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

[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.

[Pokey]

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

And what of all the eye witness accounts from other religions? All the "facts" or facts that they can come up with saying that there's is the true way. The "eye witness accounts" you've already stated there are second hand. John and Mark who are writing on accounts from someone else who claims to have seen these things. It's like Fish said, years later.
Even now in this day and age with all the technology in our hands, people who give eye witness accounts on things they have seen can get it so wrong.
Are you saying there is absolutely no room for error in the accounts on which you base your entire belief on?

Why is it that back then in the times of the bible, it seemed so easy for people to interact with God and now we take these stories and comments as gospal (no pun intended). Where as now, with all our technology and advances in every aspect of life, it seems so difficult for someone to prove an interaction with God?

Back then, God asked Abraham to kill his son to show his love for him. Abraham was prepared to do this until God stopped him. That's all well and good now because it is the word of the Lord and no harm done. If this happened in this day and age and a man was found to almost have murdered his son, but then stopped at the last minute and told everyone that it was God that told him to do this he would still have his child taken away by child protection services. Yet the stories would be identical.
He'd be looked at like a mad man ... if you read that story in the paper would you say "he is a just and righteous man following in the light and love of God" just because he used that as an excuse. How easy for the story of Abraham be a total lie and he used God as an excuse for getting caught trying to murder a child?

My point being, stories are so subjective. And if you believe in Abraham then you should also believe anyone who says anything right now claiming God told them to.

For example, God spoke to me and told me to reply to this comment and sway you from following him. He doesn't really like you all that much. Do you believe me? I can easily insist over and over that it was true that he spoke to me. I don't know why he's chosen me to speak to, and I don't know why he's taken a disliking to you personally, but hey, it's the word of God. I have to follow it. Why would Christians choose to believe one person who says God has spoken to them over another? How many people in the bible may have been bullshitting about stories about interacting with God? If you can honestly say you believe every story in the bible to be true, then you'd surely have to believe almost any story someone tells you now about their interactions with God.

[gotigrz]

And what of all the eye witness accounts from other religions? All the "facts" or facts that they can come up with saying that there's is the true way.

well, honestly, i've never studied other religions, but i know they don't have any accounts of people that say that they saw a man who claimed to be Christ and saw Him die and then saw him walking the earth a few days later... like He said He would.

Are you saying there is absolutely no room for error in the accounts on which you base your entire belief on?

i know what is not of error or it is completely of error. and, that's the fact that Jesus died, and, was buried and rose again. if there are inconsistencies... this ain't one of them. so, they either all witnessed this or they all made it up. and, if they made it up... what good did that do them? Jesus' disciples knew that what they were proclaiming was putting their life in serious jeopardy. would you say something, that you knew was not true, if you thought it could cost you your life?

Why is it that back then in the times of the bible, it seemed so easy for people to interact with God and now we take these stories and comments as gospal (no pun intended). Where as now, with all our technology and advances in every aspect of life, it seems so difficult for someone to prove an interaction with God?

they couldn't prove it any easier back then than people can now... i guess people take the old stories "as gospel" cause they're in the bible for a reason.

Back then, God asked Abraham to kill his son to show his love for him. Abraham was prepared to do this until God stopped him. That's all well and good now because it is the word of the Lord and no harm done. If this happened in this day and age and a man was found to almost have murdered his son, but then stopped at the last minute and told everyone that it was God that told him to do this he would still have his child taken away by child protection services. Yet the stories would be identical.
He'd be looked at like a mad man ... if you read that story in the paper would you say "he is a just and righteous man following in the light and love of God" just because he used that as an excuse. How easy for the story of Abraham be a total lie and he used God as an excuse for getting caught trying to murder a child?

very very good point. but, abraham didn't get caught by anyone. according to the bible, an angel of God stopped him. but, as for why was it ok back then but not now? i don't know. but, i do know that we can't judge God's motives. God, the father, is not human and can't be rationalized by human logic.

My point being, stories are so subjective. And if you believe in Abraham then you should also believe anyone who says anything right now claiming God told them to.

For example, God spoke to me and told me to reply to this comment and sway you from following him. He doesn't really like you all that much. Do you believe me? I can easily insist over and over that it was true that he spoke to me. I don't know why he's chosen me to speak to, and I don't know why he's taken a disliking to you personally, but hey, it's the word of God.

well, i do know that if you say that God told you something that directly goes against what the bible says... then i know that it wasn't God that spoke to you. like God wanting you to sway me away from Him.

Why would Christians choose to believe one person who says God has spoken to them over another? How many people in the bible may have been bullshitting about stories about interacting with God? If you can honestly say you believe every story in the bible to be true, then you'd surely have to believe almost any story someone tells you now about their interactions with God.

well, as a Christian, i believe the stories in the bible and, i believe that there probably was bs written back then... but, i believe those stories to have been weeded out and not placed in the bible. the same for stories today... if they're true.. they will be for the glory of God... not, the other way around. no one will be taken seriously if they say they were told by God to kill their son... and, then did.

[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

[OutToDry]

My eyes and ears are bleeding guys!!!

[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.

[gotigrz]

My eyes and ears are bleeding guys!!!

you might want to have that looked at.

anyway, back to the subject of God.........

[Pokey]

and, that's the fact that Jesus died, and, was buried and rose again. if there are inconsistencies... this ain't one of them. so, they either all witnessed this or they all made it up. and, if they made it up... what good did that do them? Jesus' disciples knew that what they were proclaiming was putting their life in serious jeopardy. would you say something, that you knew was not true, if you thought it could cost you your life?

Is it REALLY fact? or is it blind faith? You yourself stated that it's belief in the unseen. There is no 100% proof that it is FACT that this happened. If there was then I would 100% believe it. It is a fact that a dog barks. There is no way any one can dispute that. What you say is fact, is not a fact.
What good did it do them? heaps of good! The bible is full of great stories about how we should live our lives and be better people. Creating and fabricating stories that were in the bible is a great way of getting people to be morally controled. There was a lot to gain from not telling the truth. Not that I'm saying everything is 100% a lie. But you can't say for sure that certain things weren't embelished/exagerated. That certain things and "facts" got misinterupted through one person passing the story on to another and then another and finally the printed version isn't 100% correct.

very very good point. but, abraham didn't get caught by anyone. according to the bible, an angel of God stopped him. but, as for why was it ok back then but not now? i don't know. but, i do know that we can't judge God's motives. God, the father, is not human and can't be rationalized by human logic.

True Abraham wasn't "caught", but you get my point. What if the father in this day and age wasn't caught either. But he went and told people - "hey I was just about to murder my son because God told me to, but then he told me not to so I didn't". You don't think that he would have some serious shit come his way from people/the authorities?
If we can't judge God's motives, then as I explained, if someone did the above and then explained it was through the word of God, then isn't that God's motive and there for in your eyes he should not have anyone bat an eyelid at his behavior? Would you not for a moment worry about the Child's safety under this man's care anymore just because he said God told him to do so? What if it was YOUR child this man took, that he was about to murder and then stopped short of doing so because it was a test by God. Would you harbour absolutely no ill will towards the man in question because he said he was following God's word? And if you don't believe him, then why believe Abraham?

well, i do know that if you say that God told you something that directly goes against what the bible says... then i know that it wasn't God that spoke to you. like God wanting you to sway me away from Him.

But what if God spoke to me and told me that the bible was all false and was a test to see if people would do his will? Just like the above with Abraham being a test. If I insisted that God told me this and as you yourself said, God's motives arenot always logical by human standards. Why would you not believe me?
It could be any situation ... what if god spoke to me and told me that the current Pope was not the person he wanted in charge of the Catholic church? If I were to speak up and insist God spoke to me and told me this and started a campaign to have a new Pope elected who is there to tell me that I am wrong for hearing the word of God? Someone else will come up and say I am wrong because God said this this and this. Then someone else will come up and say we're both wrong because of bla bla bla. If there is this much uncertainty, then how can you be so sure that when the bible was being written there weren't people around like there are now claiming all sorts of things that God said to them?

[Aitkens]

The Bible is a great work of fiction. If you seriously believe half the stories in there, you are one crazy bastard.

[PurdueSteve]

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.

Yes you are a monotheist. Because you only believe in one god, that means you lack belief in any of the thousands of other gods that people believe in, or at some point, believed in.

When you discover why you disbelieve in Zues, you'll see why I disbelieve in your God.

[OutToDry]

humor is being lost in this thread

[PurdueSteve]

[Aitkens]

humor is being lost in this thread

No its not, I'm laughing.

[Pokey]

humor is being lost in this thread

[Merica]

If Jesus was real he was pretty dumb because, with all the shit he could pull (water to wine etc), he'd be SWIMMING in pussy here in the 21st century. School boy error rocking up in the fucking dark ages when ladies bathed once a month or whatever.