jesus my good dear friend, was almost stoned for defending personal soverignty wihtin individuals, FIRST amttemping to go under, lower than any self pride of the aggorgant, who that they ruled other's???

then, if good reasoing did not equate to common ground, he met with equal force with equal force, motive to enslave versus motive to free to personal condidence, then if there was no reaosing nor sight here, then the third, the greater strength and power, of words that do not fail???

and indeed, he was willing to die for the libertie's of the of anything oppressed by self professed power???

if this my friend, one deem as blaspemee, then blaspheme be a virtue, and a thing of partiotism, in humanity...

your perception is but filtered with the sight of many evil besides self, and this my friend, be but a audacious presumptuious one, that deem itself worthy to hold the happiness and welfare of other's captive to but what two singular eye's can but see, which is a travesty to any freedom and equalness amoung equals...

so what is not willing to blaspheme belief, as cursed, and only but what save itself, is the one that hath not greater love, once called a long time ago, love unconditional.

is this why it was said, that in "that day", no blaspheme will be forgiven, because it indeed need not forgiveness, because unconditional love cannot once forgive something, then another time not.

i think your perception of god need some inspecting???

i think your perception of what any definition of god must be need inspecting???

so i but ask questiuons your speech make me wonder, and now but ask???

what say ye your heart of god nubby???

what say ye there dear friend???

do you but consider me as the opposer???

the enemy???

the oppressor???

of all things met, each is as either an oppressor of good, or a perpetuater of more good???

does this not have to be???

so what do you actually deem as more good???

why do you serve your religion???

what is your first root motive for doing so???

is it peace for all???

is this not the only perfect love???

is not god supposed to be perfect love???

how does perfect love draw such small circle's in it's definition of god???

did not god make all???

so if one know god, that made all, should it not know how all are good, and not how all are bad???

is this the representation of good news???

is this the representation of unconditiional love, that anything that profess to follow jesus is supposed to be and hold and wield as prime directive, and passion???

all i see is belief is king, no matter the cost, being most then people are secondary, and if god is life, then is not other's life, and quality of happiness, as anymore a worthy cause???

just questions man...

an inquiring mind, just a devil's advocate, as if the thoughts are on'e self already has, then how are they anything that evoke any new thought, and GOD was called EVER LEARNING, SO LEARNING NEW DATA EACH SECOND???

peace man...

haha wow, point proven. no room for debate right there. the believers of those religions will say the exact same about your religion.

its almost worth giving up trying to open the clouded mind of a "man of faith". it would be easier to teach a neanderthal how to speak.
oh wait, neanderthals never existed......

All religions do have there point of exclusivity.

I was defending why there is no room for other religions in Christianity. If you want to examine the evidence, I have spent many days now defending the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, it would do you well to read over it.

there is nothing you say, that has not been heard a million time's before???

what can help that it not find greater truth within words repsoken time and again, many time's over......

it is but a "world of love", a world of all as one, and your religion deny in it's inception of all belief, in it's very root motive, a willingness nor want to do such???

what else needs to be seen but this???

your religion is but a world of love of one???

a belief of a love of some???

that in itself, tells me it is not of perfect love, so come not from any greater intelligence, called as enought understanding, to embrace that which is not just as itself???

take it, keep it, sleep with it, eat it, mate with it, perpetuate it, each perpetuation of it is a mis step???

how many does it each human thing get???

how many mis steps toward what is without any doubt, not unconditionaly love, as god, does each human get???

no one know's???

but it is indeed, to me, foul bias and self biased toward but self alone.

peace nubby, that have nothing but partial nubs to cling to, to convince itself, it is of anything called love of god.

no peace do i see for thee.

just what this one reality see.

that is all each speak.

the only actuality, is what happen, or it is but dogma and doctrine, been fed as wisdom for far too long now.

Correct me if I am wrong but the way you wrote this it sounds like you are making a judgment of me. If you are calling me a sinner be fore warned that as you judge so shall you be judged...

Your statement DRIPS of PRIDE.


If the way to heaven is through Jesus I hope he understands if I push him aside! I only answer to God MAYBE! I will stand before God while you kneel, I will even fold my arms in God's face if God tries to Judge me. Why? I try to live in balance which says a lot more than any other religion does. I don't need a savior to lead me anywhere.

My way may not be perfect but it is not flawed like Christian logic! I am not a blind follower any more.

I bet it ruffles your feathers knowing that some of us would rather choose to 'grow' to be like God rather than live in submission of him. It may be my personal pride but when people say to set my sights high I can think of no ambition or goal more lofty. It would be hubris on my part to assume any God like potential on my part. I am a child of God so I choose to grow up to be like God if it is at all possible. It is not about Dominion. I doubt you would even remotely begin to understand my point of view because you cling to such short sighted vision of the world around you.

Jesus is a warm snuggly security blanket for those who cannot face a cold cruel world alone.

In death will come the truth and I don't think the truth is what any of us would care or choose to believe. Until then Carpe Diem. if living a life without Jesus is a sin them I am HELL BOUND my friend! That means Satan has been keeping my throne warm all these years!

So I do have a good after life to look foreword to as a ruler of hell!

I guess being a good person is not good enough in your book!


Hail to Saint Peter, Keeper of Heaven's Gate!

In context the verse you are talking about is about judging another believer.

I am sorry if what I wrote came off the wrong way.

the evidence you provide to defend your god is just as reliable and credible as the evidence other religions provide to defend theirs.
who are you to say that yours is right? who is the pope to say yours is right when there is just as much if not more evidence to point away from christ if you take into consideration people of other religions and evolution?
christians make up a fraction of people on this planet, that is what you have to realize.

I was reading a criticism on Bart Ehrman and the guy wrote that Bart tries to shock people by telling them that the bible has been changed so many times, etc. and then stated that while yes that is true, he only does it to shock!!! Now that is just silly, he agrees with the scholarship, but apparently wants to keep it hidden so that he can refute the conclusions.

for whatever my opinion is worth....maybe i'm the only one that thinks this way. i don't see anyway to "prove" to someone elses satisfaction of whether there is a higher power or not. no side can prove beyond a shadow of doubt either way. no one can prove how everything in this world got started to begin with. at some point there is no explaination to the satisfaction of others.

while some people chose to "debunk" theories....their own theories can't be proven any more than others. can anyone prove to others what their beliefs (or non-beliefs) are???? no. having an adult debate is a great thing....as long as everyone can keep in mind that no one will ever convince another of something. it's spinning the wheels

Expressing belief is tricky to do without coming off like a fanatic or nutcase. Our words can be a good weapon to defend our views but likewise they can be turned against us. All truth is speculative based on the view point of the beholder. An experiment was conducted by LAPD in conjunction with four other departments in four other cities in four other states.
The experiment went like this. A "Murder" was committed in public and the police responded to the scene like they normally would have. The number of witnesses varied because this exercise was conducted several times mostly for training purposes BUT the LAPD was also generating data from the experiment. Each crime was filmed and compared to witness testimony taken at the scene of each crime. Only LAPD was privy to what happened being an exercise. Every witness had a different story and every witness either left out certain details or fingered the wrong 'perpetrator.' A lot of times the description of the perpetrator was different witness for witness. Only a scant few witnesses accurately described the crime and also accurately described the perpetrator.

So lies the same flaws in religious belief. There are Catholics but then again what flavor of Catholic is each one? The hard core fanatic? The 'Jack' Catholic that says they are but really are not?
Religion is different things to different people. To me it is lies used to passivate people to give them piece of mind that really does not exist because of their own personal fears. There is truth in the bible but it is not about the martyrdom of a man. The truth is we should be leading good lives in peace with each other but frankly that is a pipe dream because of all of the different opinions proclaiming being right and trying to shepherd all of us into their fold. It is this lack of tolerance that discredits religion in general.

Instead of helping people focus on THEIR own lives they are made to focus on a man 2000 + years long dead with a promise of his return.


Did you ever stop to think once that the so called "Rapture" happens who the meek are that will inherit the earth after the fire and brimstone of Armageddon?

Here's a hint...



I think people need to focus more on living a good life rather than trying to appease God. You do not need Jesus to do that.

bingo!

if we cannot implore one another with reasoning and logic, then we no longer have the ability to reason, nor see logic???

what be reasoning but recognizing logic???

what define reality but logic???

what be logic greater than what all deem as logic???

what empower unto creating with the mouth and hands, but reasoning unto logic, which tell and teach how to create good reality???

it is only what deny the power of logic and reasoning, that show itself has neither better logic or reasoning???

logic and resoning totally equate to what self can create, and to believe so know it, would cripple all logical deduction, that allow anything to accept, that itself is creating reality???

to not see self as responsible for creating all that happen around self, with the sight that self repsonse is what create all things, for one and all equally, is to be blind to any power within of any ability at all, to effect anything, and serve but to create a victim mentality, that forever suffer, only due not yet the sight, that itself can and does create all???

each thing must see itself as the only creator of all around itself, or self become a victim of itself.

what like to believe itself is repsonsible for all the negative that come to itself???

there is no greater lack of self sight than blaming another, and deeming "all not well" as another's doing.

anything that take single repsonsibility for all percieved as not best and well, gain the greater pieces of sight and peace and power, of giving the greatest love, erasing all that is not best and well for other's???

what is reality but logic defined with proven good reasoning???

what is reasoning but sanity???

if there is no reasoning with logic, which only be logic greater than what emotion's dictate, then there is no better logic nor reasoning???

debate defend belief, reasoning implor unto greater logic???

if reasoning cannot implore unto the greater logic that abide, then only a mirror can provide, a view into what only hide, from what it hope's and wishes does not reside???

intelligence is reasoning that absorb all it hear???

friendship unto greater intelligence and passion, is but the total absorption of two, of all each other know???

if reality is defined based only against self as the dictator of reality, as a and any belief followed instill, self will most believe itself in any exchange, which in time lead to but sheer lack of all logic and reasoning, which is sheer lack of sanity in due time, which is but sheer madness???

if self effectively rationalize anything negative of itself does not exist, self erode and destroy the very foundations of it's own sanity, even unto destroying itself and many around itself???

what is denied exist within, has but now been given free reign to be created, even if it did not truly exist at first???

the power of denial reduce the brain and body and spirit to it's own pile of ashe???

if reality become only what two eye's see, anything believing most itself, and of course as always, those that agree with what self wish to haven proven true, by another's words, then true reality no longer exists, and only become's but illusions as ghosts, that dance and haunt, being defined as real???

two eye's alone, never did, never will, nor ever can, add up to any greater tell, or equasion, of what greater reality be???

if self base reality on but itself, then reality become as small as a needle point, narrowed to self sight of nothingness indeed???

a self perceived lost one, look up unto the sky, and one day find god, and immediately turn and set forth now seeking approval from the eye in the sky, instead of hearing the voices of it's own family of one, and of the world???

a self percieved lost soul, kneel at the cross, and beg forgiveness, for all it's sins, then immedetialy find a belief, that make it still serve itself most, which was the first sin it thought it had,
causing itself unhappiness???

one has no sin, as long as it does not deem another's sin as any greater than it's own???

text never called sin anything more than perpetual unhapppiness and personal dissatisfaction with self???

if all are born into some state of this at some time, all enduring some great pain, and misery, and sadness, then it is easy to see the greater meaning in the words, all are born into sin???

if something is truly happy, it cannot have any sin, so happiness be the tell, not such underling arrogant thinking such as sin???

did not text say, what is sin for one is not sin for another???

of course, one "beings" happiness is another "beings" misery???

what misery can one aborb for another, less it see past itself???

belief be only a dictator of the heart, making a slave, with the constant dictatorship unto itself, of who it can accept and love, and why belief taken to save but self, was called a curse unto the one that still love it???

hum...

just questions from a questioning brain.

peace unto peace

Erhman doesnt tell you though that many of these changes are actually things like sentence structure, a missed peried, a misspelled word. That is what most of these changes are. Erhman is one of the best textual critics today, but he makes these errors to sound worse than need be..

First of all, going by your logic, who are you to say I am wrong.

The evidence is not the same for all religions. For instance there are major philosophical problems with Islamic concept of God as being purely one. If this is true, then who was God loving before he created man. Allah then needed man to love.

Even if evolution is true, it could not have taken place with out God, according to Anthony Flew.

I have not heard one counter arguement to the four facts I stated earlier concerning the resurrection of Christ. If these four facts are true, then the Christian is amply justified in believing Christ rose from the dead.

2 things.
1. Like was pointed out to you the last time you came here, brought up the "facts" and then disappeared, The reason you haven't "heard" a counter-argument is because you ignore any counter argument made.
2. These "facts" are only found in the bible. That is one source. One source does not a fact make.

what I find funny are the people that instead of learn about others and have civil debates...they chose to do the prove it thing when they can't prove their own belifs are true either. they can't disapprove anything either. but yet instead of people posting their own threads about their own beliefs wanting an adult discussion...they chose to make others prove their beliefs. even when i posted a thread to find out how other beliefs (non-beliefs) help anyone that sufferes (from anything) very few posted in there. why???? because there was no fighting or something to tear down?

i come to the threads to learn about others...whether i agree or not. i have my own believes....but we all share this world and should understand each other (whether we agree or not)

i have tried to be "nice" and play "nice" but the threads started just to insult or discredit someone's beliefs are getting insane.

i hope people can learn to debate without saying prove it when they can't prove their own

I have really enjoyed people on here from all beliefs and non-beliefs...but it's getting old. best of luck to all

and yes i really mean that

And what was your counter argument that I supposedly ignored. Willliam Lane Craig used these four facts against Bart Erhman in a debate, not even Erhman could bring a argument against them. Erhman danced around them and was unable to recover after Craig displayed a mathematical equation to calculate the probability of the existence of Christ rising from the dead. Erhman then used humor to recover. It is not one source we are talking about here but the majority consensus of two thousand years of scholarship.

And I don't have a problem with anyone trying to learn about others beliefs. I do have a problem with people looking at the Holy Books and saying that the events on the pages are Facts when there is no other source for those events other than the holy book. When someone is claiming something to be fact, that isn't their belief, that is misinformation. Also, the "It's true because you can't prove it isn't true" argument is a BS argument.

to them IT'S TRUE. just like truths for YOU may not be for others. is this really a hard concept???? come to think about it....i don't think i even know what you belief or don't believe in....or a lot of other people on here because they would rather disprove everyone else.

proving or disproving a belief or disbelieve is a never ending cycle because there are things you can't prove to the satisfaction of others. might as well hold your breath

if you have a problem with it...then that is YOUR problem. i don't try to disprove others for their beliefs. i might debate something that contradicts something but in the end you agree to disagree or you are only spinning your wheels and just out for a fight

My Counter-Argument is right in front of you, yet you chose to ignore it.
The Events of the crucifixion of Jesus, and his supposed resurrection are only found in the bible. That is only one source of information. With only one source of this information, you cannot claim it has fact.
Personally, I feel that IF those events did take place, then we would have not just the bible, but Many more sources of accounts of these events from the Romans.
Also the facts that Jesus can't be properly placed in History(Most Christians believe that he lived from 0-33AD. But there is a significant percentage that feel he lived 100 year prior to that time period, 100-67BC)
And, because of events in the NT, that have been historically documented through other sources, we know that at the earliest, the NT was written after 70AD. At best, that leaves a 37 year gap, at worst(IF he lived) that leaves a 137 year gap between his death, and people writing about him.