100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Undeniable Truth | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Tue 05/03/11 06:00 AM
|
|
The people who crucified Jesus did not believe he was the son of God, the King of the Jews, or any divine messiah. They denied him before men as they were crucifying him and mocking him. Yet Jesus asked his Father to forgive them for they know not what they do, thus violating his own previous statement that he would deny those who deny him. So the whole thing is grossly flawed. Jesus' own actions and words fly in the very face of his previous words. Jesus's words are flawed because he spoke in parables, the teller of a parable can make the parable mean anything they choose or change the meaning of a parable at an instant Didn't Peter deny Jesus before Men not once but three times ...but did Jesus deny Peter to the Father once I dont know, I havent been with Jesus when he discussed Peter with the Father,,,lol MsHarmony...in that case try the bible ...simply look in one and the answer shall be revealed if Jesus denied Peter to The Father nah, since the beginning was the word, if thats true, I doubt any one book could have an all inclusive record of every thing that Jesus spoke to The Father about,,, MsHarmony....all you have to do is use simple logic....simply check in the bible and see if Jesus had any futher communication or mention anything about Peter or to Peter after Peter denied him to Man three times ...surely this information would be in the bible are any of Jesus , post crucifixion conversations with God,,,,in the bible? as I said, quite irrational to believe any one book could honestly contain all conversations of any two people, let alone two who have always existed,,, try finding out if Jesus said anything about Peter getting to Heaven or not getting to Heaven ...would that not then be an indication that Jesus did or didn't deny Peter to the Father ... MsHarmony..I know I'm asking a lot from you but you may have to actually look in the bible to find this answer why are we discussing peter because of the very first line on the very first post on the very first page presented by the very first poster of this thread ...it applies to Peter MsHarmony...if you are going to debate...then you have to try and stay focus to the major details pertaining to the topic IM quite aware how to debate, ,this is the first line of the first page by the first poster of this thread It is written in Matthew that Jesus claimed that he will deny men before his father if they deny him before men so,, why are we discussing Peter? jeez...what you got short term memory loss ... didn't Peter deny Jesus before Men .....yes or no come on I know you're steamed but enough of the silly reindeer games more like bored, and tired peter denied him three times, as Jesus had prophecied he would so since the bible is the only reference you can use and going with the assumption that you are not hearing voices that you believe is God...is there anything in the bible where Jesus denied Peter to the Father not that I recall because I dont recall the bible recording Jesus speaking to the Father after the incident besides while he was on the cross I imagine that he didnt, because by my learning, Peters heart was still with Jesus and had the opportunity to repent but in any case, are you seriously suggesting that if its not in the book, it couldnt have happened? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The people who crucified Jesus did not believe he was the son of God, the King of the Jews, or any divine messiah. They denied him before men as they were crucifying him and mocking him. Yet Jesus asked his Father to forgive them for they know not what they do, thus violating his own previous statement that he would deny those who deny him. So the whole thing is grossly flawed. Jesus' own actions and words fly in the very face of his previous words. Jesus's words are flawed because he spoke in parables, the teller of a parable can make the parable mean anything they choose or change the meaning of a parable at an instant Didn't Peter deny Jesus before Men not once but three times ...but did Jesus deny Peter to the Father once I dont know, I havent been with Jesus when he discussed Peter with the Father,,,lol MsHarmony...in that case try the bible ...simply look in one and the answer shall be revealed if Jesus denied Peter to The Father nah, since the beginning was the word, if thats true, I doubt any one book could have an all inclusive record of every thing that Jesus spoke to The Father about,,, MsHarmony....all you have to do is use simple logic....simply check in the bible and see if Jesus had any futher communication or mention anything about Peter or to Peter after Peter denied him to Man three times ...surely this information would be in the bible are any of Jesus , post crucifixion conversations with God,,,,in the bible? as I said, quite irrational to believe any one book could honestly contain all conversations of any two people, let alone two who have always existed,,, try finding out if Jesus said anything about Peter getting to Heaven or not getting to Heaven ...would that not then be an indication that Jesus did or didn't deny Peter to the Father ... MsHarmony..I know I'm asking a lot from you but you may have to actually look in the bible to find this answer why are we discussing peter because of the very first line on the very first post on the very first page presented by the very first poster of this thread ...it applies to Peter MsHarmony...if you are going to debate...then you have to try and stay focus to the major details pertaining to the topic IM quite aware how to debate, ,this is the first line of the first page by the first poster of this thread It is written in Matthew that Jesus claimed that he will deny men before his father if they deny him before men so,, why are we discussing Peter? jeez...what you got short term memory loss ... didn't Peter deny Jesus before Men .....yes or no come on I know you're steamed but enough of the silly reindeer games more like bored, and tired peter denied him three times, as Jesus had prophecied he would so since the bible is the only reference you can use and going with the assumption that you are not hearing voices that you believe is God...is there anything in the bible where Jesus denied Peter to the Father not that I recall because I dont recall the bible recording Jesus speaking to the Father after the incident besides while he was on the cross I imagine that he didnt, because by my learning, Peters heart was still with Jesus and had the opportunity to repent but in any case, are you seriously suggesting that if its not in the book, it couldnt have happened? well it's also not in the bible that Jesus turned into a unicorn..so come on MsHarmony try to stay with what's in the bible ....it's so odd that I have to tell a Christian that but anyway.. if the bible provide no reference to Jesus denying Peter to the Father after Peter clearly denied Jesus to Men...then that is why there is a flaw in the words of Jesus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep searching Abra and it will come to ya.. Blessings of Shalom..Miles   I already found my answers concerning the Jesus story. And I'd just shared them in this thread.  I'm not convinced that the "Real Jesus" actually said anything when he was being crucified. There's really not reason for me to believe any parts of those stories. The only thing I was pointing out are the inconsistency in these stories. The stories first have Jesus saying that he will deny men who deny him. But then on Calvary Jesus is pleading a case for the men who have denied him. That's an inconsistency whether these stories are true or false. So which should be believed? The Jesus who says he will deny men who deny him, or the Jesus who pleads that those men should be forgiven for they know not what they do? Can't the authors of these stories make up their mind what position they want their main character to take? In one place they claim the Father judges no man and all judgment has been committed to the son. And their claim is that Jesus is the son. But then on Calvary Jesus is asking the Father to forgive these men. Why? If all judgment has been committed to Jesus what's he asking his father to do the judging for? He could just forgive them himself. Authors who are just making up stories are highly likely to create huge errors like this without realizing it. However, for Jesus to be confused about his own stance is not realistic. Therefore only one conclusion makes sense. The stories are made up. The conclusion that Jesus is confused about his own duties and stance makes no sense at all. So I've found my answers. The stories are necessarily false. Jesus was probably just a pantheistic Jew trying to convince his fellow man to quit following their current interpretations of the Torah. Now that makes sense. Maybe its because of who he is speaking to in each instance. Maybe it goes far deeper than just looking at the outside shell. When you speak to those who are in a close nit group who say they share what you share. Thier is a totally different approach if they turn out to be decievers to the cause compared to those who just are outside looking in. The religious leaders who say but do not do are they not decievers? When one accepts all who are looking in and wondering and seeing with thier own eyes and do not believe yet a man forgives them for thier transgressions against him is this going against saying those who know and still deny that he will dent them.. Is that not cutting themselves loose. just a thought.. Blessings..Miles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miles wrote: Maybe its because of who he is speaking to in each instance. Maybe it goes far deeper than just looking at the outside shell. When you speak to those who are in a close nit group who say they share what you share. Thier is a totally different approach if they turn out to be decievers to the cause compared to those who just are outside looking in. The religious leaders who say but do not do are they not decievers? When one accepts all who are looking in and wondering and seeing with thier own eyes and do not believe yet a man forgives them for thier transgressions against him is this going against saying those who know and still deny that he will dent them.. Is that not cutting themselves loose. just a thought.. Blessings..Miles I truly don't see how there is any way to salvage the stories Miles. You could potentially salvage them in the way you describe concerning the point in 'denying' Jesus. In other words, Jesus is only going to consider those who actually believe in him to be "denying" him. People who he hasn't interacted with can't "deny" him since they know not what they do. Ok, if you attempt to 'salvage' the story that way, you keep the story afloat, but at the same time you FREE everyone who does not believe in Jesus from having the potential of "denying" him. Because in the end Jesus forgives people who don't know what they do. ~~~~~ So that salvages the story to a degree, but it basically kills hardcore religious proselytizers claim that Jesus would condemn just anyone who doesn't believe in him. So I'd be happy to accept your view either way on that point. ~~~~~~ However, you still have the far more difficult problem with these scriptures saying at one point that the Father judgeth no man and all judgment has been committed to the Son. But then when the Son is being crucified he calls out and asks the Father to forgive these people. Why bother asking the Father forgive them if the Father judgeth no man and all judgment has been committed to the Son? You've got a blatant contradiction and error in these scriptures right there that cannot be explained away in terms of "context". Either all judgment has been committed to the Son or not. And you can't very well have the Son claiming this at one point, and then not realizing it at a later point. That would only imply that the Son himself isn't sure what the hells going on. So it appears to me that these texts have unresolvable ERRORS in them and thus this give any rational personal sincere and valid reasons for being highly suspicious of these texts. The claim that these scriptures "Can't be Broken" or that they are in the infallible word of some God, is clearly false itself. Just because these scriptures make these claims doesn't make them true. These scriptures are indeed "broken" and flawed. Something's got to give. Everything that is being claimed in these scriptures cannot be simultaneously true. They must be errors and best, or outright lies at worst. There can be no doubt about it. It's clearly an undependable text. Period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
at first glance, perhaps with a clear head, perhaps with a 'jaded' one
I see at least one pretty obvious answer ,,,,to say judgment has been COMMITTED is a present tense statement, implying the very real possibility that judgment wasnt ALWAYS committed if Jesus made the sacrifice, than he could well have had judgment committed to him AFTER that sacrifice was completed,, leaving the Father in judgment prior and up to that point just a suggestion,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if Jesus made the sacrifice, than he could well have had judgment committed to him AFTER that sacrifice was completed,, leaving the Father in judgment prior and up to that point just a suggestion,,,, Well, I personally have extreme problems with the whole "Sacrificial Lamb" scenario in the first place. If Jesus was God's "Sacrificial Lamb", and the crucifixion was God Sacrificing his Son to pay for the sins of mankind, then the whole ritual of crucifying Jesus would have been a HOLY RITUAL. Thus everyone who participated in that sacrifice would have actually been performing God's HOLY SACRIFICE. So what would they need to be 'forgiven' for if they were ultimately doing God's WILL. I'm personally not impressed by an so-called God who can't forgive people unless he sees someone crucified first anyway. That whole scenario is truly about as sick and disgusting a picture that I can possibly imagine of a "God" anyway. It's utterly absurd to me that this crucifixion is something that God himself would 'require' before he can forgive people of their sins, yet at the same time act like anyone who partakes in this crucifixion is somehow doing something gravely WRONG. That's an oxymoronic scenario if there ever was one. ~~~~~~~~ In all honesty MsHarmony I truly cannot understand how anyone can support such an archaic image of such a brutal God. And then to go around holding out the notion that anyone who doesn't condone this sick demented picture of a God, is somehow "unworthy" of paradise? You've got to be kidding me! Surely it would be the other way around. People who reject these archaic gruesome stories because they are indeed sick and disgusting should be the people who are worthy of receiving eternal paradise. How can any rational person believe that a supposedly benevolent God could condemn anyone for not wanting to believe in ancient rumors that depict our creator to basically be an insane demon? I personally wouldn't blame anyone for rejecting these utterly absurd and gruesome stories as nothing more than sick demented fables. Yet you people expect me to believe that a supposedly all-wise all-benevolent God would condemn people for not believing these sick demented stories? As far as I'm concerned that flies in the very face of the idea that this God is supposedly "all-wise or benevolent in the first place. All the people who support this religion seem to want to do is use this religion to condemn everyone who refuses to cower down to its religious bigotry. Demanding that if you refuse to believe in this religion God will condemn you! That very notion right there is utterly absurd. It's an absurd picture of a God no matter how you cut it. ~~~~~ It's truly beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone in today's modern age can continue to support an ancient religion where a God supposedly has his own son sacrificed unto himself so that he can offer forgiveness to mortal men. Where is there anything wise or benevolent about such a notion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if Jesus made the sacrifice, than he could well have had judgment committed to him AFTER that sacrifice was completed,, leaving the Father in judgment prior and up to that point just a suggestion,,,, Well, I personally have extreme problems with the whole "Sacrificial Lamb" scenario in the first place. If Jesus was God's "Sacrificial Lamb", and the crucifixion was God Sacrificing his Son to pay for the sins of mankind, then the whole ritual of crucifying Jesus would have been a HOLY RITUAL. Thus everyone who participated in that sacrifice would have actually been performing God's HOLY SACRIFICE. So what would they need to be 'forgiven' for if they were ultimately doing God's WILL. I'm personally not impressed by an so-called God who can't forgive people unless he sees someone crucified first anyway. That whole scenario is truly about as sick and disgusting a picture that I can possibly imagine of a "God" anyway. It's utterly absurd to me that this crucifixion is something that God himself would 'require' before he can forgive people of their sins, yet at the same time act like anyone who partakes in this crucifixion is somehow doing something gravely WRONG. That's an oxymoronic scenario if there ever was one. ~~~~~~~~ In all honesty MsHarmony I truly cannot understand how anyone can support such an archaic image of such a brutal God. And then to go around holding out the notion that anyone who doesn't condone this sick demented picture of a God, is somehow "unworthy" of paradise? You've got to be kidding me! Surely it would be the other way around. People who reject these archaic gruesome stories because they are indeed sick and disgusting should be the people who are worthy of receiving eternal paradise. How can any rational person believe that a supposedly benevolent God could condemn anyone for not wanting to believe in ancient rumors that depict our creator to basically be an insane demon? I personally wouldn't blame anyone for rejecting these utterly absurd and gruesome stories as nothing more than sick demented fables. Yet you people expect me to believe that a supposedly all-wise all-benevolent God would condemn people for not believing these sick demented stories? As far as I'm concerned that flies in the very face of the idea that this God is supposedly "all-wise or benevolent in the first place. All the people who support this religion seem to want to do is use this religion to condemn everyone who refuses to cower down to its religious bigotry. Demanding that if you refuse to believe in this religion God will condemn you! That very notion right there is utterly absurd. It's an absurd picture of a God no matter how you cut it. ~~~~~ It's truly beyond my ability to comprehend how anyone in today's modern age can continue to support an ancient religion where a God supposedly has his own son sacrificed unto himself so that he can offer forgiveness to mortal men. Where is there anything wise or benevolent about such a notion? I'm personally not impressed by an so-called God who can't forgive people unless he sees someone crucified first anyway It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know that the sacrifice was for the benefit of God,,,but anyhow,,,it was just a suggestion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know that the sacrifice was for the benefit of God,,,but anyhow,,,it was just a suggestion It wasn't for the benefit of God. It didn't literally help God in any way shape or form. Jesus gave his life for you, him, her, I, and everyone else. He didn't give his life for God, again he gave his life for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know that the sacrifice was for the benefit of God,,,but anyhow,,,it was just a suggestion It wasn't for the benefit of God. It didn't literally help God in any way shape or form. Jesus gave his life for you, him, her, I, and everyone else. He didn't give his life for God, again he gave his life for you. I understand that, I was responding to the sentiment that the sacrifice was something God 'needed' in order to forgive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont know that the sacrifice was for the benefit of God,,,but anyhow,,,it was just a suggestion It wasn't for the benefit of God. It didn't literally help God in any way shape or form. Jesus gave his life for you, him, her, I, and everyone else. He didn't give his life for God, again he gave his life for you. I understand that, I was responding to the sentiment that the sacrifice was something God 'needed' in order to forgive Yeah good point, what could God possibly need in the first place? God created the world and all in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. But that makes no sense. Why would he have had to "die" for you, if dying for you wasn't some sort of requirement in the first place? Moreover, if we accept your stance on this religion all Jesus succeeded in doing was providing just yet another reason to condemn people according to you. Now we can be officially condemned for merely not believing in the Jesus story according to you! BIG HELP that would have been!  |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 05/04/11 02:19 PM
|
|
It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. You know what? When I look into history, I see tens of thousands of people who died for me, died for my freedom to live in this country. My own mother risked her life for me just giving birth and even though she is terrified of water and can't swim, I had no doubt that she would have jumped into deep water to try to save me if I was drowning. So that doesn't make Jesus any more self-sacrificing. Humans all have to suffer and die here on earth. But when an almighty angel comes down and does the same I guess they want to be worshiped for it as if they did something more than we humans do for each other in our daily lives all the time. Not to mention, that was 2000 years ago. How many people have died for me since? A lot I'm sure. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. You know what? When I look into history, I see tens of thousands of people who died for me, died for my freedom to live in this country. My own mother risked her life for me just giving birth and even though she is terrified of water and can't swim, I had no doubt that she would have jumped into deep water to try to save me if I was drowning. So that doesn't make Jesus any more self-sacrificing. Humans all have to suffer and die here on earth. But when an almighty angel comes down and does the same I guess they want to be worshiped for it as if they did something more than we humans do for each other in our daily lives all the time. Not to mention, that was 2000 years ago. How many people have died for me since? A lot I'm sure. Well, not only that, but when a mortal person dies for someone else, they actually DIE! If Jesus survived death to live eternally, then what sense does it make to claim that he "died" for anyone. According to the rumors he supposedly defeated death and therefore he didn't even "die" at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Wed 05/04/11 02:40 PM
|
|
It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. You know what? When I look into history, I see tens of thousands of people who died for me, died for my freedom to live in this country. My own mother risked her life for me just giving birth and even though she is terrified of water and can't swim, I had no doubt that she would have jumped into deep water to try to save me if I was drowning. So that doesn't make Jesus any more self-sacrificing. Humans all have to suffer and die here on earth. But when an almighty angel comes down and does the same I guess they want to be worshiped for it as if they did something more than we humans do for each other in our daily lives all the time. Not to mention, that was 2000 years ago. How many people have died for me since? A lot I'm sure. Well, not only that, but when a mortal person dies for someone else, they actually DIE! If Jesus survived death to live eternally, then what sense does it make to claim that he "died" for anyone. According to the rumors he supposedly defeated death and therefore he didn't even "die" at all. Yeh it would be like the movie the Highlander when one of the immortals die. Sure, it hurts like hell, but then they come back alive again. Or like the guy in "Men in Black" who kept getting his head shot off and kept growing it back. Sure, it hurt like hell, but shoot a human's head off and it don't grow back. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible is GREAT!
The bible SUCKS! The bible is GREAT! The bible SUCKS! The bible is GREAT! The bible SUCKS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The bible is GREAT! The bible SUCKS! The bible is GREAT! The bible SUCKS! The bible is GREAT! The bible SUCKS. That would be great if that's all it amounted too. But it's really more like the following: ~~~~~~ God hates you for not worshiping my religion!  I think God loves everyone no matter what they believe. No, God hates you for not worshiping my religion! I think God loves everyone no matter what they believe. No, God hates you for not worshiping my religion! I think God loves everyone no matter what they believe. No, God hates you for not worshiping my religion!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. You know what? When I look into history, I see tens of thousands of people who died for me, died for my freedom to live in this country. My own mother risked her life for me just giving birth and even though she is terrified of water and can't swim, I had no doubt that she would have jumped into deep water to try to save me if I was drowning. So that doesn't make Jesus any more self-sacrificing. Humans all have to suffer and die here on earth. But when an almighty angel comes down and does the same I guess they want to be worshiped for it as if they did something more than we humans do for each other in our daily lives all the time. Not to mention, that was 2000 years ago. How many people have died for me since? A lot I'm sure. but how many died for you even AFTER you denied theyou currsed and accues them? how many were tortured for you ? How many died even though they could have SAVED themself with just a word? Jesus sacrificed himself though he could have saved himself,, those who die for us usually dont choose death so much as they choose the CHANCE they might die,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
who has made the claim that God hates anyone? its certainly not as common a theme as suggested in the analogy,,,,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not the fact that Jesus was crucified that pleases God. The fact that a person whom never had to taste death, chose to give his life for you. He gave his life in how he lived his life and ultimately he gave his life in the end. That is where it's a beautiful thing. The display of love that is shown through this action. Jesus never had to feel any form of pain, he never had to feel ultimately death. But again, he choose to feel these horrible things for you. He gave his life so you could keep yours. You know what? When I look into history, I see tens of thousands of people who died for me, died for my freedom to live in this country. My own mother risked her life for me just giving birth and even though she is terrified of water and can't swim, I had no doubt that she would have jumped into deep water to try to save me if I was drowning. So that doesn't make Jesus any more self-sacrificing. Humans all have to suffer and die here on earth. But when an almighty angel comes down and does the same I guess they want to be worshiped for it as if they did something more than we humans do for each other in our daily lives all the time. Not to mention, that was 2000 years ago. How many people have died for me since? A lot I'm sure. but how many died for you even AFTER you denied theyou currsed and accues them? how many were tortured for you ? How many died even though they could have SAVED themself with just a word? Jesus sacrificed himself though he could have saved himself,, those who die for us usually dont choose death so much as they choose the CHANCE they might die,,, msharmony their is no way to know how many thousands of people died for me or the circumstances of their deaths, but I can feel that there were many. In world war 2 men volunteered to fight to defend the country. In our war against the British also. I don't know why you use the example of me having "denied, cursed or accused" any of them. That example does not relate to me. Also, I'm sure many of the people who have died for me could have saved themselves. People don't normally choose death, but there have been some who willingly sacrificed their lives for others on suicide missions. And there were many brave Russians who volunteered to clean up the nuclear power plant knowing they would die slow and painful deaths. I hold great respect and reverence for all of the heroes who died to save me and others. and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. That includes Jesus(or whoever may have died 2000 years ago) if that is a true story. If Jesus teaches us to love each other, I respect that too. But I don't see what all the B.S. organized religions have to do with any of that and I don't intend to let any of them dictate to me how I should live my life, and what I should or should not believe about the nature of God. |
|
|
|
|
