked you before to ask yourself why so many people believe in God. You never dealt with that, at least not with me. People with PhD's believe, physicists, doctors, lawyers. Ask why educated people believe in God.
Have you ever looked at the lives of people who believe in God? I don't mean the few you want to be negative about, I mean the whole and sum.
I can show you a million place and people who will prove the existence of God, if you're willing to actually look. But I think you want a burning bush. And my experience with "burning bushers" is that even when they get what they want, they don't accept it.
Still waiting to see your God... tick tock...
They were indoctrinated by their parents and peers. I have mentioned that several times here.
Statistics show that the more educated one is the less likely they are to believe in gods. Getting an education and not breaking ones indoctrination does not equate to the existence of gods.
Of course, it is one of the main reasons why the world is in such a bad state.
Still waiting to see your God... tick tock...
I'm not interested in fairy tales, I'm interested in you showing me your God.
So, when can I expect to see Him? I would like to mark it into my calendar if possible. Perhaps, you could send the both of us a meeting reminder, that way I'll also have His email address?
You know, on another forum I dealt with a guy who had a similar monicker to yours, something like Wild Crazy Guy or something like that. I gave him clear, honest, concise answers, and he always came back with the same thing, "I WANT MY BURNING BUSH!"
I don't believe you're too dumb to understand what I say. I believe you get a thrill from acting too dumb to understand what I say.
So predictable... tick tock
So intractable...tick tock
Pat answers easily reached for as bulwarks against possibly having to face uncomfortable truths are still wrong. They're just comfortable.
tick tock...tick tock...tick tock...
I would have to agree with this and the above statement. Religion can straighten out one's own moral compass, though sometimes it can fuel a mob mentality.
That aside, people have only themselve's in this world. We are trapped by our own dogma and we definitely create our own dichotomies, religion (if practiced on an individual basis) can lead to a more fulfilling existance. When someone goes to a religious venue to be with the crowd and do what the others are doing, he/she is missing the point all together. Religion is about seeking a higher path, not about pleasing the higherarchy of the governing clergy or what have you.
Yet, all it's ever accomplished is destruction and genocide. Christianity has failed miserably at solving anything. It divides people and sets them against one another. Pure nonsense, dude.
Not true. Christianity kept history alive.
Christianity fed the poor in Calcutta.
Christianity sent in people to help in New Orleans when the government was unwilling and unable to.
And Christianity has given people who need to be angry something to be angry at. A better grasp of actual history would be helpful, but I don't think you're all that interested. As long as you can point at any one given thing and say that's all it is, you're satisfied!
While it murdered millions as a result.
Certainly not your personal version of history.
Perhaps, but all you have is your personal version as well.
First of all, what you are saying (whether you intended to or not) is that Christianity is the only force in recorded history that has ever decided to murder those who disagree with it for any reason. That is so not true that it really doesn't deserve the respect of a reply. BUT...
If you didn't mean to say that, then you might be a little more precise with your facts and a little less generous with your attacks.
If you DID mean to say it...
And that's just dealing with the (over)generalizations!
You mean the one written in history books as opposed to the bible?
Don't flatter your religion, Christianity does not hold the monopoly on murdering those who disagree with it's dogma.
Yes, I mean that I am dealing with history written in history books, as opposed to wherever you get your stuff from.
Only you would take what I said, twist it just a little, and then congratulate yourself as if you came up with something new.
I'd forgotten exactly why treating you the way I used to was such an irresistable temptation. You make it so easy!
Don't flatter yourself, though. I said exactly the same thing, only better!
Oh yeah, and it still fed the poor in Calcutta.
Which atheist organization did that? And when did they start?
"When Mother Teresa died, foreign dignitaries and the Western news media descended on the city. The reports on the funeral portrayed a city filled with starving orphans, wretched slums and dying people abandoned on the streets, except for the fortunate ones rescued by Mother Teresa.
Charity need not be inconsistent with clarity. Calcutta is a modern Indian city where poverty and inequality coexist with measurably increasing prosperity, expanding opportunities, cautious optimism and, above all, pride in its unique character. Mother Teresa might have meant well, but she furthered her mission by robbing Calcutta of its richly nuanced identity while pretending to love it."
New York Times
Of course! Put forth an excerpt from an opinion piece as an actual, factual rebuttal of my question! Brilliant!
Brilliant fail, that is...
All right, pick some other city. Christian organizations are usually there first and are sometimes the only ones who go to alleviate misery. I will take your silence on the actual question to mean your acknowledgement that no atheist organizations do this sort of thing. And if any do, the Christian organizations were there first and did it better.
However, you being you, I think you will now try to sidestep the original question altogether and concentrate on the "evils" of religion. It's so much easier to deal with the black and white cardboard figure you construct than the messy reality of actual answers.
Pity, you seem so much smarter than that...
The western leader uses religion for capitol gain, the common man thus is used by those very same leaders. We break our backs, they get a raise. We get a raise, they get a bigger one. They have bawls, we have parties... And there's no such thing as royalty in america? I don't dislike the richest 1%, I abhor the ruling 1% of the 1%...
I'm not sure what this has to do with God, though. The God I worship is not the creation of any western leaders. And I have my own problems with the 1%, but that has nothing to do with whether Jesus died and rose again to save me, and you, and ATM and everyone else, from our sins.
That's interesting. What do you mean that I'm being "led" by them? Are you saying that I have willingly given up independent thought? Or that I have embraced a notion that is central to a truth-claim and follow through with all the logical implications thereof?
Think about all the times a president or a public figure claimed a religious title... Why would they do such a thing? To gain support and followers? Most likely. When they've found an agreeable audience/public, they begin working on their own agenda and their followers begin to mean less, as the power and money begin mean more.
So, no God then? You were just blowing hot air about showing your God to me?
All right, since I'm interested in playing fair...
One last time...
What exactly are you interested in seeing? A burning bush or other reproduceable phenomena? A personal miracle?
Jesus actually showing you the holes in His hands and sides?
The testimonies of people who did not grow up as Christians, or even believers, who made decisions for Christ?
Are you really interested in any real or supposed proof? Have you already made up your mind that anything anyone can show you is ipso facto invalid because the very fact that they believe is all you really need to make up your mind?
These are serious questions, I'm genuinely interested. I'm not accusing. You're reaction will determine all further action.
Exactly what you claimed you would show me, which is your God.
Yes, I am, and I am quite happy to recant absolutely everything I've ever said about your God.
No one has ever shown God, so your point is moot.
No, you showing me your God will determine all further action.
So, where is He? When are you going to show me your God? How much longer are you going to stall? Get with it, man!
Predictably, you answer a direct question with no directness whatsoever. You have all the outs you think you need and never commit yourself to anything.
You've seen all the God you need to see, you just won't look.
You claim to show me your God and you have not done so, you keep stalling.
Where? Show me?
Hey Chris! When are you going to quit stalling and show me your God? How long do we have to wait?
A troubled man, Christians means Christ like. What you refer were not Christians who kill. Exception is national right to protect.
Agree but the problem with Christianity is that the whole bible is full of telling people about sins and good deeds ...
and just in one place it says ... that Jesus absorbed everyone's sins and buried them in the ground so there is no such thing as going to hell
if that was the case .. y does it even talk about sin anyway when it is not going to affect anyone in any way possible
Actually, it was because he didn't pay his taxes. That was the standard sentence for that particular transgression back then.
It wasn't in vain! It accomplished exactly what it was intended for.
Just because we misunderstand what the intentions were ??? doesn't change the event one bit.
It poisons the teaching and the meaning of the message.
sorry it takes me so long to reply to coments sometimes.
cooking breakfast washing dishes and such.
Do we ever fully understand the intentions behind someone elses actions.
I know I don't.
If jesus actually was a saccrifice, he was probably saccrificed to show men their own evil nature, not for the sake of religion.
I think that the only answer that we can have in this matter is to remember that which he said.
He came into the world to fulfill all prophesy concerning himself.
I would guess to answer this question, we would have to search those prophesy.
He sacrificed Himself, so that men could be made right with God. He spent His time before the sacrifice teaching men about our own evil natures.
My problem with your replies here, Chris, is that you state things as being facts, whereas they are your beliefs. "I believe that Jesus Christ ......" would be a more honest way for you to write.
No, that would be dishonest on my part.
Either He did it or He didn't. If I believe something that is wrong then I'm pretty much guilty of everything that troubledman has accused me of. But if I believe something that is right, then I am guilty of worse by sidestepping.
It's not about what makes me comfortable. If that were the case, I would not be a Christian. It's about what's true. And God is true. It would be worse than useless to choose to believe something that is not.
Chris Neal, Dinesh D'Souza wrote books: What is good about America and What is good about Christianity. Excellent books. People who are doing nothing they do not have anything to do just criticize others. Is something bothering them inside?
Its a wrong concept ... Jesus Didn't sacrifice himself for the absorption of other men sins ... but he did that just to show that he remained steadfast in the way of the God and didn't leave it ... and while someone pretended to do that ... he was taken up to the heaven and one day he will return before the Judgement day to this world ... to bring the never ending chaos to an end and spread peace and love in whole of the Earth
I am unfollowing this thread... it's full of nonsense as far as I am concerned.
"Jesus' saccrifice was in vein" as posed by mischeviousme, You are correct sir for saying Jesus sacrifice was in vein, for it was only by His blood spilled forth from those veins that we are atoned for of our sins and of sins for future generations.
Even those who yet to know of Jesus or even those who would curse Him; all will one day know Him. He is the "Living Water", those who came to hurry His death on the cross and having discovered he had already returned to the Father, pierced His side, from which forth spewed a large amount of blood and water.
Only by the shedding of that precious blood was the proper sacrifice made, the sacrifice of the Lamb.
I don't expect all to believe that He died for them, in fact, Paul said that "For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing in 1 Corinthians 1:18
As far as other religions are concerned, Ghandi himself admired Christ, he just wasn't too sure about Christians. God is love!
It's not.. but everything must happen.. It is for the prophecy to be fulfilled.. Can a molded pot say to the potter, = Sir don't make me like this, it's not fair.. It is what the potter wants and wills.
How does this pertain to any thing? Is this just another uneducated argument with another ridiculous comment made by an unbeliever? IS there anything you really need to learn from this posting or our you looking for another worthless argument that you will choose to ignore? Perhaps the sacrifice was a waste of your time.
IF you read the Bible then you would know the reason for his sacrifice and not claim other wise. If you do not believe in God then why would you care about such a sacrifice at all. What is the point?
At the risk of sounding repetitive: "Obvious troll is obvious"
chill...jesus never sacrificed......imagine you being son of god and your father hanging you and then saving you...you too know that ur father would not let u die...you also know that your father has all fixed...how is that sacrifice?...in today's term it would be called political stunt...
The show ain't over till the fat lady sings.
Imagine that you want your followers to rejoice at your murder. Bathing in the blood, performing ritualistic cannibalism. I smell something fishy...and it ain't Galilee!
Yeah i agree ... and that is exactly what it was ... he didn't sacrifice himself to take all the sins inside of him but he showed the others that he did something like but in actual he didn't
@bali77 u mean to say jesus was liar,manipulator?....i dont think that is true...jesus was convinced that he is someone special...death proved him wrong like it does to most god mans, prophets etc ....but then story was invented by his followers...
first for going in vein, there must be sacrifice to start with...If we believe in divinity of Jesus...it was not sacrifice but stunt...if we believe jesus was ordinary human being , dying for one's conviction is age old phenomena and cant be termed as sacrifice...
by CONSCIOUSNINJA 8 years ago
This is a common belief amongst Christians, but a few questions arise...what about the individuals that lived before Jesus' arrival on Earth?if Jesus died for your sins, then whats the motivation to do good deeds in life?why would God be unjust & punish (be it symbolic) ONE individual? ...a...
by jay_kumar_07 9 years ago
Which one is correct of the followingJESUS died for our sin.JESUS died for sin.I think that JESUS died for sin is correct.It means that JESUS died and wone the globe for us not to allow sin to over come on us.JESUS told that resist the sin[devil].It will dissapear.
by Melissa Barrett 6 years ago
There's a lot of going back and forth about how Christians are this that or another. Yet no one ever pins down exactly what specific belief it is that makes Christians delusional, or hateful or whatever. The fact is that not all Christians believe the same thing, and not even members of our own...
by Carolyn Dahl 7 years ago
Was the Law nailed to the cross when Jesus died?Many Christians believe that the Law is done away with or nailed to the cross. Do you believe this and why?
by Dave Mathews 10 years ago
I will preface this by stating the obvious. I am, by choice a Christian, meaning that I chose to adopt and follow to the best of my ability the teachings of Jesus Christ and Christianity.I was raised up in the Roman Catholic Church, BUT I chose to stay with the Catholic Church because I love the...
by Liam Hallam 9 years ago
Why do you feel that many people have deserted a particular religion or simply chosen not to followHave the major religions not moved with the times? As an agostic i'd like to see what others feel and see?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|