"I'm not a christian, but it feels good to be in The Chapel", Ed Kowalczyk Options

[livebat]

I've just listen again all my bootlegs of Live and right now I'm listen "I Alone" for the concert in the Chapel, date: 2000-03-13.

Just want to share, again, like everyone, how much I miss Ed... If this thread is repetitive, it's because all we are concerned in different ways... Like I said: It's not religions fault, but in a way the people who didn't know what to believe, finds the wrong answer on them.

Want my +Live+ back!!!

[+Ed+]

I did not read the whole thread, I can not take any of this christianity bullshit for pages and pages anymore, sorry guys.

But you know what stroke me? Every second post says that Christianity took our Ed frmo our Liev and made him a greedy bastard that sings Top with a grin.

NO

NO FUCKING WAY

It is not christianity that did it to him!

How can you not see that all this god-water-christ-christianity-kids-etc etc etc bullshit is simply a MASK! This way Ed only wanted to gain new potential listeners from christian rock ... errr... gangs or audiences or whatever you call them. I am sure he can say whatever he wants, on christianity, on finding his way etc etc but in MOST religions in the world SWITCHING religion is the biggest fucking sin, bigger than fucking your neghbour's wife while your kids are playing nearby or bigger than committing a suicide!

Does anyone not see it as a marketing promotion?

Damn, guys, come on!

We can dwell forever on the topic, but please guys leave the baldy alone and stop feeding the trolls =)

[gotigrz]

switching religions is a sin?????... uh..... ok?????

have you ever heard of the prodigal son? http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestor...prodigalson.htm

and, someone said... "we're all atheist.... i just believe in one less god than you".

that makes no sense... a Christian is a monotheist.

and, saying that organized religion is evil and that it causes wars is not entirely true. while, i do agree that wars are started over it... that doesn't necessarily mean the religion, itself, is at fault. the law in america says that you can't use your house as a drug dealership... but, people do... and, when they get busted... there are fights... shootings... killings. now, i ask you... is this the laws fault or the peoples fault? so, just cause people start wars over religion doesn't make the religion at fault... unless of course the religion tells the people to start wars w/ other religions. there is a difference between defending your beliefs and obeying your beliefs. even though, i doubt Jesus ever taught to fight one another for what you believe in.

and, as for the one that said why is your belief any more true than another when you all believe in the invisible... Jesus Christ is not invisible. He walked this earth... there are facts for that. and, if you say there isn't... then show me the facts that christopher columbus walked the earth. you can't.. but, you know it's true. but, back to Jesus. He did walk the earth, and talk to people... and, my belief in Him is not from fairy tales... it's from an eye witness account (John), and Mark, who wrote his book from accounts of peter... who walked with Christ, and Matthew, Luke. http://carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-a...ritten-and-whom

then some use logic to disprove religion... Christianity, in particular. but, Christianity doesn't use logic to base its reasoning on. it uses faith. Jesus told thomas that "he believed because he has seen, but blessed be the ones who believe but have not seen".

there are many questions about God that no one can answer. many try to come up w/ possible answers to prove or disprove God,... but, reality is, is that we must all make a decision on whether or not to believe what Jesus said to be true. i believe. was i raised to believe? yes. have i ever doubted along the way? yes. was it my parents belief that brought me back Jesus as the answer to my doubts? no.

[FishOutaWater]

switching religions is a sin?????... uh..... ok?????


and, as for the one that said why is your belief any more true than another when you all believe in the invisible... Jesus Christ is not invisible. He walked this earth... there are facts for that. and, if you say there isn't... then show me the facts that christopher columbus walked the earth. you can't.. but, you know it's true. but, back to Jesus. He did walk the earth, and talk to people... and, my belief in Him is not from fairy tales... it's from an eye witness account (John), and Mark, who wrote his book from accounts of peter... who walked with Christ, and Matthew, Luke. http://carm.org/apologetics/evidence-and-a...ritten-and-whom

It is nearly a unanimous conclusion of scholars, historians and main-line seminarians that the gospels were not eye-witness accounts and were written between 60 to 120 AD, with John being dated as the last among them, probably written around 120 A.D. This latter point about John is important because it is not one of the other three "synoptic" gospels and is the one gospel that makes most of the theological and messianic claims.

That website that you cited makes no credible arguments for its dating of the gospels. It basically premises its thesis on the idea that because the gospels don't reference the destruction of the temple, and the book of John has the name John in it which happens to be the same name as one fo teh desciples, and the unsubstantiated claim that "The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name", then the gospels must be accurate contemporeneous accounts. This is effectively refuted by almost everyone who has studied the timeline of the penning of the gospels. That website is filled with inaccuracies. The earliest written documents in the "new Testament" were the letters of Paul. It is true that Paul never met Jesus, but he did have interaction with Jesus' followers - notably James, (referred to repeatedly in the New Testament as "the brother of Jesus"), and Peter. It gets interesting when you really scrutinize the letters of Paul and Acts and see that Peter was really subordinate to James in the early Jesus movement (see the account of Peter caving in and dining with Paul and unclean gentiles that did not follow Jewish dietary law and how James strongly objected to that and Peter was subject to James leadership). It is also interesting to see that Peter and James, those who actually met Jesus and carried on his teaching in Jerusalem among the Jews, felt strongly that any Jesus follower needed to first convert to Judaism and follow all of the Jewish laws (like circumcision and the dietary laws). In other words, there was no "church" or "christianity" in the years after Jesus death. There was a Jesus movement within Judaism that was being spread by his desciples. This is how the people who actually knew Jesus directly and followed him thought it was supposed to work. Were they wrong compared to how Christianity looks today? It was Paul who never met Jesus, and Paul's persuasion (which was helped by a meeting described in Acts and Pauls letters in which Paul raised lots of money from the wealthy gentiles in the East and brought it back to Jersualem to help Peter and James out financially) that eventually expanded the Jesus movement to the gentiles outside of Judaism. Paul's view of the relationship between Jesus and Judaism and the Gentiles is expounded upon in Romans Chapter 11. Judaism is an olive tree. And gentiles who follow Jesus are branches grafted onto the olive tree. But you cannot uproot or kill the olive tree, or the branches will die. And the branches are not more important than the olive tree. The "law" (i.e. original Judaism, is valid and authentic and enduring. This is the basis for the Catholic Chirch's position that Christians should not try to convert Jews because their relationship with God is enduring and permanent.

Bla bla bla. I have gone on too long.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Mar 30 2011, 8:49 am

[gotigrz]

why'd you stop... i was lovin' it.

i know i believe the bible... if the bible says this... i believe it... if the bible says that... i believe that, too. but, i know the bible says that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of Man, and that whosoever believes in Him shall have eternal life... so, i believe that, too. nowhere in the bible does it say anything that contradicts that.

so, as far as when the gospels were written... whether it was 60 ad or 120 ad... they have stood the test of time.

i must say, though,... you have a very deep knowledge of the bible... i'm impressed.