Who Is Jesus?
- Thread starter herald
- Start date
This is a religious thread gerry. Must you fondle parts of my anatomy here in this little temple and defile it with your odious presence? Is nothing sacred?
Well, the gratuitous name calling in your response suggests the quality of your answers isn't likely to be high, but do go ahead, enlighten us all about why the scriptures contain so little useful information and so much misinformation about the real nature of things.
are you also to be included with the simpletons Dexter? You can't figure it out as to why the Bible was written the way it was written? Why someone would write that Creation took 6 days? Why the story of Noah and the Ark was written the way it was? Adam and Eve?
Think about it now..... who was it the story's were written for? Was it Physicists? Graduate students?
No, I know why the Bible is the way it is and who it was written by and for, at least approximately, that's really the point: it is not what it claims to be or what its believers claim it to be. More specifically, it's not the word of god, if it were it would contain things other than what it does. It's the words of men, ignorant and superstitious men for the most part, though they were pretty good psychologists, with an agenda.
It was written for the uneducated, the opressed, and the fearful people of THAT time and place. they had it pretty rough and they were willing to take a leap of faith in the promise of everlasting life at the side of a benevolent God, but in the here and now it cannot hold up to scrutiny. There is simply, no empirical evidence.
Well... you got it partially right, and honestly if I thought it would do any good....I'd explain my take on it.
What for? You've already stated you know the answers. If my answer differs from yours, it won't make any difference. It's quite clear how antagonistic the "athiests" are towards religion, especially Chrisianity, on this board.
AJ posts quite well, you do have to think about what he has written to understand it though. That seems to be the problem with those athiests that chose to post in these threads...... unwilling to think, and unwilling to understand "Faith".
I've read the bullshyte responses from the "athiests", tell me why I should post or respond with anything more.... and don't bother with the "that's not very christian".... you aren't a christian, so you don't have that optional retort to use.
Gerryh:
I certainly haven't resorted to name calling and swearing as a way to avoid answering points raised. My questions of a couple days ago stand, and you keep dodging them: your avoidance of asking yourself very difficult questions about your own faith speaks to the blinkered cowardice of many of the faithful.
This is not slander: it is observation - remember only churches really get into banning thought and books. Others do it, sure, but governments are amateurs when it comes to suppressing thought.
Gerryh, try to answer what I wrote, if your faith is true and right, you should have no trouble proving your point and who knows? You might even win a convert or two.
That is an obligation of your faith, isn't it?
Pangloss
I certainly haven't resorted to name calling and swearing as a way to avoid answering points raised. My questions of a couple days ago stand, and you keep dodging them: your avoidance of asking yourself very difficult questions about your own faith speaks to the blinkered cowardice of many of the faithful.
This is not slander: it is observation - remember only churches really get into banning thought and books. Others do it, sure, but governments are amateurs when it comes to suppressing thought.
Gerryh, try to answer what I wrote, if your faith is true and right, you should have no trouble proving your point and who knows? You might even win a convert or two.
That is an obligation of your faith, isn't it?
Pangloss
Show us proof, The ark of the Covenent, The Holy Grail, any of touted antiquities in the bible. faith is personal, it isn't proof.
Because you claimed you could. Claiming to know the answers then refusing to deliver them is pretty lame.
Much of the bible is written in layers. The way of men and god (power) is more or less contained in the various books of the bible from the simplest to the more complex. It's quite out of date but most of the basics are buried in it, as they are in other old tomes of other origins. If you take a literal meaning from the compilation you will quite frankly become insane/hooked/fanatasized/indoctrinated-----------abandone all hope.
The distance between then and now, if measured in years is 2008 years + or- 400yrs, things have changed since that time, exponentially, beyond the point where the founding conspirators could ensure conformity. Hysteria and delusion tends to rage out of control directly proportional to time and scale. Thank god (haha) for the printing press something that saved mankind, if where we are now can be considered salvation. The entire history of organized institutionalized christian religion has in fact been much ado about absolutely nothing more than, much ado, The very old bait and switch game of shock and awe. A game for mice while the cats held sway.
The distance between then and now, if measured in years is 2008 years + or- 400yrs, things have changed since that time, exponentially, beyond the point where the founding conspirators could ensure conformity. Hysteria and delusion tends to rage out of control directly proportional to time and scale. Thank god (haha) for the printing press something that saved mankind, if where we are now can be considered salvation. The entire history of organized institutionalized christian religion has in fact been much ado about absolutely nothing more than, much ado, The very old bait and switch game of shock and awe. A game for mice while the cats held sway.
Gerryh:
"you aren't a christian, so you don't have that optional retort to use" (quote from you - including the grammatical mistake).
Of course non-christians (or non-Buddhists, non-Jews, non-Moonies, etc) can point to someone of whatever faith and call them on behaving contradictory to their faith.
If you profess to have a better ("truer") way of living, one that gives you better morals or more resistance to temptation or a greater proclivity to charity, then when you act a thug or a cheat or a liar, we can call you on it.
Just as you could call me a sanctimonious hypocrite liar if you saw me (a vegetarian) eating a hamburger, even if you were not a vegetarian yourself. Pretty simple stuff here, gerryh.
Even a moments reflection would point out the error of your thinking. So, perhaps you should think before you post.
Just a suggestion.
"you aren't a christian, so you don't have that optional retort to use" (quote from you - including the grammatical mistake).
Of course non-christians (or non-Buddhists, non-Jews, non-Moonies, etc) can point to someone of whatever faith and call them on behaving contradictory to their faith.
If you profess to have a better ("truer") way of living, one that gives you better morals or more resistance to temptation or a greater proclivity to charity, then when you act a thug or a cheat or a liar, we can call you on it.
Just as you could call me a sanctimonious hypocrite liar if you saw me (a vegetarian) eating a hamburger, even if you were not a vegetarian yourself. Pretty simple stuff here, gerryh.
Even a moments reflection would point out the error of your thinking. So, perhaps you should think before you post.
Just a suggestion.
and perhaps YOU should try the same thing...since you know nothing of Christianity, especially MY beliefs.
Biggest arguments by you idiots.... the OT this the OT that....the NT is the Christian bible.....The NT is where Jesus laid things out.
Not exactly a refutation - sort of a schoolyard "says you!" kind of a retort, isn't it gerryh?
Now, as to this not knowing anything of christianity - where do you get this, gerryh? Is this just a guess, or more slander? I was raised Anglican, and taught Sunday school, my angry little sophist - so you're still batting zero - all pitches and swings, and no hits.
When asked if he stood by the books of the old testament, gerryh, Jesus answered that he stood by every law and would not change a word. So yes, the Old Testament is relevant to a discussion of Jesus.
You still haven't answered any questions, gerryh. You just seem to be getting angrier and angrier, and doing your best to avoid answering what you said you could so so easily.
Hmmm, makes me doubt your sincerity.
Aren't christians supposed to be sincere?
Pangloss
Last edited: