Question about Baptism

[bootlen]

heartburn

Okay. You like corn?

[acmanko]

Okay. You like corn?

no

[meoberry]

1) Ideally, I would avail myself to do His bidding, whatever that may be.

2) God says murder is sin. Taking someone's life not in battle in time of war, not in self-defense, not in the process of protecting the innocent (and even this can be a matter of law) by an individual is murder. The government has the authority according Scripture to impose the death penalty. Therefore, the guy who killed Tiller committed murder. I do not condone murder.

This is very true. Who is to say Tiller would not have repented sometime in the future. This opportunity was taken away from him and the one that did will have the blood of Tiller on his hands that he will have to answer for some day. Now Tiller has to answer for the innocent blood on his hands with no chance of repentence.

[bootlen]

no


Okay.

Do you like money?

[acmanko]

Okay.

Do you like money?
maybe, it has its good points along with its bad

[bootlen]

maybe, it has its good points along with its bad

It's a simple question. Yes or no? Why do you need to QUALIFY your answer?

Thank you for proving my point.:cool:

[klove]

We digress, gentlemen.

[bootlen]

Haha. As per usual.

[bootlen]

1st John 1 says Christ is the "propitiation" for our sin. To propitiate means to satisfy. Do you understand "satisfy". It means filled...completed. Nothing else is necessary. So if Christ is the Propitiater, what does baptism, or anything else have to do with salvation? Nothing. All other obedience has to do with reward at the Bema.

[acmanko]

It's a simple question. Yes or no? Why do you need to QUALIFY your answer?

Thank you for proving my point.:cool:

It was not qualified. It was quantified. Two reasons are a known sum, where as you are guilty of tap dancing your way around specific questions.

[bootlen]

It was not qualified. It was quantified. Two reasons are a known sum, where as you are guilty of tap dancing your way around specific questions.

While there is no quantification in your response, there IS qualification. But whatever.

[TB]

1st John 1 says Christ is the "propitiation" for our sin. To propitiate means to satisfy. Do you understand "satisfy". It means filled...completed. Nothing else is necessary. So if Christ is the Propitiater, what does baptism, or anything else have to do with salvation? Nothing. All other obedience has to do with reward at the Bema.

Tetelestai.




Now Bema us up allready.

[bootlen]

Tetelestai.


Christ's last words on the cross...meaning "PAID IN FULL."

[acmanko]

Christ's last words on the cross...meaning "PAID IN FULL."

not hardly. it translates to "it is finished"

[scac1971]

I like pizza. I love Jesus. I shall never put pizza before Jesus. Or anything else. To prove your love of Jesus to any other man is a waste of time. They will know by your fruits.

[bootlen]

not hardly. it translates to "it is finished"

Transaction documents from the first century have been found in that area with the word "Tetelestai" marked on them. It was a word that noted that a debt had been paid in full...a finished debt. Literally, "perfectly completed".

I guess everybody but you knew that.

[hvacrmedic]

If we don't know everything about God then how do we know for certain He doesn't call all His creation His children?

Because He said so in Scripture.

Why would He create them only to be condemned?

He did not. He created them to fellowship with Him but they reject His fellowship. Spending eternity in hell is a choice, Homer.

Romans 9
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

Romans 8

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."


Where's the choice there? From a purely scientific standpoint people are machines, subject to the same laws of cause and effect as any piece of inanimate matter. There are too many factors in life that we have no direct control over to even worry about blame. An atheist is more likely to forgive than a Christian, because he knows that it was the "sequence of events" that led to his/her/its action, and that the doer was incapable of "not doing" what he/she/it did, just as a rock thrown is incapable of not falling. The Christian would, if he were to be logically consistent, condemn the rock rather than the thrower of the rock for breaking Mrs. Johnson's window.

I hold the same virtues as taught by Jesus, which are all summed up in the golden rule, yet don't consider myself to be Christian, nor religious in the same sense, simply because there are too many contradictions in the doctrines, regardless of the type of religion, and too many belivers<sic> that are despicable in their ignorance of what they preach, and especially in the ignorance of their own selfish motivations. Christians in general have no idea of what they believe, they can't pinpoint it, and they tend to make up rules as they go along, always to justify their actions after the fact. If they find a passage that seems even remotely like something they can justify their thoughts or actions with, then they run with it. We who don't subscribe are sometimes amused, and sometimes horrified at the decisions made by people of "faith" in thier attempts to pacify simultaneously their peers in the faith, and their own selfish aims. Self-deception is not a pretty thing to behold.

[acmanko]

Transaction documents from the first century have been found in that area with the word "Tetelestai" marked on them. It was a word that noted that a debt had been paid in full...a finished debt. Literally, "perfectly completed".

I guess everybody but you knew that.

no money changed hands. the suffering for mans sins was complete. finished

[Some Dude]

no money changed hands. the suffering for mans sins was complete. finished

Ac you sir are correct.

[acmanko]

Ac you sir are correct.

well, thank you zach

[bootlen]

I hold the same virtues as taught by Jesus, which are all summed up in the golden rule, yet don't consider myself to be Christian, nor religious in the same sense, simply because there are too many contradictions in the doctrines,

There may be many contradictions in religious denominations. But there are none in Scripture. Am I assuming correctly that you think there are many contradictions in Scripture? If so, name one. And when I prove you wrong, name another, and so forth, ad infinitum.

[bootlen]

no money changed hands. the suffering for mans sins was complete. finished

True...no money changed hands. But the sin debt was tetelestai.

[hvacrmedic]

There may be many contradictions in religious denominations. But there are none in Scripture. Am I assuming correctly that you think there are many contradictions in Scripture? If so, name one. And when I prove you wrong, name another, and so forth, ad infinitum.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Have fun. And when you rationalize your way through these, I have more waiting for you.

[bootlen]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Have fun. And when you rationalize your way through these, I have more waiting for you.

Two things, HM.
1. Been there, done that. Minor league stuff.
2. Learn to think for yourself.

Can YOU list a contradiction?

[RoBoTeq]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Have fun. And when you rationalize your way through these, I have more waiting for you.
Oh gee, the Internet Infidels, who'd a thunk it?:rolleyes:

All of those members who have been sent here from this site are the most ridiculous at attempting to argue about faith. Sorry guys, but if you don't want to get it, you never will "get it".

Having been a member of the Internet Infidels, I can honestly say the regulars and moderators there are the most biased, intolerant and closed minded people I have ever encountered.

[TB]

Romans 8

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."


Where's the choice there?

This is a difficult passage, one many Christians find hard to understand. It could be that God means to say here that some are chosen to go to hell, and therefore will, regardless of the individuals choices or circumstance. But in the teachings of scripture in other places, we see that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He says as much in 1 Tim. 2:4, so that is not the correct interpretation here. In Mat. 7:23, Jesus points out that there will be people He "...never knew...", and they will be sent to the eternal fire that Mat. 25:41 tells us was prepared for the devil and his angels. Man was never supposed to be there

"Those God foreknew...", then, could only be the believers, who've chosen to put their trust completely in Him alone. God does not know sin. He knows what it is, but He Himself does not know it, therefore he would not know anyone who chose to live within sin either. Those who choose to place their trust in Him, are declared sinless, in this life, and are promised complete sinlessness in eternity. God knows them, since they are of the same nature as Jesus--by their choice, and His declaration and promise.

I believe that Rom. 8:29 is most correctly understood to say that God caused a path for those who trust Him, to walk, that culminates in their ultimate destination of His nature--called, justified, and finally, glorified, by His effort, not their own.

[RoBoTeq]

This is a difficult passage, one many Christians find hard to understand. It could be that God means to say here that some are chosen to go to hell, and therefore will, regardless of the individuals choices or circumstance. But in the teachings of scripture in other places, we see that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He says as much in 1 Tim. 2:4, so that is not the correct interpretation here. In Mat. 7:23, Jesus points out that there will be people He "...never knew...", and they will be sent to the eternal fire that Mat. 25:41 tells us was prepared for the devil and his angels. Man was never supposed to be there

"Those God foreknew...", then, could only be the believers, who've chosen to put their trust completely in Him alone. God does not know sin. He knows what it is, but He Himself does not know it, therefore he would not know anyone who chose to live within sin either. Those who choose to place their trust in Him, are declared sinless, in this life, and are promised complete sinlessness in eternity. God knows them, since they are of the same nature as Jesus--by their choice, and His declaration and promise.

I believe that Rom. 8:29 is most correctly understood to say that God caused a path for those who trust Him, to walk, that culminates in their ultimate destination of His nature--called, justified, and finally, glorified, by His effort, not their own.
Since this is a letter from Paul, who was a devout Jew, addressing the Christians of Rome, who had been Pagans with little or no knowledge of the Hebrew faith, could Paul not be referring to the Jews when he mentions those who God forenew?

Much of Paul's writings in Romans is bringing the once Pagan Romans up to speed on the relationship between God and the Hebrews/Jews.

[TB]

I think if it were referring to the Jews, then the passage would be guaranteeing the Jews salvation based on their heritage alone...a concept which the Jews already had, but Jesus argued against.

[hvacrmedic]

Two things, HM.
1. Been there, done that. Minor league stuff.
2. Learn to think for yourself.

Can YOU list a contradiction?



1 Corinthians 6


2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?

2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead

Look, you'd have to be in some sort of blind stupor not to notice the myriads of contradictory statements in the bible, and that isn't even taking into account its empirical inconsistencies. Adam was made circa 6000 years ago. Skeletal human remains predate that time period by a substantial margin. I was once in the same blind stupor, and never felt more "enlightened" and "saved" than when I discarded Christianity. Spirituality doesn't require religion, much less the Christian sort, whose members are always at odds with each other, why? Because of the contradictions in the Bible, and because each denomination has settled on different statements than the others as the "truth", regarding the contraditory statments as being misinterpreted. But the solution isn't division into denominations, it's realizing that you've all been duped.

I'd just like to wrap up this thing by noting that for a god who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe, it seems contradictory that his writing skills are 3rd grade level and largely incoherent. Such an almighty god ought to be able to speak clearly rather than utter the ramblings of a brain damaged accident victim.

[Doug Lockhart]

1 Corinthians 6


2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?

2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead

Look, you'd have to be in some sort of blind stupor not to notice the myriads of contradictory statements in the bible, and that isn't even taking into account its empirical inconsistencies. Adam was made circa 6000 years ago. Skeletal human remains predate that time period by a substantial margin. I was once in the same blind stupor, and never felt more "enlightened" and "saved" than when I discarded Christianity. Spirituality doesn't require religion, much less the Christian sort, whose members are always at odds with each other, why? Because of the contradictions in the Bible, and because each denomination has settled on different statements than the others as the "truth", regarding the contraditory statments as being misinterpreted. But the solution isn't division into denominations, it's realizing that you've all been duped.

I'll second that HVAC as well as adding 'they are all killing each other in the interest of proving their brotherly love of ALL mankind that their RIGHT religion tells them'.......Spirituality is where it's at.....

[RoBoTeq]

I think if it were referring to the Jews, then the passage would be guaranteeing the Jews salvation based on their heritage alone...a concept which the Jews already had, but Jesus argued against.
This is not an argument, I am just not aware of where Jesus argued against salvation for Jews based on the Abrahamic covenant. I do know that a lot of misconceptions are made when the dismissing of other covenants are done by Jesus, but not the Abrahamic covenant. It just seems to me that if the Abrahamic covenant is revoked, then Christianity has no basis in Jesus being the prophesied Messiah.

[glennac]

Since this is a letter from Paul, who was a devout Jew, addressing the Christians of Rome, who had been Pagans with little or no knowledge of the Hebrew faith, could Paul not be referring to the Jews when he mentions those who God forenew?

Much of Paul's writings in Romans is bringing the once Pagan Romans up to speed on the relationship between God and the Hebrews/Jews.

Funny I though Paul was the rock upon whom Jesus built Christianity. While he formally was a Jew is was now a Christian. How can you be a devout Jew and still be a Christian?

[RoBoTeq]

1 Corinthians 6


2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?

2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead

Look, you'd have to be in some sort of blind stupor not to notice the myriads of contradictory statements in the bible, and that isn't even taking into account its empirical inconsistencies. Adam was made circa 6000 years ago. Skeletal human remains predate that time period by a substantial margin. I was once in the same blind stupor, and never felt more "enlightened" and "saved" than when I discarded Christianity. Spirituality doesn't require religion, much less the Christian sort, whose members are always at odds with each other, why? Because of the contradictions in the Bible, and because each denomination has settled on different statements than the others as the "truth", regarding the contraditory statments as being misinterpreted. But the solution isn't division into denominations, it's realizing that you've all been duped.

I'd just like to wrap up this thing by noting that for a god who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe, it seems contradictory that his writing skills are 3rd grade level and largely incoherent. Such an almighty god ought to be able to speak clearly rather than utter the ramblings of a brain damaged accident victim.
The twist to this argument is in the putting. I have found that whenever it appears that scripture is contradicting itself, it is always that the reader is simply not understanding either the context of the passage or it's particular usage to it's particular audience. In other words, it just depends on which we believe to be more prone to be fallible; scripture or we mere humans. This takes us back to faith. When you have faith that scripture is of God, and you have faith that God is the Creator of all that is physical, it is easier to force yourself to better understand scripture then simply mock it.

Again; God's words are not at all incoherent. God's words were written down thousands of years ago in languages long dead, and then hidden away for a millenia while languages changed dramatically. It is not God's words that are incoherent, it is our ability to understand God's words properly and in context that is at fault.

So, you as a non-believer will continue to think you are proving scripture to be nonsense because that is what you are looking for. Those of us of faith will continue to seek the Truth of scripture because that is what we are looking for. I don't think anyone can dispute that one way or another, we usually find what we are looking for.

[RoBoTeq]

I'll second that HVAC as well as adding 'they are all killing each other in the interest of proving their brotherly love of ALL mankind that their RIGHT religion tells them'.......Spirituality is where it's at.....
This is a human fault, not a fault of God. We have proper teachings that tell us how to avoid these actions, but we usually fall into evil trappings rather then just do the one thing that Jesus taught us that would make all of our woes simply go away; "Love one another as I love you." Since Jesus died for all of us, if we would feel the same toward all others, we would stop our foolish religiousity nonsense.

[RoBoTeq]

Funny I though Paul was the rock upon whom Jesus built Christianity. While he formally was a Jew is was now a Christian. How can you be a devout Jew and still be a Christian?
Catholics are wrongly taught that Peter is the rock that Jesus was referring to in scripture when Jesus was telling several apostles, including Peter, that "upon this rock I will build my church". What Jesus is more clearly referring to is the knowledge that He, Jesus, and God are one and the same spiritually.

Paul, nee Saul, was an anti-Christian member of the Pharissee who persecuted Christians before his rather forced conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul had the most devout Jewish background of all of the apostles and was not one of the original apostles and did not know Jesus while Jesus was a living mortal. Paul was commissioned to preach to the gentiles, or non-Jews. Presumably, this was done because of Paul's background so that Paul could better allow non-Jews to understand the origins of the faith they chose to follow.

No Jewish character of the New Testament ever gave up being Jewish, and as far as I know, the only writer/orator of the New Testament who was not a Jew was Luke.

[hvacrmedic]

The twist to this argument is in the putting. I have found that whenever it appears that scripture is contradicting itself, it is always that the reader is simply not understanding either the context of the passage or it's particular usage to it's particular audience. In other words, it just depends on which we believe to be more prone to be fallible; scripture or we mere humans. This takes us back to faith. When you have faith that scripture is of God, and you have faith that God is the Creator of all that is physical, it is easier to force yourself to better understand scripture then simply mock it.

Again; God's words are not at all incoherent. God's words were written down thousands of years ago in languages long dead, and then hidden away for a millenia while languages changed dramatically. It is not God's words that are incoherent, it is our ability to understand God's words properly and in context that is at fault.

So, you as a non-believer will continue to think you are proving scripture to be nonsense because that is what you are looking for. Those of us of faith will continue to seek the Truth of scripture because that is what we are looking for. I don't think anyone can dispute that one way or another, we usually find what we are looking for.

I didn't say I was a non-believer, I only said that I wasn't a Christian. I don't subscribe to any religion whatsoever, but I do believe that we are no mere accident of nature. Indeed, there are many profound statements to be found in the Bible, but it would be irrational to assume that it is a self-consistent work based upon that observation alone. Such an act of faith would be equivalent to assuming that every word of every post in the Technical forum is correct, simply because we agreed that one or two of the posts were technically correct.

Are we to assume, because we find a kindredness in some of the sayings in the Bible, that these were the words of "God" and not simply the words of another human with some of the same sensiblities as our own, being passed off as words of God? Wouldn't such an act of passing off one's own observatoins as being "absolute" be a purely selfish and quite ordinary human trait? Isn't this what we do? Look around you. In what discussion group is this behavior not observed, regardless of the subject material? It's exactly what you and I are doing at this very moment, trying to talk sense into each other, as if we know something the other person does not. Unfortunately there are empirical facts, and these are at odds with a large portion of what is written in the Bible, and with what is written in the Technical forum. And if I can't rely on empiricism, then I have nothing substantial at all, nothing but pure fancy to guide me. And that is what religion is, pure fantasy. That's why there are so many versions of it, none of which can back up itself with anything other than pure sentiment.

[arc8]

This is a difficult passage, one many Christians find hard to understand. It could be that God means to say here that some are chosen to go to hell, and therefore will, regardless of the individuals choices or circumstance. But in the teachings of scripture in other places, we see that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He says as much in 1 Tim. 2:4, so that is not the correct interpretation here. In Mat. 7:23, Jesus points out that there will be people He "...never knew...", and they will be sent to the eternal fire that Mat. 25:41 tells us was prepared for the devil and his angels. Man was never supposed to be there

"Those God foreknew...", then, could only be the believers, who've chosen to put their trust completely in Him alone. God does not know sin. He knows what it is, but He Himself does not know it, therefore he would not know anyone who chose to live within sin either. Those who choose to place their trust in Him, are declared sinless, in this life, and are promised complete sinlessness in eternity. God knows them, since they are of the same nature as Jesus--by their choice, and His declaration and promise.

I believe that Rom. 8:29 is most correctly understood to say that God caused a path for those who trust Him, to walk, that culminates in their ultimate destination of His nature--called, justified, and finally, glorified, by His effort, not their own.

We believe in the "whosoever" doctrine.
So this HVACnot so medic understands; we should not think Calvinistic!

I actually believe, like what Bootlen or Robo mentioned in passing; many Athiest are not real thinkers but are closed minded of Spiritual matters!

And like what Robo or Bootlen also mentioned (I forget who): that site is childs play. If they are really interested in matters of God (The Creator); then perhaps they have a chance to understand God.
They probably think God will show Himself (not physically) or make known of Himself to them because they are searching for the Truth! Not so!
God will draw whosoever is really looking for Him; not these pretenders!!!

[arc8]

1 Corinthians 6


2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?

2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead

Look, you'd have to be in some sort of blind stupor not to notice the myriads of contradictory statements in the bible, and that isn't even taking into account its empirical inconsistencies. Adam was made circa 6000 years ago. Skeletal human remains predate that time period by a substantial margin. I was once in the same blind stupor, and never felt more "enlightened" and "saved" than when I discarded Christianity. Spirituality doesn't require religion, much less the Christian sort, whose members are always at odds with each other, why? Because of the contradictions in the Bible, and because each denomination has settled on different statements than the others as the "truth", regarding the contraditory statments as being misinterpreted. But the solution isn't division into denominations, it's realizing that you've all been duped.

I'd just like to wrap up this thing by noting that for a god who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe, it seems contradictory that his writing skills are 3rd grade level and largely incoherent. Such an almighty god ought to be able to speak clearly rather than utter the ramblings of a brain damaged accident victim.

This will be the only one!
It seems that many have questions rather than really sticking their to fist to God!

Now concerning these scriptures:
Did you not know that the saved will be judging in the Millenium?
Do you understand that God the Father gave Jesus Christ the authority to Judge this world after the Millenium?

No! You do not really understand!
There is one sin that God will forgive; Blasphemy: refusal to let the Holy Spirit give you knowledge of God when He calls!!!

Hopefully it's not too late.

[RoBoTeq]

I didn't say I was a non-believer, I only said that I wasn't a Christian. I don't subscribe to any religion whatsoever, but I do believe that we are no mere accident of nature. Indeed, there are many profound statements to be found in the Bible, but it would be irrational to assume that it is a self-consistent work based upon that observation alone. Such an act of faith would be equivalent to assuming that every word of every post in the Technical forum is correct, simply because we agreed that one or two of the posts were technically correct.

Are we to assume, because we find a kindredness in some of the sayings in the Bible, that these were the words of "God" and not simply the words of another human with some of the same sensiblities as our own, being passed off as words of God? Wouldn't such an act of passing off one's own observatoins as being "absolute" be a purely selfish and quite ordinary human trait? Isn't this what we do? Look around you. In what discussion group is this behavior not observed, regardless of the subject material? It's exactly what you and I are doing at this very moment, trying to talk sense into each other, as if we know something the other person does not. Unfortunately there are empirical facts, and these are at odds with a large portion of what is written in the Bible, and with what is written in the Technical forum. And if I can't rely on empiricism, then I have nothing substantial at all, nothing but pure fancy to guide me. And that is what religion is, pure fantasy. That's why there are so many versions of it, none of which can back up itself with anything other than pure sentiment.
Alright, this puts things in a bit different perspective. I suppose it was your posting information from an atheist site that made me think you were not a person of faith.

I have admitted often that my faith in the Bible as a genuine influence directly of God is most likely due to where I was born and raised and that I do believe that there are other works of literature that are inspired by God.

Still, why spend your time and effort trying disprove the spirituality of the Bibles by quoting and learning from those who have no faith in God whatsever? Why not put your efforts into learning the Truth from the Bibles from the stand point of a person of faith?

[hvacrmedic]

I'll second that HVAC as well as adding 'they are all killing each other in the interest of proving their brotherly love of ALL mankind that their RIGHT religion tells them'.......Spirituality is where it's at.....

Amen. :)

Well, to be fair, according to Robo, that isn't endorsed by the Bible. What he meant of course is that it isn't endorsed by his favorite passages in the Bible, 'cause the Old Testament is nothing but God commanding his people to kill people, and even their friggin livestock. What did the cows do wrong?

A more plausable scenario is as follows. The Jews of that time were just plain bloodthirty barbarians. Any excuse to kill somebody was good enough. Even better if they had the endorsment of the clergy, the reigning prophets. Having slain every man woman and child their thirst for blood wasn't satisfied, so the head guy starts on the friggin cattle and the other nuts join in, justifying that stupidity with rationalizations such as "Hey, since our leader killed a cow, then he must have meant that God wanted us to kill all the cows and sheep too!" In a bloodthirsty frenzy they run in a screaming pack with their blood soaked bodies, waving knives and spears, toward the fields to kill every friggin thing moving. Still not having had enough fun, they turn occasionally and kill each other, claiming that the victim was a false prophet, so it's ok. The other's shrug their shoulders, and think, well I just killed 10 friggin COWS in the name of God, hmmm, so I suppose this guy is allowed to kill one of "us" in the name of God. Besides, he might kill me too if I call him on it. "Ok, here's the deal, you don't question me killing those cows, and I won't question you killing Amos over there, ok?" "Yep, it's all copasthetic dude, the guy "said....", and everything, right?" "Yeah he did, hey pass me that bong dude, you gonna smoke all of it yourself or what?"

"You know Amos' wife is a little hottie, think I'll pay her a visit when we get back to the village." "Ahem, you sure Amos was a false profit dude?" "What are you saying to me man, you want another hit off of this or not? If you do, then you best stfu right now, I'm not kidding you, capiche?" "So I take that as a yes, you're convinced he was a false prophet." "Damn right he was, and don't you forget it."

[RoBoTeq]

Amen. :)

Well, to be fair, according to Robo, that isn't endorsed by the Bible. What he meant of course is that it isn't endorsed by his favorite passages in the Bible, 'cause the Old Testament is nothing but God commanding his people to kill people, and even their friggin livestock. What did the cows do wrong? A more plausable scenario is as follows. The Jews of that time were just plain bloodthirty barbarians. Any excuse to kill somebody was good enough. Even better if they had the endorsment of the clergy, the reigning prophets. Having slain every man woman and child their thirst for blood wasn't satisfied, so they head guy starts on the friggin cattle and the other nuts join in, justifying that stupidity with rationalizations such as "Hey, since our leader killed a cow, then he must have meant that God wanted us to kill all the cows and sheep too!" In a bloodthirsty frenzy they run screaming and running with their blood soaked bodies, waving knives and spears, toward the fields to kill every friggin thing moving. Still not having had enough fun, they turn occasionally and kill each other, claiming that the victim was a false prophet, so it's ok. The other's shrug their shoulders, and think, well I just killed 10 friggin cows in the name of God, hmmm, so I suppose this guy is allowed to kill one of "us" in the name of God. Besides, he might kill me too if I call him on it. "Ok, here's the deal, you don't question me killing those cows, and I won't question you killing Amos over there, ok?" "Yep, it's all copasthetic dude, they guy "said...." and everything, right? Yeah he did, hey pass me that bong dude, you gonna smoke all of it yourself or what?
The Christian Old Testament is exactly what it claims to be...the "OLD" testament. Christianity grew out of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) but transformed in the New Testament. The teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament is the new wine that Jesus refers to. The Mosaic laws and other instructions toward violent actions in the Old Testament is the old wine bag that Jesus refers to. Jesus notes that we cannot put new wine into an old wine bag because it will burst and the wine (teachings) will be lost.

Therefore, those of religious beliefs that justify them to commit acts of violence based on the old wine in the old wine bags are doing so on their own accord and not by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The spirituallity you refer to "IS" Jesus Christ.

[bootlen]

1 Corinthians 6


2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?

2 Timothy 4

1In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead

Look, you'd have to be in some sort of blind stupor not to notice the myriads of contradictory statements in the bible, and that isn't even taking into account its empirical inconsistencies. Adam was made circa 6000 years ago. Skeletal human remains predate that time period by a substantial margin. I was once in the same blind stupor, and never felt more "enlightened" and "saved" than when I discarded Christianity. Spirituality doesn't require religion, much less the Christian sort, whose members are always at odds with each other, why? Because of the contradictions in the Bible, and because each denomination has settled on different statements than the others as the "truth", regarding the contraditory statments as being misinterpreted. But the solution isn't division into denominations, it's realizing that you've all been duped.

I'd just like to wrap up this thing by noting that for a god who is smart enough and powerful enough to create the entire universe, it seems contradictory that his writing skills are 3rd grade level and largely incoherent. Such an almighty god ought to be able to speak clearly rather than utter the ramblings of a brain damaged accident victim.

I can list 4 or 5 contradictions in your post above...if taken out of context and without the whole of your post. That is basically what ALL of your ilk do when you scream "Contradiction!"

Fact is, HM, ALL contradictions have already been answered and those who continue to make the claims are simply behind the times and ignorant.

The first example above is in courts of law during Christ's millennial reign. The second is the judgment of Christ as borne out by His absolute righteousness.

Now before you waste anymore time, reconsider your opinion.

[hvacrmedic]

I can list 4 or 5 contradictions in your post above...if taken out of context and without the whole of your post. That is basically what ALL of your ilk do when you scream "Contradiction!"

Fact is, HM, ALL contradictions have already been answered and those who continue to make the claims are simply behind the times and ignorant.

The first example above is in courts of law during Christ's millennial reign. The second is the judgment of Christ as borne out by His absolute righteousness.uppose

Now before you waste anymore time, reconsider your opinion.

Calling people "Ilk" isn't exactly a good Christian characteristic is it? I'm kinder to Christians than they are to me, and yet I am the "ilk". Hmmmm.

As far as the passage above is concerned, I didn't see any mention of a "millenium" there. I did however see mention that the saints would even judge the "angels". Are there going to be angles in the millenium here on Earth, walking around like men? Please spare me any more of this garbage.

[Doug Lockhart]

Calling people "Ilk" isn't exactly a good Christian characteristic is it? I'm kinder to Christians than they are to me, and yet I am the "ilk". Hmmmm.

As far as the passage above is concerned, I didn't see any mention of a "millenium" there. I did however see mention that the saints would even judge the "angels". Are there going to be angles in the millenium here on Earth, walking around like men? Please spare me any more of this garbage.

HVAC/R......don't you recognize that Jesus preached love, tolerance, embracing, accepting 'stuff' from the religious 'right' when you see it??? I'm disappointed in you!!!
I like the Golden Rule......it works for everyone/colour/religion/country/gender/age/sex.....:)

[Special Ed]

This is a difficult passage, one many Christians find hard to understand. It could be that God means to say here that some are chosen to go to hell, and therefore will, regardless of the individuals choices or circumstance. But in the teachings of scripture in other places, we see that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. He says as much in 1 Tim. 2:4, so that is not the correct interpretation here. In Mat. 7:23, Jesus points out that there will be people He "...never knew...", and they will be sent to the eternal fire that Mat. 25:41 tells us was prepared for the devil and his angels. Man was never supposed to be there

"Those God foreknew...", then, could only be the believers, who've chosen to put their trust completely in Him alone. God does not know sin. He knows what it is, but He Himself does not know it, therefore he would not know anyone who chose to live within sin either. Those who choose to place their trust in Him, are declared sinless, in this life, and are promised complete sinlessness in eternity. God knows them, since they are of the same nature as Jesus--by their choice, and His declaration and promise.

I believe that Rom. 8:29 is most correctly understood to say that God caused a path for those who trust Him, to walk, that culminates in their ultimate destination of His nature--called, justified, and finally, glorified, by His effort, not their own.

What's so hard to understand about it? It is what it is. God alone foreknew therefore He justified. The idea here is that our salvation rests entirely with God & not ourselves. For whatever reason He chose specific people to become His elect, we have nothing to do with it. If we did then we would be able to boast that we were the ones who decided to be saved. All then Jesus did was die on a Cross somewhere for our sins & we did the rest.

Let me be clear here: If left to ourselves we would NEVER EVER choose to follow Christ - in fact, we would go the opposite direction as fast as we could. The mistake hvacrmedic is making is he thinks there's a line of people wanting to "choose" Christ. This is simply not true.

[Hugh B]

HVAC/R......don't you recognize that Jesus preached love, tolerance, embracing, accepting 'stuff' from the religious 'right' when you see it??? I'm disappointed in you!!!
I like the Golden Rule......it works for everyone/colour/religion/country/gender/age/sex.....:)

Christ preached tolerance? What do you mean by "tolerance"? What sort of tolerance did he teach?

[glennac]

Catholics are wrongly taught that Peter is the rock that Jesus was referring to in scripture when Jesus was telling several apostles, including Peter, that "upon this rock I will build my church". What Jesus is more clearly referring to is the knowledge that He, Jesus, and God are one and the same spiritually.

Paul, nee Saul, was an anti-Christian member of the Pharissee who persecuted Christians before his rather forced conversion on the road to Damascus. Paul had the most devout Jewish background of all of the apostles and was not one of the original apostles and did not know Jesus while Jesus was a living mortal. Paul was commissioned to preach to the gentiles, or non-Jews. Presumably, this was done because of Paul's background so that Paul could better allow non-Jews to understand the origins of the faith they chose to follow.

No Jewish character of the New Testament ever gave up being Jewish, and as far as I know, the only writer/orator of the New Testament who was not a Jew was Luke.

Well hush my mouth robo. I guess I should have asked my wife she keeps up on the scriptures and so on. She is one of the ladies "in standing" at the Church Plays the piano on Sunday's service and watches the Jack Van Nipie and other televangelists. She reads the Bible occasionally and I listen to what the preacher says but I sure don't memorize the Bible like some on here. I just go by memory of what I hear and I heard that somewhere but I can't remember and maybe on this forum so don't hold me to that. I guess I will just bow out of all discussions on quotes from the Bible unless I can find it.

Now that I have said all that I still believe that to go to heaven you have to be saved through Jesus and if you are a Jew who does not believe that Christ is our savior then you won't go to heaven. That's what I have been taught since I first attended Sunday school and never heard anything different so I decline to believe otherwise. Thank you very much.

[RoBoTeq]

Calling people "Ilk" isn't exactly a good Christian characteristic is it? I'm kinder to Christians than they are to me, and yet I am the "ilk". Hmmmm.

As far as the passage above is concerned, I didn't see any mention of a "millenium" there. I did however see mention that the saints would even judge the "angels". Are there going to be angles in the millenium here on Earth, walking around like men? Please spare me any more of this garbage.
Every time anti-Christian persons want to piss on the faith of others they always wind up with ridiculous comments about how something a Christian has done that is not Christian like. This is not only pathetic in general, but also shows just how little that person understands what Jesus Christ taught.

Well hvacrmedic, your comments aren't very manly either. So, should we just assume that you aren't a very good man? What a stupid way to try to communicate one's side of an argument that cannot even be argued.

[RoBoTeq]

HVAC/R......don't you recognize that Jesus preached love, tolerance, embracing, accepting 'stuff' from the religious 'right' when you see it??? I'm disappointed in you!!!
I like the Golden Rule......it works for everyone/colour/religion/country/gender/age/sex.....:)
I agree, the Golden Rule is very Christ like, falling only a little short of Jesus' command to "Love one another as I love you". It is unfortunate that so few can adhere to it, Christians and every other religous affiliation alike. The common factor is not the religion, but that it is fallable humans that belong to the religions.

[RoBoTeq]

Let me be clear here: If left to ourselves we would NEVER EVER choose to follow Christ - in fact, we would go the opposite direction as fast as we could. The mistake hvacrmedic is making is he thinks there's a line of people wanting to "choose" Christ. This is simply not true.
I simply cannot agree. We as a whole lot may be more inclined to do as evil influences lure us, but history has proven that even in the midst of being as far from God's will as we can be, we have an inner urging to choose to move toward God. This can be seen easily in the Greek, Roman, Samaritan etc. areas of the Middle East where revelling in drunkeness and orgies was completely acceptable, but yet, those people "chose" to follow the disciplines of Jesus Christ. Why? If we are not drawn to choose God, through Christ or in any other way, why do we give up such lives as the Greeks and Romans gave up for a more spiritually disciplined life?

I would suggest you read Ecclesiatese until it no longer sounds like a bummer to you;). Seriously, it helped me get my head around this issue very well.

[RoBoTeq]

Now that I have said all that I still believe that to go to heaven you have to be saved through Jesus and if you are a Jew who does not believe that Christ is our savior then you won't go to heaven. That's what I have been taught since I first attended Sunday school and never heard anything different so I decline to believe otherwise. Thank you very much.
Many believe this is the way scripture has laid out the plans. In order for this to be completely true, God would have had to have broken His promise to Abraham, which I can find no scripture that shows this was done.

There are a lot who are confused by the noting that other covenants with God, such as the Mosaic covenant between God and Moses, were indeed revoked by God or by Jesus actins as God. However, if the Abrahamic covenant to the Jews through the descendants of Abraham has been broken, then Christianity has lost it's roots which are strictly in the Jewish faith.

It was in the 4th century A.D. when the Roman Empire hijacked Christianity that the disdain for the Jews entered the interpretations of scripture. As far as I can tell, these ascertations are all very wrong and misleading for today's Christian.

There is no doubt that Christianity is an extension of Judaism and that non-Jewish Christians are literally second rate Christians grafted into the Covenant between God and the Jews. If God has broken His promise to the Jews, has He not by extension broken His promise to all?

In whose benefit is it for Christians to deny their theological heritage? Satan's...of course. So, who would be behind putting a wedge between Jews and Christians (speaking strictly religously since many Jews, racially, are Christians)? You got it. The last thing that Satan wants is for all of Christondom to accept that Jews are not only the origins of the Christian faith as well as the very first Christians who New Testament writings are actually about, but also that without accepting Jews as our spiritual brothers and sisters, we deny God's will.

[Special Ed]

I simply cannot agree. We as a whole lot may be more inclined to do as evil influences lure us, but history has proven that even in the midst of being as far from God's will as we can be, we have an inner urging to choose to move toward God. This can be seen easily in the Greek, Roman, Samaritan etc. areas of the Middle East where revelling in drunkeness and orgies was completely acceptable, but yet, those people "chose" to follow the disciplines of Jesus Christ. Why? If we are not drawn to choose God, through Christ or in any other way, why do we give up such lives as the Greeks and Romans gave up for a more spiritually disciplined life?

I would suggest you read Ecclesiatese until it no longer sounds like a bummer to you;). Seriously, it helped me get my head around this issue very well.

Ecclesiastes does not me bum out, RoBo. I'm just slowly coming to the realization that I'm not as great of a person as I used to think I am. I know that the only real decision I was capable of making was definitely not the right one so I thank the Lord for giving me that ability. If I, or anyone else for that matter, ever do the right thing it isn't because they are capable of doing it it's because the Lord imposed His will on us in some way or another. It is my opinion that most of us suffer from a very limited view of an unlimitable God.

[hvacrmedic]

HVAC/R......don't you recognize that Jesus preached love, tolerance, embracing, accepting 'stuff' from the religious 'right' when you see it??? I'm disappointed in you!!!
I like the Golden Rule......it works for everyone/colour/religion/country/gender/age/sex.....:)

Apparently I'm a heretic.

[Hugh B]

Apparently I'm a heretic.


I am interested in learning about this so called tolerance that Jesus is to have preached. What tolerance? Please explain. What tolerance are you talking about? This is new to me.

[hvacrmedic]

Every time anti-Christian persons want to piss on the faith of others they always wind up with ridiculous comments about how something a Christian has done that is not Christian like. This is not only pathetic in general, but also shows just how little that person understands what Jesus Christ taught.

Well hvacrmedic, your comments aren't very manly either. So, should we just assume that you aren't a very good man? What a stupid way to try to communicate one's side of an argument that cannot even be argued.

So you agree that his was an off statment made in haste. I can forgive him, because I know he was compelled beyond reason and by forces out of his immediate control. Could he or you grant me the same sort of compassionate understanding? FWIW, I don't have to hold to your ideal of what Christian is, because I'm not Christian. What's his exuse, or your's for that matter? Let's be civil shall we, and you might manage to undo that negative point in favor of Christianity that you both have collectively just scored. Apparently neither of you were called by God as evangelists. How do you expect to save my soul by taking jabs at me? :)

I'm not the typical atheist that you might be accustomed to. I once attended chuch and studied the Bible. I still have my Strong's concordance and Greek lexicon. At one point I could almost read Greek without referring to the lexicon. I didn't fall from salvation, I fell into it. I found a freedom from sin in the discovery that the word is absolutely meaningless. I have no guilt, I have no shame, I have no paranoia, I have no fears, and I am the least likely person to do any intentional evil to another that you will ever meet. But I do not believe that Jesus Christ has anything whatsoever to do with what will happen to me when I'm dead and gone. And your opinion about it is just a personal sentiment, unless of course you're going to claim that god told you so and that's how you know. You see the difference? I'm not claiming to know the truth about our existence, or about any supposed afterlife, I'm only claiming that there is no possible way for YOU to know either, and yet you believe that you do. You call that "faith", but unless you stop pretending to "know" the answers, then you've only called "knowledge" by a different name so as to justify your conclusions drawn in the absense of any direct evidence. In that sense, "faith", as far as I can tell, is equivalent to "conclusions derived out of thin air" or alternately "pulled out of one's a$$".

I'm not trying to discredit the message of good will that Jesus spead, nor am I trying to "unconvert" anyone from their religion. I'm only stating what I consider to be facts. You're free to reject them. But be aware that as a Christian you are unable to see your own actions from my perspective, but conversely, as a former Christian I certainly do understand fully how my actions and beliefs appear to you. You are at a disadvantage on that account.

[RoBoTeq]

Ecclesiastes does not me bum out, RoBo. I'm just slowly coming to the realization that I'm not as great of a person as I used to think I am. I know that the only real decision I was capable of making was definitely not the right one so I thank the Lord for giving me that ability. If I, or anyone else for that matter, ever do the right thing it isn't because they are capable of doing it it's because the Lord imposed His will on us in some way or another. It is my opinion that most of us suffer from a very limited view of an unlimitable God.
Sounds like you may just be having a little low spot in your psychy sp-ed. We are all screw ups, incapable of ever being worthy of God's grace, which is precisely why we must have it.

It's good to know that Ecclesiatese does not bum you out. It used to bum me out until I realized what the author, most likely King Solomon, was getting across.

It is my belief that most of us have more of a relationship with God then we are willing to admit, even to ourselves. God is available to us 24/7 at any place we are. Like the song goes; "Winter, Spring, Summer or Fall, All we got to do is call....".

[RoBoTeq]

So you agree that his was an off statment made in haste. I can forgive him, because I know he was compelled beyond reason and by forces out of his immediate control. Could he or you grant me the same sort of compassionate understanding? FWIW, I don't have to hold to your ideal of what Christian is, because I'm not Christian. What's his exuse, or your's for that matter? Let's be civil shall we, and you might manage to undo that negative point in favor of Christianity that you both have collectively just scored. Apparently neither of you were called by God as evangelists. How do you expect to save my soul by taking jabs at me? :)
Well, I believe that I have been called to evangelize big time. I believe I am in the same catagory as the apostle Paul when it comes to Jesus's recruiting method. Yes, I had to be walloped upside the head before I paid attention:confused:

Why am I not evangelizing to you? Simple; you don't want to hear it. And that's perfectly alright, for you. That does not mean that I need to stand back and let your very wrong perceptions of my faith go without commentary. Civil? Was Jesus "civil" when He upturned the tables of the money changers? Boy do you have a real wrong perception of our Lord.

Nope, neither I nor anyone else can save your soul, under any conditions. The only thing that anyone evangelizing can do is to introduce you to the Good News of the gift of Salvation from our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Since you don't want to hear that Good News, but rather want to argue how bad Christians are, there is no evangelizing going to do any good.

As for fogiveness, we all fall real short of what we are told about forgiveness in the most recognized and quoted of all New Testament scripture. Let's see now, how does that go? Oh yea; "Forgive us our trespasses." See there? We expect to be forgiven and say so whenever we say the Lord's Prayer. So why are we so often not forgiven? What???? Oh, that other part of the Lord's Prayer; "As we forgive others who trespass against us."

Well, ain't this some kind of howdy-do little stipulation that Jesus has tricked us into chanting? According to this, our forgiveness is to be based on how we forgive others. NO FAIR!

I want to be forgiven no matter what. Why do I have to forgive others just to be forgiven myself? And to make how I am forgiven my own responsibility as to how I forgive others is just, well, not very human like.

So, based on this, can I forgive you your trespasses against me? No. No I cannot. You see, I don't feel you have done anything for me to have to forgive you for. What you believe is what is in your heart. All I can do is to testify my beliefs and hope to have some influence for you to seek out your own relationship with God. I do however need to work on that forgiveness thing a lot in other instances though.

[hvacrmedic]

Well, I believe that I have been called to evangelize big time. I believe I am in the same catagory as the apostle Paul when it comes to Jesus's recruiting method. Yes, I had to be walloped upside the head before I paid attention:confused:

Why am I not evangelizing to you? Simple; you don't want to hear it. And that's perfectly alright, for you. That does not mean that I need to stand back and let your very wrong perceptions of my faith go without commentary. Civil? Was Jesus "civil" when He upturned the tables of the money changers? Boy do you have a real wrong perception of our Lord.

Nope, neither I nor anyone else can save your soul, under any conditions. The only thing that anyone evangelizing can do is to introduce you to the Good News of the gift of Salvation from our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Since you don't want to hear that Good News, but rather want to argue how bad Christians are, there is no evangelizing going to do any good.

As for fogiveness, we all fall real short of what we are told about forgiveness in the most recognized and quoted of all New Testament scripture. Let's see now, how does that go? Oh yea; "Forgive us our trespasses." See there? We expect to be forgiven and say so whenever we say the Lord's Prayer. So why are we so often not forgiven? What???? Oh, that other part of the Lord's Prayer; "As we forgive others who trespass against us."

Well, ain't this some kind of howdy-do little stipulation that Jesus has tricked us into chanting? According to this, our forgiveness is to be based on how we forgive others. NO FAIR!

I want to be forgiven no matter what. Why do I have to forgive others just to be forgiven myself? And to make how I am forgiven my own responsibility as to how I forgive others is just, well, not very human like.

So, based on this, can I forgive you your trespasses against me? No. No I cannot. You see, I don't feel you have done anything for me to have to forgive you for. What you believe is what is in your heart. All I can do is to testify my beliefs and hope to have some influence for you to seek out your own relationship with God. I do however need to work on that forgiveness thing a lot in other instances though.

Well, if salvation is a free gift then why do you feel compelled to offer it to me or anyone else? According to Paul I already have it, but he thought he'd mention it just in case I wasn't aware. Kind of like a person reminding his neighbors that the air is free, all you gotta do is suck it in. Well thanks for sharing that with me, I thought I was just moving my diaphragm up and down for no apparent reason until you told me that. Kind of redundant isn't it? Or are you going to say that salvation requires a person to be righteous and to aquire a persistent tendency to shout Halleluah's and Amens whenever someone is in hearing distance but not otherwise? Well if knowing about it is all that is required to have it, then I suppose your job is done. What have any of the other things in the Bible have to do with salvation? Couldn't it be reduced to a single paragraph, something like, "Hello, I'm Jesus. In a short while I'm going to die, and for reasons that you would never understand, this is going to lift the death sentence I placed on all of you because of what an ancestor of yours did a long time ago (though I'm aware that you may not have ever heard about that). Anyway, I'm going to give you everlasting life, and all you have to do to claim your prize is show up and shout the name "Jesus" at the front gate (that's the password), and the guy there will let you on through. I don't know about you, but I think this is an offer you'd be a fool to turn down." The end.

[RoBoTeq]

Well, if salvation is a free gift then why do you feel compelled to offer it to me or anyone else? According to Paul I already have it, but he thought he'd mention it just in case I wasn't aware. Kind of like a person reminding his neighbors that the air is free, all you gotta do is suck it in. Well thanks for sharing that with me, I thought I was just moving my diaphragm up and down for no apparent reason until you told me that. Kind of redundant isn't it? Or are you going to say that salvation requires a person to be righteous and to aquire a persistent tendency to shout Halleluah's and Amens whenever someone is in hearing distance but not otherwise? Well if knowing about it is all that is required to have it, then I suppose your job is done. What have any of the other things in the Bible have to do with salvation? Couldn't it be reduced to a single paragraph, something like, "Hello, I'm Jesus. In a short while I'm going to die, and for reasons that you would never understand, this is going to lift the death sentence I placed on all of you because of what an ancestor of yours did a long time ago (though I'm aware that you may not have ever heard about that). Anyway, I'm going to give you everlasting life, and all you have to do to claim your prize is show up and shout the name "Jesus" at the front gate (that's the password), and the guy there will let you on through. I don't know about you, but I think this is an offer you'd be a fool to turn down." The end.
Once again you give me and other Christians more say so then we actually have, which is none.

I cannot offer you Salvation. Salvation is a free gift of Jesus Christ with a condition; you must truly accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

Many who claim to have accepted Jesus do not believe it in their hearts and therefore must be brought to judgement. Again, this has nothing to do with mere mortals such as myself.

It is not at all like air because you breath involuntarily (A Creation of God. Probably a good thing in your case that it is involuntary or you might argue against doing it:rolleyes:).

Most of scripture is teaching us how to live to the best of our ability in the physical world we are temporarily living in in mortal bodies. Scripture also teaches us how to prepare ourselves for our eternal, spiritual lives with God. We need to be taught because we have evil influences convincing us that we need to be important and successful in the physical world that is going to be utterly meaningless once our mortal bodies expire.

I truly am sorry you don't get it. More so, I am sorry that you have no desire to get it. This can certainly change at any time, as I and many others can attest to. Unfortunately, this must be a decision made by the individual. Sometimes, the more a person is persuaded to go in a particular direction, the more that person resists. So, no need to resist on my account. You obviously have had the introductions, if you want a relationship with God, it is all up to you.

[hvacrmedic]

I am interested in learning about this so called tolerance that Jesus is to have preached. What tolerance? Please explain. What tolerance are you talking about? This is new to me.

Tolerance is giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with.

[RoBoTeq]

Tolerance is giving someone enough rope to hang themselves with.
Well then, you better hope that horse stays put:rolleyes:

[conky]

HVACRMEDIC,

May I offer you this, Many of the Posters on this site and especially this thread, that consider themselves Christians, Boots, RoBo, etc; have had a Life changing, Living relationship with God. Don't Believe me ask them. Do yourself a favor don't stop seeking God, Just watch what he does to your life when you humbly and honestly ask him to reveal himself to you. Every Christian that reads this would gladly share their experience of Grace and faith with you. This Grace and Faith was free to them and just as free for you. You may be surprised, either way you are loved from above and by these Christians.

Stay Gold,
Be True,
Ken

[RoBoTeq]

HVACRMEDIC,

May I offer you this, Many of the Posters on this site and especially this thread, that consider themselves Christians, Boots, RoBo, etc; have had a Life changing, Living relationship with God. Don't Believe me ask them. Do yourself a favor don't stop seeking God, Just watch what he does to your life when you humbly and honestly ask him to reveal himself to you. Every Christian that reads this would gladly share their experience of Grace and faith with you. This Grace and Faith was free to them and just as free for you. You may be surprised, either way you are loved from above and by these Christians.

Stay Gold,
Be True,
Ken
Conky does speak for me on this post. I was a real difficult case because of my disdain for the way so called Christians behaved. It took a while to understand that churchianity is a lot different from Christianity and that it is churchianity (the worship of a particular religous organization) that defies the teachings of Jesus Christ and commits evil in the alleged name of God.

[hvacrmedic]

Once again you give me and other Christians more say so then we actually have, which is none.

I cannot offer you Salvation. Salvation is a free gift of Jesus Christ with a condition; you must truly accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

Many who claim to have accepted Jesus do not believe it in their hearts and therefore must be brought to judgement. Again, this has nothing to do with mere mortals such as myself.

It is not at all like air because you breath involuntarily (A Creation of God. Probably a good thing in your case that it is involuntary or you might argue against doing it:rolleyes:).

Most of scripture is teaching us how to live to the best of our ability in the physical world we are temporarily living in in mortal bodies. Scripture also teaches us how to prepare ourselves for our eternal, spiritual lives with God. We need to be taught because we have evil influences convincing us that we need to be important and successful in the physical world that is going to be utterly meaningless once our mortal bodies expire.

I truly am sorry you don't get it. More so, I am sorry that you have no desire to get it. This can certainly change at any time, as I and many others can attest to. Unfortunately, this must be a decision made by the individual. Sometimes, the more a person is persuaded to go in a particular direction, the more that person resists. So, no need to resist on my account. You obviously have had the introductions, if you want a relationship with God, it is all up to you.

Interestingly enough I have battled all those demons and won despite my opinion that Bible is just another cultist transcript. Most all other major religions have similar teachings, some are even word for word in places, having the exact same statments made by Jesus. These ideals are human desires, and the only reason people are enchanted by them is that they state in words what we already felt inside. It's poetry, nothing more, and I've read many poems that were equally as captivating. There are also poetic cults, people who's lives revolve around the idea of poetry itself. They live, breath, and eat it. They are indistinguishable from a religeous body, sans God.

In every respect I live up to the ideals set forth in the New Testament, except for the fact that I don't belive that they are exclusive to the Bible, and I don't believe that Jesus was anything other than a normal human being. A little wacked maybe, but otherwise normal. What does it mean to "accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior?" What's he saving me from? I thought I knew at one time, but when I examined the notion it slithered away into oblivion, kind of like the notion of free will did when I set out to define it. It was hollow inside.

[RoBoTeq]

Interestingly enough I have battled all those demons and won despite my opinion that Bible is just another cultist transcript. Most all other major religions have similar teachings, some are even word for word in places, having the exact same statments made by Jesus. These ideals are human desires, and the only reason people are enchanted by them is that they state in words what we already felt inside. It's poetry, nothing more, and I've read many poems that were equally as captivating. There are also poetic cults, people who's lives revolve around the idea of poetry itself. They live, breath, and eat it. They are indistinguishable from a religeous body, sans God.

In every respect I live up to the ideals set forth in the New Testament, except for the fact that I don't belive that they are exclusive to the Bible, and I don't believe that Jesus was anything other than a normal human being. A little wacked maybe, but otherwise normal. What does it mean to "accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior?" What's he saving me from? I thought I knew at one time, but when I examined the notion it slithered away into oblivion, kind of like the notion of free will did when I set out to define it. It was hollow inside.
Amazing! You are posting the most logical rationale that holy writings are indeed from other then man. The very fact that holy writings are similar in context even though thousands of miles and years from one another should tell us that there is something to these writings more then the imagination of man.

The very fact that such writings continue to be studied and the Judeo-Christian scriptures having survived in tact for thousands of years says volumes about the logic that there is something very special about these writings.

You kind of remind me of me when in high school I defended marijauna as not being addictive by telling my teacher that I had been smoking the stuff every day for years, and I wasn't addicted:rolleyes:

[hvacrmedic]

HVACRMEDIC,

May I offer you this, Many of the Posters on this site and especially this thread, that consider themselves Christians, Boots, RoBo, etc; have had a Life changing, Living relationship with God. Don't Believe me ask them. Do yourself a favor don't stop seeking God, Just watch what he does to your life when you humbly and honestly ask him to reveal himself to you. Every Christian that reads this would gladly share their experience of Grace and faith with you. This Grace and Faith was free to them and just as free for you. You may be surprised, either way you are loved from above and by these Christians.

Stay Gold,
Be True,
Ken

Well your intent is sincere, but here again I have to say, I've walked a mile in those shoes already. Niether you nor they have any "experience" to offer that will be substantially different from my own. Oddly enough the recommendation in the Bible to "seek ye the truth in all things" is something I began to do in earnest, and it was that very persuit that led to my ultimate rejection of religion in any shape fashion or form. Do I miss those "feelings" that come along with being a Christian. No, not one bit. I have much greater peace of mind now than I had then. If only I could relate to you THAT experience, then maybe you'd undersand. You're there claiming to have found a great treasure that you want to go out and share (paraphrased), and you come to me and I'm standing on what looks like Fort Knox to me, and here you are bragging about some bent up Zirconium ring you found in the gutter. Sorry if you don't understand. But if the faux paus jewlrey makes you happy, then I suppose you ought to cherish it. The climb up to the peak of that mountain, where the real diamonds are, is not an easy climb, and I don't necessarily advocate the attempt. You could die of old age before getting there, so what would be the point in it.

[hvacrmedic]

Amazing! You are posting the most logical rationale that holy writings are indeed from other then man. The very fact that holy writings are similar in context even though thousands of miles and years from one another should tell us that there is something to these writings more then the imagination of man.

The very fact that such writings continue to be studied and the Judeo-Christian scriptures having survived in tact for thousands of years says volumes about the logic that there is something very special about these writings.

You kind of remind me of me when in high school I defended marijauna as not being addictive by telling my teacher that I had been smoking the stuff every day for years, and I wasn't addicted:rolleyes:

That is no more an indication that God revealed that information to those people than the fact that all dog's prefer to sniff each others butts. On the contrary, it is proof that men share certain innate tendencies in common, meaning only that they are of the same species.

[RoBoTeq]

That is no more an indication that God revealed that information to those people than the fact that all dog's prefer to sniff each others butts. On the contrary, it is proof that men share certain innate tendencies in common, meaning only that they are of the same species.
Ok. No need for further discussion then. Not like either of us can prove what we believe is accurate or not;)

[Some Dude]

Ok. No need for further discussion then. Not like either of us can prove what we believe is accurate or not;)

Probably help if you used only the bible and none of your own words.:D

[hvacrmedic]

Ok. No need for further discussion then. Not like either of us can prove what we believe is accurate or not;)

If you're a good person at heart, and you seem to be, then I'm not interested in disturbing your foundation. In any case, if your foundation is stable, then that wasn't going to happen anyway. I'm not opposed to organizations that promote good will, I welcome them, regardless of the name etched over the door. But there is no good will where there is lack of compassion, and no compassion without understanding, and no understanding from those who who claim to believe in God and who are simultaneously unable to explain exactly what that means. So to clear this up for them I'll quote the Bible, "God is Love". "To whom you yeild yourselves servants to obey, they are your master". So if you believe in love, then love is your God, and apparently this is the same God that Jesus spoke of. So also apparently his God was not that assnine, barbaric, hateful, and murderous God of the Old Testament, i.e. the God of the Jews.

There is no requirement listed anywhere in the Jesus' statements that a person should discuss or ponder any other unrelated doctrine, or speak in tongues, or go to church, or ever say stupid crap like "Praise God, to God all the glory" "Halleluah, in Jesus name we pray", etc. etc. etc. You people sound like fools when you start with that Christian-speak<sic>. Sorry, but that's a fact. I'm pretty certain that there was a passage about modern day Christians in the New Testament, something about those who "go out to pray in public, for to be seen of men. I tell you they have their reward already."

In summary, I'm afraid that what Jesus was actually promoting was "anti-religion". Take away everthing except the words in red, and see how much of Christianity today has to do with Jesus' message. Without the pomp and splendor, and the weird practices adopted, there would be nothing left but empty buildings. Have a nice day Robo. :)

[jrbenny]

Jesus was condemning the 'praying in public' for the sake of showing religion. It wasn't genuine.

I'm not condemned for praying in public if it's genuine.

[jrbenny]

...ever say stupid crap like "Praise God, to God all the glory" "Halleluah, in Jesus name we pray", etc. etc. etc. You people sound like fools when you start with that Christian-speak<sic>. Sorry, but that's a fact. ... :)
Your belief in your opinion does not make it a fact. :cool:

[arc8]

Your belief in your opinion does not make it a fact. :cool:

He can't be taught!
He's probably gone too far!
Like many have mentioned; he has a closed mind; by experience so he says.

[hvacrmedic]

Jesus was condemning the 'praying in public' for the sake of showing religion. It wasn't genuine.

I'm not condemned for praying in public if it's genuine.


"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
______________________


8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [emphasis]

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So, which of these men do you guys most resemble? If you say the "publican", then I commend you. I don't however see many Christians who do much more than go by the name Christian out of sheer personal gain and/or to gain the respect of thier peers, or for any number of other purely selfish or purely social motivations. Mostly hypocrites. Thus Jesus' concern, apparently, that he'd not find any faith on Earth when he returned. Not that it matters to me that much in the larger scheme of things. I think both of those guys are dead and gone, and forgotten. The only thing left of them is the influence they had on future generations, their legacy. Were they a good example of humanity, or just animals bent only on self gain?

[RoBoTeq]

Your belief in your opinion does not make it a fact. :cool:
In His name, I must agree:)

[RoBoTeq]

He can't be taught!
He's probably gone too far!
Like many have mentioned; he has a closed mind; by experience so he says.
No one is incapable of learning Truth.
No one is ever too far gone.
The closed mind is even more so enhanced by the closed heart.

Keep looking up:)

[RoBoTeq]

"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
______________________


8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [emphasis]

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So, which of these men do you guys most resemble? If you say the "publican", then I commend you. I don't however see many Christians who do much more than go by the name Christian out of sheer personal gain and/or to gain the respect of thier peers, or for any number of other purely selfish or purely social motivations. Mostly hypocrites. Thus Jesus' concern, apparently, that he'd not find any faith on Earth when he returned. Not that it matters to me that much in the larger scheme of things. I think both of those guys are dead and gone, and forgotten. The only thing left of them is the influence they had on future generations, their legacy. Were they a good example of humanity, or just animals bent only on self gain?
Sorry, but scripture can never have true meaning to those who do not have faith in the source for scripture. I know it may sound mystical and/or cultish, but with your closed heart and mind you will never be able to understand the Truth of scripture. You have eyes but cannot see and you have ears but cannot hear.

Think of yourself with scripture as you would think of how you would feel being pregnant. It is something you simple cannot relate to.

[RoBoTeq]

Probably help if you used only the bible and none of your own words.:D
What Bible do you recommend? I only use scripture in the way that I understand it. My understanding of scripture comes from extensive study of it along with prayer for my understanding of it.

[jrbenny]

"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
______________________


8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [emphasis]

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So, which of these men do you guys most resemble? If you say the "publican", then I commend you. I don't however see many Christians who do much more than go by the name Christian out of sheer personal gain and/or to gain the respect of thier peers, or for any number of other purely selfish or purely social motivations. Mostly hypocrites. Thus Jesus' concern, apparently, that he'd not find any faith on Earth when he returned. Not that it matters to me that much in the larger scheme of things. I think both of those guys are dead and gone, and forgotten. The only thing left of them is the influence they had on future generations, their legacy. Were they a good example of humanity, or just animals bent only on self gain?
Your ability to cut and paste the bible doesn't give you a lick of credibility as you don't understand what Jesus is teaching here.

This is a commonly used reference for non-believers to explain why they don't go to church as they (like you) have an incorrect interpretation of this passage.

Please, don't attempt to teach me something with regards to the Bible. You have no more credibility than a false prophet. You have already stated that you don't believe the bible is God inspired. That belief in itself completely discredits the bible.

II Tim 3:16 is contrary to your belief.

It's like someone saying that Jesus was just another gifted speaker, a really good guy. Umm, no, that would mean that he was a delusional liar claiming to be God.

You can't cherry pick. You're either all in or you're not in.

[Hugh B]

"5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
______________________


8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [emphasis]

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


So, which of these men do you guys most resemble? If you say the "publican", then I commend you. I don't however see many Christians who do much more than go by the name Christian out of sheer personal gain and/or to gain the respect of thier peers, or for any number of other purely selfish or purely social motivations. Mostly hypocrites. Thus Jesus' concern, apparently, that he'd not find any faith on Earth when he returned. Not that it matters to me that much in the larger scheme of things. I think both of those guys are dead and gone, and forgotten. The only thing left of them is the influence they had on future generations, their legacy. Were they a good example of humanity, or just animals bent only on self gain?

It is true that many Christians are hypocrites. What does that prove? Many unbelievers are also hypocrites as well. So?

The failures of men has no bearing on truth, Jesus claim to be God, his solution for fallen man or the infallability of the Bible.

Men can claim to be anything they wish to claim and then fail to be consistent or fall short of what they claim to adhere to. That has no bearing on the truth as presented by Jesus Christ.

Christ claimed to be God. He alone is the one central figure in history who meets the requirements necessary to be the answer for man's fallen condition.

[hvacrmedic]

Your ability to cut and paste the bible doesn't give you a lick of credibility as you don't understand what Jesus is teaching here.

This is a commonly used reference for non-believers to explain why they don't go to church as they (like you) have an incorrect interpretation of this passage.

Please, don't attempt to teach me something with regards to the Bible. You have no more credibility than a false prophet. You have already stated that you don't believe the bible is God inspired. That belief in itself completely discredits the bible.

II Tim 3:16 is contrary to your belief.

It's like someone saying that Jesus was just another gifted speaker, a really good guy. Umm, no, that would mean that he was a delusional liar claiming to be God.

You can't cherry pick. You're either all in or you're not in.

Paul couldn't have been referring to the New Testament in that passage, which includes the letter containing that passage, because at the time he wrote that statement there was no New Testament, nor obviously that particular letter to Timothy containing that passage. He was referring to the Tanakh. It goes without saying, however, that his belief is contrary to mine even in that case, which I think was already established before you posted this. OTOH, if whoever or whatever is manning the controls in this universe is what we are referring to as "God", then I suppose there isn't a single thing spoken or written or done by anyone that wasn't inspired by God, he/she/it/whatever being the prime mover, the cause of all things. So if we can agree on that definition of God, then the Bible would necessarily have been inspired by God. What I said on the other hand was that it wasn't "the WORD of God, it's the words of men". Not the same thing, not that it really matters to either of us at this point. :)

Paul was called "according to his own testimony" while he was not only a sinner, but an active persecutor of the Nazarene sect (Christians). He was literally putting Christians to death. So he stresses that salvation is not of works, which is obvious in his case. If he was to establish himself in good standing he really had no other choice but to adopt the doctrine of the "elect' those predestined by God to be sons of God not of works. On the other hand, had that been you or I doing those things, then we would have been considered "ilk", by God, according to that same Saul of Tarsus in his later teachings, the aforementioned letter for example, and "none of His". So, given that Paul is such an obviously conflicted individual, I find it difficult to take anything he said without a large grain of salt. He could not extend compassion to those in his own friggin congregation that were doing far less evil than he was, but commanded that some of them be "put out".

[jrbenny]

He didn't know he was writing scripture just as the authors of the Old Testament.

God was in control of Paul's life and his writings.

[bootlen]

Apparently I'm a heretic.

That's not the word I would use.

[RoBoTeq]

That's not the word I would use.
Maybe he mispelled hairy tick:D

[hvacrmedic]

He didn't know he was writing scripture just as the authors of the Old Testament.

God was in control of Paul's life and his writings.

Who's to decide which words are God inspired and which are not? Why are there so many people that disagree on which words are scripture and which are lies? There are many scriptures to choose from, none of which agrees with the others. All of their respective followers make exactly the same arguments in favor of their scriptures being God inspired as you do of yours. Is it possible that all of you are wrong? I'd say that the answer to this is a resounding yes. All of you are only doing what you thought was best "for you". And it may indeed be the best thing "for you" in your circumstance in life and in your community. It might be advantagous to me too, but it would not be "best" for me. I could never be happy knowing that I wasn't being true to myself.

The Muslim religion grew by overthrowing others and forcing their religion upon the captives. When their children were born they were born into a Muslim nation, and having never been under the influence of any other religion they were incapable of questioning the Muslim faith. They had nothing to compare it to. Because of the phenomenon of mob mentality, that local religion was deemed to best for them, and they would even help spread it themselves through the same tactics that were used on their parents and grandparents. Namely by killing people and forcing their religion on the survivors.

The difference here is that we live in a country where we are allowed to choose whatever we want to believe in. And the fact that we don't take advantage of that right in general, only leads me to believe that people are so afraid of being "labelled" that they'll do practically anything at all in order to aviod it. Ironically, it was the fear of being labelled that kept a lot of people from joining the church in its infancy, but in these modern times its often a fear of being labelled that keeps them in it. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone, but it certainly is true for many. Church is something you're just "supposed" to do. Everyone knows that, right?

Now that you've probably decided that you aren't likely to win me over with argument, I grant you leave from the argument. You can all go back to your church talk, and I'll go back to dissecting hvac equipment. Everyone will be happy. :)

[jrbenny]

You certainly do use a broad brush in painting your world view. Might try some finer tips because such a broad stroke is actually pretty exclusive of many people.

There is no argument. Although, I would certainly pray for your soul and repentance for the blasphemy that you have posted on this site.

[Hugh B]

Who's to decide which words are God inspired and which are not? Why are there so many people that disagree on which words are scripture and which are lies? There are many scriptures to choose from, none of which agrees with the others. All of their respective followers make exactly the same arguments in favor of their scriptures being God inspired as you do of yours. Is it possible that all of you are wrong? I'd say that the answer to this is a resounding yes. All of you are only doing what you thought was best "for you". And it may indeed be the best thing "for you" in your circumstance in life and in your community. It might be advantagous to me too, but it would not be "best" for me. I could never be happy knowing that I wasn't being true to myself.

The Muslim religion grew by overthrowing others and forcing their religion upon the captives. When their children were born they were born into a Muslim nation, and having never been under the influence of any other religion they were incapable of questioning the Muslim faith. They had nothing to compare it to. Because of the phenomenon of mob mentality, that local religion was deemed to best for them, and they would even help spread it themselves through the same tactics that were used on their parents and grandparents. Namely by killing people and forcing their religion on the survivors.

The difference here is that we live in a country where we are allowed to choose whatever we want to believe in. And the fact that we don't take advantage of that right in general, only leads me to believe that people are so afraid of being "labelled" that they'll do practically anything at all in order to aviod it. Ironically, it was the fear of being labelled that kept a lot of people from joining the church in its infancy, but in these modern times its often a fear of being labelled that keeps them in it. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone, but it certainly is true for many. Church is something you're just "supposed" to do. Everyone knows that, right?

Now that you've probably decided that you aren't likely to win me over with argument, I grant you leave from the argument. You can all go back to your church talk, and I'll go back to dissecting hvac equipment. Everyone will be happy. :)

You really ought to read up a little on textual analysis before making charges that show how ignorant you are regarding the assembly of the Biblical text.

If you are going to compare the process of how the Bible was compiled to other so called holy books it would do you well to learn something about the process before making broad claims.

[hvacrmedic]

You really ought to read up a little on textual analysis before making charges that show how ignorant you are regarding the assembly of the Biblical text.

If you are going to compare the process of how the Bible was compiled to other so called holy books it would do you well to learn something about the process before making broad claims.

There were hundreds of transcripts and letters collected. Through tradition, the most cited letters and transcripts began to be used as a sort of textbook for the Early church. The remainder became historical artifacts. One group after another, over a period of several hundred years, altered or ammended the canon of scriptures according to their own ideals and analyses. There was no universal agreement, and to this day there remains no universal agreement. The disputes were somtimes very heated.

There is to this day disagreement not only about those books to include in the New Testament, but also as to whether the are inspired by God or not. The "fundmanetalist" view is that they are inspired. There are however other veiws by Christians of a type differnent than you that claim they were not inspired, and some that also include the Old Testament in that sentiment. Some of the books that ultimately didn't make it into the canon can be read in "Lost Books of the Bible", which I had at one time.

You might do well to research all of this yourself. Personally, I've been there and done that a long long time ago.

[RoBoTeq]

Wow! With this much misinformation filling up your head and heart, it's no wonder you are allowing yourself to be kept from wanting to be with God.
OK, let's try to break it down;
Who's to decide which words are God inspired and which are not? The decision to write down the compilations of the Hebrew Testament (Christian Old Testament) was done in the first century A.D. during the Roman Empires persecution of Jews in the Empire, especially in Jerusalem. However, the final canonization (authorized acceptance) of books for the Hebrew Testament was completed hundreds of years prior by Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who were members of The Great Synagogue, the authority for Judaism. Prior to this, the Hebrew Testament was a gradial compilation of writings starting with the original five books making up the Jewish Torah.

It wasn't until the fourth century when the Roman Empire decided that instead of murdering, torturing and otherwise persecuting Christians, that ownership of the Christian faith would be in their best interest. At this time a final canonization of books to be called the New Testament were decided on by a group made up of members of the clergy from churches all over the region.

However, the canonization of books making up the New Testament is attested to in writings as early as the second century A.D. What is truly interesting is that out of hundreds of books and epistles claiming authority of knowledge and teachings of Jesus Christ, twenty of the books that were canonized were always on the list.

Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, James and Revelation were disputed mostly due to the question over their authorship, not over their content. Only Revelation was a contriversy throughout the first seven centuries of Christianity. Not only because it's author is not specific enough to be certain who it is, but also because the content was suspected to be a coded message about things that the Roman Empire was doing at the time of the writing. Eventually the Roman authorities, after the fall of the Roman Empire, decided to leave it alone and let it be the ending book of the New Testament.

History proves out conclusively that which books became the canonized Bible(s) was extremely well investigated and a very long and tedious process. This was not a job taken lightly.


Why are there so many people that disagree on which words are scripture and which are lies?No Christian believes that any part of scripture is a lie.
There are many scriptures to choose from, none of which agrees with the others. There is but one set of scriptures for Christianity. Are you referring to other faiths then Christianity? If so, I am one who believes that God has indeed communicated with other then the Hebrews and that a lot of scripture of other faiths has some merit in God. It does appear that through the deceits of Satan that God's communications have been misunderstood by many over the timespan of man's existance.
All of their respective followers make exactly the same arguments in favor of their scriptures being God inspired as you do of yours. Is it possible that all of you are wrong? I'd say that the answer to this is a resounding yes. Sure. Just as your belief that Christian scripture is not True may be wrong;). That's why it's called faith.
All of you are only doing what you thought was best "for you". And it may indeed be the best thing "for you" in your circumstance in life and in your community. It might be advantagous to me too, but it would not be "best" for me. I could never be happy knowing that I wasn't being true to myself. Interesting point. Christian scripture is thousands of years old with many different authors over a two thousand year timespan in a variety of regions dealing with a variety of cultures, yet it is still inspiring and downright helpful in dealing with our individual lives.

The parts of scripture that deal with how we can best live our mortal lives seems to be a living thing that adapts to our specific needs. Maybe you don't have an issue with homosexual tendencies and therefore don't benefit from passages steering us from homosexuality. Maybe, because you aren't a homosexual you take passages about homosexuality as meaning we should persecute homosexuals. However, if you are a homosexual, maybe those passages will inspire you to deny those tendencies so that you may live a better life. After all, there is no doubt that homosexuallity has been the cause of social problems that could have been avoided if no one ever practiced homosexuality. The same goes for beastiality, which is also taught by scripture is against God.


The Muslim religion grew by overthrowing others and forcing their religion upon the captives. When their children were born they were born into a Muslim nation, and having never been under the influence of any other religion they were incapable of questioning the Muslim faith. They had nothing to compare it to. Because of the phenomenon of mob mentality, that local religion was deemed to best for them, and they would even help spread it themselves through the same tactics that were used on their parents and grandparents. Namely by killing people and forcing their religion on the survivors.
No argument here.

The difference here is that we live in a country where we are allowed to choose whatever we want to believe in. And the fact that we don't take advantage of that right in general, only leads me to believe that people are so afraid of being "labelled" that they'll do practically anything at all in order to aviod it.I'm confused, who does not take advantage of religions that are available out of fear? This very forum is proof that different ideas of religion are able to be discussed without fear.
Ironically, it was the fear of being labelled that kept a lot of people from joining the church in its infancy, but in these modern times its often a fear of being labelled that keeps them in it. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone, but it certainly is true for many. Church is something you're just "supposed" to do. Everyone knows that, right? I cannot agree with your thought process here and have never seen any evidence of what you are claiming.

Where is there any evidence of people not joining the Christian movement in it's infancy? If anything, the very fact that Christianity thrived and grew despite horrific torturing and being publicly murdered in very creative ways by the Romans is a testimony that faith surpassed mortal fears.


Now that you've probably decided that you aren't likely to win me over with argument, I grant you leave from the argument. You can all go back to your church talk, and I'll go back to dissecting hvac equipment. Everyone will be happy. :) You may be important enough to God that God will not give up on you, but there is no competition here for anyone to win you over. Sure, those of us of faith would love to see you join our little cult so you too can eat flesh and drink blood with us:rolleyes:, but alas, all we can do is tell of the Good News. We have no authority to win anyone over, that is between the individual and God.

Anyway, hope this helps someone even if not the one who feels he is some sort of challenge:cool:

[RoBoTeq]

There were hundreds of transcripts and letters collected. Through tradition, the most cited letters and transcripts began to be used as a sort of textbook for the Early church. The remainder became historical artifacts. One group after another, over a period of several hundred years, altered or ammended the canon of scriptures according to their own ideals and analyses. There was no universal agreement, and to this day there remains no universal agreement. The disputes were somtimes very heated.

There is to this day disagreement not only about those books to include in the New Testament, but also as to whether the are inspired by God or not. The "fundmanetalist" view is that they are inspired. There are however other veiws by Christians of a type differnent than you that claim they were not inspired, and some that also include the Old Testament in that sentiment. Some of the books that ultimately didn't make it into the canon can be read in "Lost Books of the Bible", which I had at one time.

You might do well to research all of this yourself. Personally, I've been there and done that a long long time ago.
Sorry, but none of this is true or accurate. It takes very little effort to google how scripture was canonized to learn just how long and tediously studied all writings of God were analized to understand that the end result is about as good as it can get.

[hvacrmedic]

Sorry, but none of this is true or accurate. It takes very little effort to google how scripture was canonized to learn just how long and tediously studied all writings of God were analized to understand that the end result is about as good as it can get.

Which version were you referring to as being "as good as it can get?"

BTW, my account of the history of the New Testament is perfectly consistent with these wiki entries.

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

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

Now you don't even have to Google for it.

Here's something you might want to see as well:

http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/

[RoBoTeq]

Which version were you referring to as being "as good as it can get?"

BTW, my account of the history of the New Testament is perfectly consistent with these wiki entries.

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

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

Now you don't even have to Google for it.

Here's something you might want to see as well:

http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/new-testament-apocrypha/
Once again you are ignorant of facts about canonized scripture. While there are different types of "translations", some differing from using later sources of older text then others and some being of a literary fasion more suitable to an older period of time, there is only one version of canonizeds scripture.

The Church of England does include the Apocrapha in it's Bible, but the books of the Apocrapha are not canonized, or recognized as true scripture. The Apocrapha books are interesting in the way they tie the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) time period to the New Testament time period. So, for historical value of Biblical players and places, the Apocrapha is quite useful.

[hvacrmedic]

Once again you are ignorant of facts about canonized scripture. While there are different types of "translations", some differing from using later sources of older text then others and some being of a literary fasion more suitable to an older period of time, there is only one version of canonizeds scripture.

The Church of England does include the Apocrapha in it's Bible, but the books of the Apocrapha are not canonized, or recognized as true scripture. The Apocrapha books are interesting in the way they tie the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) time period to the New Testament time period. So, for historical value of Biblical players and places, the Apocrapha is quite useful.

Bottom line, the Catholic Bible differs from the Protestant Bible, and the Moron's believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired by God, whereas non-Mormon's do not. I'm approaching this from a broader perspective than you are willing to allow. The point is that the New Testament is no more inspired by God than any of the many Books written by Televangislists. In one letter of Paul's he reminds them to bring along a coat that he had stupidly left behind while visting there. How many of the Old Testament Prophets wrote "And the LORD said unto me, proclaim this to the people of Israel. Bring Jeramiahs coat along with you when you return from your battle. It should be hanging on the hall tree in the Temple courtyard. Thus commands the LORD God of Israel."??

Note that there are Jewish sects who also consider all books except the first 5 to be apocrapha, and don't include them in their Bible. Others who include books not found in your Bible's Old Testament. And again, the main point is that what is deemed to be scripture depends entirely upon who you are asking. In this discussion that would be you, and you've answered according to your views. Those views are not universally held, not by far. How do you justify your differences with those who don't hold your same views about scripture, and better yet, your differences with those who agree with you on what is scripture, yet disagree with you on what it says and how a Christian ought to conduct his business. The very fact that Christianity is so divided is a testomony in itself against Christianity, and more particularly , in the context of this discussion, against your arguments. This applies equally to all religions, not just the Christian type.

From an objective viewpoint your views reduce to your "opinions". There is no objective way to formulate your argument, not even in principle, since the subject matter is entirely subjective in nature.

[RoBoTeq]

Bottom line, the Catholic Bible differs from the Protestant Bible, and the Moron's believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired by God, whereas non-Mormon's do not. I'm approaching this from a broader perspective than you are willing to allow. The point is that the New Testament is no more inspired by God than any of the many Books written by Televangislists. In one letter of Paul's he reminds them to bring along a coat that he had stupidly left behind while visting there. How many of the Old Testament Prophets wrote "And the LORD said unto me, proclaim this to the people of Israel. Bring Jeramiahs coat along with you when you return from your battle. It should be hanging on the hall tree in the Temple courtyard. Thus commands the LORD God of Israel."??

Note that there are Jewish sects who also consider all books except the first 5 to be apocrapha, and don't include them in their Bible. Others who include books not found in your Bible's Old Testament. And again, the main point is that what is deemed to be scripture depends entirely upon who you are asking. In this discussion that would be you, and you've answered according to your views. Those views are not universally held, not by far. How do you justify your differences with those who don't hold your same views about scripture, and better yet, your differences with those who agree with you on what is scripture, yet disagree with you on what it says and how a Christian ought to conduct his business. The very fact that Christianity is so divided is a testomony in itself against Christianity, and more particularly , in the context of this discussion, against your arguments. This applies equally to all religions, not just the Christian type.

From an objective viewpoint your views reduce to your "opinions". There is no objective way to formulate your argument, not even in principle, since the subject matter is entirely subjective in nature.
C'mon now, you cannot really be this involved in a subject that you know so little about yet have so much wrong information in your head.

Scripture is scripture no matter what Bible you are using. Mormons do not use scripture, they have made up their own book which you have even noted is called the Book of Mormon, NOT the Bible.

You most certainly are approaching this from a broader perspective. In fact, you are just making crap up as you go along. Seriously, don't you actually want to know what it is you think you oppose?

[TB]

Bottom line, the Catholic Bible differs from the Protestant Bible, yet say the same thing
and the Moron's believe the Book of Mormon to be inspired by God, whereas non-Mormon's do not.
You've never read the BoM have you? I have. It will not stand up to the criteria used to measure the Bible with, nor does it hold the same message as the Bible, or even the one it claims to have. Only people who haven't read either book think they say the same, or even that they were authored by the same God.

[hvacrmedic]

yet say the same thing
You've never read the BoM have you? I have. It will not stand up to the criteria used to measure the Bible with, nor does it hold the same message as the Bible, or even the one it claims to have. Only people who haven't read either book think they say the same, or even that they were authored by the same God.

Yes I have read it. I even attended a Mormon church as a teen. And again you've displayed another fine example of "opinion". According to some Biblical scholars long ago (Christians by their own reckoning) they did not think the New Testament could have been authored by the same God as the Old Testament.

When the standards used to measure something are not well defined, or better, not defined objectively at all, then disputes are inevitable. If all of you intend to maintain your present faith, then it would be best for you that you discontinue this discussion immediately. I say that in a very sincere way, as a friend.

It wouldn't bother me to continue with it for years on end, but if it is going to be a source of agravation to you all, then for your part, common sense should tell you that it is gaining you nothing. If on the other hand, you are hoping that in the process you might spot something "objectively" wrong with my arguments, in order to set your mind at ease, then you should quit the argument as well, because objectivity is exactly what you're arguing against.

But since some of you are going to continue anyway, I'll make the decision for you. This will be my last post to this thread. I would love to see a world without religion, mainly because it would be the end of religious wars and even religious disputes of all kinds. However, there are too many people at present who would discard morality along with it, believing incorrectly that the two are synonymous with each other. I'll never see that world, and I sometimes wonder if it's even possible. I think man might have obliterated himself completely already had it not been for their various forms of belief in God, and a value for life that generally comes along with that.

[rlpenny]

Passage: 1 Corinthians 15:1-4

Book: Things That Differ, by Stam

Websites:
www.bereanbiblesociety.org
www.lesfeldick.org
www.matthewmcgee.org

Reaper,
I'd recommend you stay in the actual Word (Bible). I just read through the entire Bible in about 100 days this past summer. Had attempted to do so several different times growing up but never got past Kings. Reading through (not studying, just reading) in short timeframe really brought things out for me and gave me a better perspective of God and Jesus Christ.

Congrats on being a believer. Like the 2nd poster said, baptism not required for salvation. The book reference above and attending a Bible study under Les Feldick for years in the 90s helped me settle the baptism thing. Growing up (and still) a Baptist all I ever knew were the verses that don't mentioned baptism. However, there are verses that other denominations teach their young and they all mention baptism. So, like the Baptists, they don't focus on the verses that hurt their cause while other applicable denominations likely don't shine a lot of light on those verses that only mention having to believe to be saved.

Taking Duet 29:29 into account and acknowledging that God does keep secret things and that the Bible is a progressive revelation and also taking into account the "MYSTERY" Paul referes to, I'm now ok with and have been given comfort (by Holy Spirit) that the Bible doesn't conflict with itself. Before the cross, folks did not become saved by believing in the death, burial, and resurrection, they believed in the message at that time that the kingdom of God was at hand. See Luke 18:34 to see where the disciples were kept in the dark about the impending death, burial, and resurrection as it wasn't time yet to reveal that per God's Word.

Anyhoo, rest assured your belief in Jesus' dying for your sin, his burial, and his bodily resurrection as your only means of being with Jesus in the afterlife is the requirement in this GRACE age between the cross and the tribulation -- when the Law and the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom is back in play.

Also see the Jerusalem counsel in Gal 2 and Acts 15. There was a change a happening then. This has helped me immensely in understanding the whole completeness of the Bible and how it all fits together in one grand plan but with different administrations and dealings by God with man.

Keep the faith, brother. :-)

[rlpenny]

...Scripture is scripture no matter what Bible you are using.

For those trying to decide which Holy book is best (kinda like digital gauges, etc.). Just look into which holy book contains fulfilled specific (time, place, etc.) prophecies and which one even postulates to have beaten the number #1 enemy -- death -- by claiming to have resurrected a Saviour.

Q. Do any other Holy books have a resurrection claim? proof? etc.

Q. How many prophecies contained in other holy books have been fulfilled ?

Answer to those two questions alone should point skeptics to the Bible of Christianity. But, as someone said ealier, you still have to have faith.

Also, realize that, according to the Bible, those that go to hell go there because of an evil heart of UNBELIEF, not because of the bad things we've all done in life. Folks that go to heaven go because of their BELIEF, not becaue of the good they attempt to do on earth.

1 Cor. 15:1-4 (essential elements of the Gospel)
Heb. 3:12 (evil heart reference)