You bring up some fair points and as a long time atheist prior to accepting Jesus I've said much of the same stuff, so I can relate. I don't like to be associated with "religion" because as you implied religion is very corrupt. Man likes to twist things to match their agenda and pass it as biblical law, when in fact if you read the material, you can easily prove them wrong.

Catholic priests will tell you that you are going to hell for being gay but then go home and molest kids. Or legalistic Protestants will say you can't drink or have premarital sex but then commit the even greater sin of condemning others to hell. This type of hypocrisy does nothing but divide and destroy. It confuses atheists/agnostics into thinking Christians are cult like when Christians that have truly seen the love of God aren't like this.

As for your questioning of why God lets bad things happen that's been widely discussed since the beginning of Christianity and I doubt anybody here can give you an answer that is satisfactory. Although while I feel God CAN intervene and stop all bad things there is a reason he doesn't. The same way he gave us free will to act good, he gave us free will to choose bad. So if he was to intervene he would be taking sides, which I don't see why he would.

Have you ever noticed how disaster and catastrophe brings people closer together? How would people who have their lives changed in these moments change their lives or find God if their entire life was good and easy from the beginning? Remember the kindness 9/11 brought out America? People dying to save complete strangers. You take away disaster and bad things and people don't grow.

The bottom line here is accepting Jesus. Everything else will fall into place over time and you'll change over time at your own pace. You're mentioning letting his children die for mistakes or what not but you're not being asked to completely change who you are (although that will likely naturally happen as you mature in faith). I'm still a sarcastic, goofy and fun loving guy who isn't held back at all by my faith. I want to go out with friends and have a beer, I do. I'm in love with a girl and I want to make love to her, I do. There is no mind blowing change you need to make.

I think the hard thing people have accepting is they have the idea that they have to GIVE UP everything, when in fact that's a myth that miserable, legalistic Christians suffer with. In fact I can give 20 examples on the spot of how my life has been made EASIER or gotten BETTER since I accepted Jesus.

What does "accepting the story told about Jesus" have to do with the realization that we should love our fellow man?

So what does "accepting Jesus" really mean?

I'm confused on what you're asking. Accepting Jesus means to have a prayer that you receive Jesus into your heart and want to change your life. It's not a set prayer, it's simply the start of a relationship with him and the opening of your heart. As I said before... it's not some thing where you have to "give up" anything really. Naturally you MAY on your own accord give up things but that's not the point of this.

We are born separated from God our father and in my personal opinion the purpose of life is to restore that relationship so that we can live in eternity with him. In my case personally I didn't come to God because of preachers talking to me. I came to God because from the time I was 8 years old he spoke to me in dreams for years, each time picking up where we left off... to save me and take me away from the path I was going down.

I can understand the concept of wanting to change your life, but I fail to logically see the connection to a Biblical character called "Jesus" written about over 2000 years ago, who may or may not have even existed. It seems extremely possible to me that the entire story of Jesus is just another story of a savior written for the purpose of fulfilling the idea of a Messiah in an effort to unite the old religion with the new one.

So, the idea or requirement of "accepting Jesus" is basically a requirement to accept the ancient story of his death and resurrection as actual truth, and there is really no reason to believe it. Its just a story or a legend or myth.

Is there any reason anyone should believe this story over stories of other mythical Gods who also died for your sins? None that I see.

Or maybe the stories are all symbolic and actually mean something we have not figured out yet.




New science has pretty much proven that everything is connected so the feeling of being separated from our creator is an illusion.

All that is needed is for humans to awaken.

"Catholic priests will tell you that you are going to hell for being gay but then go home and molest kids. Or legalistic Protestants will say you can't drink or have premarital sex but then commit the even greater sin of condemning others to hell. This type of hypocrisy does nothing but divide and destroy. It confuses atheists/agnostics into thinking Christians are cult like when Christians that have truly seen the love of God aren't like this."

Don't forget M.R, that these pedophile priests and judging
ministers are also just human. And we as humans, can fall from
grace.Satan has gotten to people like this, and they like most
mortals gave into sin. Albeit a very perverse and sick, twisted
sin, especially when alluding to ped priests.

We all sin to some degree. Remember it's God that is perfect.
We're just his creations that can go either one way or the other,
in this spiritual battle of life.

I agree of course with a lot of people falling out of religion
or think it cultish when they hear of some sicko ped priest or
minster giving into sin. But, as I mentioned above, they're only
human mortals, who've let satan influence them into committing
heinous and sick acts.

Satan? mmmmmm... okay even if such an entity exists, lets not stoop to blaming him for our sins.

God is perfect you say? Then how on earth is it possible that he could create a creation capable of doing something it did not intend for them to be able to do, to the point he regrets ever creating them before the great flood? Would that not be a mistake? Would this not indicate a flaw in his creation if he made them this way? How does that really work?

If you ask me it doesn't.......either God is perfect and so are we for our purpose here, flaws and all, or God screwed up. There is no middleground. Make a choice, is God perfect or isn't he?

I agree with you 100 percent that we all fall short and sin. The best of us do it. I'm merely saying that we should never condemn others. As Jesus said why do you point out the speck in your neighbors eye while you have a plank in yours. I was trying to just point out that many of those in power and handing out the harshest judgments can be the most deviant in some cases.

Only God would be able to tell you this. How can you try to understand this from a human perspective and apply human logic to a non human entity? Do you apply human logic to animals too? It doesn't make sense to even try if you believe. This ties into free will and God wanting to give us that freedom to make choices. I think it's more fulfilling for us and him that way.

If you actually took the time to study Archaeology and history you'd quickly learn that whether or not Jesus existed or not has never been contested, even by scientists and atheists. The point of contention regarding Jesus historically is WHO or WHAT was he. Even non believers have concluded he existed and was a great speaker, had many followers and was a great guy morally during that time period (similar to a Gandhi type). What they DON'T believe is that he was the Messiah, performed miracles or is the son of God.

While there could have been a man who inspired the story of Jesus, the messiah, his name was not actually "Jesus" and no historian can even place for sure the exact time of his life and death.

During that time there were many religious cults and teachers going about the land. Stories of a messiah who was born of a virgin and died for the sins of mankind amount to about 17 I believe, who had similar resemblance to the story of Jesus.

Biblical stories were also written and rewritten and plagiarized from even older scriptures. Legend and myth, while possibly based on some truth, is not to be regarded as history.

In fact, religious historians are still grasping at straws to try to convince people that King David and his entire genetic line actually existed. The evidence is minimal and highly debated, so to say that the existence of Jesus or anyone else in that bloodline has never been contested is just a repeated lie.

Have you studied real Archaeology and history? I doubt it. I have studied all of the so called evidence of "King David" and it is scant and unconvincing.

There is no archaeological evidence at all for a man named Jesus. Was Jesus a nick name perhaps? We have all heard many different names for a messiah, so there is not much proof in a name.

The story has been told of other saviors as well.

the archeological proof that those places in the Bible existed/exist still do not prove anything beyond that!
It still doesn't prove the religious part of the whole thing!
Actually the historical proof of a Jesus is rather shaky,and rests partly on some Forgeries by certain Historians and Church-Fathers!
There are no contemporary Records of a Man named Jesus!

how can there be a 'contemporary' record of someones existence over 2000 years ago?

There are records of many of the historical figures of 2000 years ago, in stone. There are even mummies and tombs of Kings.

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, while expressing a wide spectrum of opinions on how accurately the views of the historical Jesus are reflected in the picture presented by the early Christian movement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

I normally don't use wiki as a source but this particular page correlates with studies of my own. I tried to give you respect in my first responses and it didn't seem to pay off. If you're just going to pull things out of your butt and use it to disregard other people's posts, I'm going to tell you about it.

I'm just telling you right now I'm a ridiculous history buff and you're wrong on this. I've taken ancient history courses taught by atheists and they too agreed Jesus existed. The point of contention as I said before is who exactly he was and what exactly he did. You already told me you're not a believer and I respect your feelings but don't go around making idiotic, ill informed statements that he didn't exist in general.

Forgery, exaggeration and flat out false documentation isn't limited to religious figures. Even now thousands of years later historians are proving things myths from ancient times. For example for a long time Cleopatra was said to be one of the most beautiful women alive. Yet recent evidence has come up that she was rather unattractive and got by on charm, not looks. I didn't say the historical account of Jesus is one way or another. I'm just calling out the faulty logic of somebody ill informed.

The problem with ANY so-called "agreement" that "Jesus" existed is that if there is no agreement with who he was or what he did or even what his REAL NAME WAS then there is really no agreement at all.

If they can't agree on who he was, or what he did or even WHEN he lived and died or what his name really was then where exactly is the agreement?

So what exactly is the agreement?

Oh absolutely! The people in power are corrupt. It doesn't
take a genius to figure that our politicians and world leaders
aren't for everyone. Most are ruled by the elites and corporations.
Some people really believe all that they see on TV is in fact reality. Like a friend I have really likes our PM, Steven Harper
here in Canada. I asked him why. "Cause he's a family man". And
how does he know this?

yep,you had better read the History of Christianity from more than the perspective of that Globalist Saint Paul and his Minions down the Ages!
As for Logic,that Cleopatra-Comeback is rather lame,besides I am not the one trying to prove the Book by the Book!