You and Steve have made clear your views on this matter over and over and over and over. It isn’t any more effective when it’s repeated ad-nauseum. If anything now it sounds like blah blah blaaah blahhhhhhhh.......
For Pete’s sake. Shut UP!
Is this the best reasoned response one can expect from you?
If I’m not mistaken there is more historical proof than what is just stated in the Bible. And whether or not you believe Jesus to be the Saviour, it has been proven that there was a Jesus and that he was a prophet with a large following at the very least. This is a historical fact, as is the demise of Jesus.
Most of the historical information comes from the books that were not included in the bible because they tended to cast Jesus in a bad light. Pliny the Younger referred to christians as “easily led fools”.
Not only that, but the few mentions in Roman texts tend to disparage him as well.
To what historical evidence did you refer?
MICHAELAJV - 08 September 2007 09:06 PM
But irregardless of anything that I or anyone else can put forth as any kind of proof, what difference will it make to you and others who are so adamant that there is NO saviour? Non-believers are SO sure of themselves. Yet they can provide no ‘proof’ as to their own claims.
You claim there is a “savior”. Where is your proof?
God creates “hell” (whatever that means) and then presumably sends his son to “save” us from it?
Like the mafia, this is a “family” that I would just as soon avoid.
MICHAELAJV - 08 September 2007 09:06 PM
I remain a faithful Christian. Not everything can be quantified, explained, seen, heard....sometimes all you have is faith. It’s enough for me. Even if it isn’t for others.
Some people kill in the name of their god. “Good enough” for them is a pretty low threshold.
It’s only urgent that one accept Christ as a physical “Saviour” if one elects it to be. So if that’s what works for you, then I commend you for using it as a contributor to your faith.
As for “other historical accounts” from 2000 years ago, they’re extremely spotty at best.
For those who demand Christ be their literal physical “Saviour”, it’s not a big deal because they’ve chosen to “accept it on faith”.
For those of us who don’t make that demand and are fully satisfied with embracing the Gospel itself, it’s also not a big deal because we don’t require precise accountings of who/when/where/why from 2000 years ago. The core gospel is all that matters. And though it’s commonly attributed to “Jesus Christ”, he’s certainly not the only one who has delivered the message over the past 2000 years.
Finally, for those who don’t believe Christ existed, it’s also moot who killed him, when, where and why.
THUS BRINGING us full circle to the original Topic link posted by KATERPUNK. It’s kinda silly for anyone to be burning much time or energy trying to “give Jesus Christ his day in court”.
=====
FRIENDLY point of order...There is no such word as “irregardless”. I’m presuming the word you intended was “regardless”.
cheers
S
It’s all good. It’s not my job to judge you on how you believe.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All the same.
Funny that “irregardless” didn’t show up as wrong on spell check. Hmmm. Thanks for pointing it out.
I also agree that one cannot take the Bible literally. I’m well aware that the Bible has been written by many people and changed for political reasons by the church over the centuries. But the most important messages in it are timeless and very well understood.
And worrying about Jesus’ trial now is in fact silly. But it does make for interesting discussion, and I learned something from it as well. So it was worth my time for me to discuss.
It’s only urgent that one accept Christ as a physical “Saviour” if one elects it to be. So if that’s what works for you, then I commend you for using it as a contributor to your faith.
As for “other historical accounts” from 2000 years ago, they’re extremely spotty at best.
For those who demand Christ be their literal physical “Saviour”, it’s not a big deal because they’ve chosen to “accept it on faith”.
For those of us who don’t make that demand and are fully satisfied with embracing the Gospel itself, it’s also not a big deal because we don’t require precise accountings of who/when/where/why from 2000 years ago. The core gospel is all that matters. And though it’s commonly attributed to “Jesus Christ”, he’s certainly not the only one who has delivered the message over the past 2000 years.
Finally, for those who don’t believe Christ existed, it’s also moot who killed him, when, where and why.
THUS BRINGING us full circle to the original Topic link posted by KATERPUNK. It’s kinda silly for anyone to be burning much time or energy trying to “give Jesus Christ his day in court”.
=====
FRIENDLY point of order...There is no such word as “irregardless”. I’m presuming the word you intended was “regardless”.
cheers
S
It’s all good. It’s not my job to judge you on how you believe.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All the same.
Funny that “irregardless” didn’t show up as wrong on spell check. Hmmm. Thanks for pointing it out.
I also agree that one cannot take the Bible literally. I’m well aware that the Bible has been written by many people and changed for political reasons by the church over the centuries. But the most important messages in it are timeless and very well understood.
And worrying about Jesus’ trial now is in fact silly. But it does make for interesting discussion, and I learned something from it as well. So it was worth my time for me to discuss.
Thanks to Katerpunk!
I also agree that one cannot take the Bible literally. I’m well aware that the Bible has been written by many people and changed for political reasons by the church over the centuries. But the most important messages in it are timeless and very well understood.
Oh-OH, Some will have you going straight to hell for that. There are kids in Kentucky that have shown up in Biology class with their Bibles in lieu of the Biology text, just because of the literal interpretation issue. Some even want all of our laws based on the entire Bible.
It’s only urgent that one accept Christ as a physical “Saviour” if one elects it to be. So if that’s what works for you, then I commend you for using it as a contributor to your faith.
As for “other historical accounts” from 2000 years ago, they’re extremely spotty at best.
For those who demand Christ be their literal physical “Saviour”, it’s not a big deal because they’ve chosen to “accept it on faith”.
For those of us who don’t make that demand and are fully satisfied with embracing the Gospel itself, it’s also not a big deal because we don’t require precise accountings of who/when/where/why from 2000 years ago. The core gospel is all that matters. And though it’s commonly attributed to “Jesus Christ”, he’s certainly not the only one who has delivered the message over the past 2000 years.
Finally, for those who don’t believe Christ existed, it’s also moot who killed him, when, where and why.
THUS BRINGING us full circle to the original Topic link posted by KATERPUNK. It’s kinda silly for anyone to be burning much time or energy trying to “give Jesus Christ his day in court”.
=====
FRIENDLY point of order...There is no such word as “irregardless”. I’m presuming the word you intended was “regardless”.
cheers
S
It’s all good. It’s not my job to judge you on how you believe.
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All the same.
Funny that “irregardless” didn’t show up as wrong on spell check. Hmmm. Thanks for pointing it out.
I also agree that one cannot take the Bible literally. I’m well aware that the Bible has been written by many people and changed for political reasons by the church over the centuries. But the most important messages in it are timeless and very well understood.
And worrying about Jesus’ trial now is in fact silly. But it does make for interesting discussion, and I learned something from it as well. So it was worth my time for me to discuss.
Thanks to Katerpunk!
I also agree that one cannot take the Bible literally. I’m well aware that the Bible has been written by many people and changed for political reasons by the church over the centuries. But the most important messages in it are timeless and very well understood.
Oh-OH, Some will have you going straight to hell for that. There are kids in Kentucky that have shown up in Biology class with their Bibles in lieu of the Biology text, just because of the literal interpretation issue. Some even want all of our laws based on the entire Bible.
I know, I’m well aware of that too! Well, I can’t judge them either. For me, their way is not rational or logical. But if it works for them, whatever. As long as I’m not forced into it, my mantra is, “to each his own.”
SH: The Christian community is pretty well split down the middle on that claim.
A majority of Christians believe the three above to be individual entities. But there’s certainly a strong swell among Fundy/Evangelicals that the three are the same personage in different guises.
Just a reminder why it’s bogus to suggest any one point is “what a Christian truly believes”.
SH: The Christian community is pretty well split down the middle on that claim.
A majority of Christians believe the three above to be individual entities. But there’s certainly a strong swell among Fundy/Evangelicals that the three are the same personage in different guises.
Just a reminder why it’s bogus to suggest any one point is “what a Christian truly believes”.
I was raised in the Catholic religion, although now I’m a member of the Methodist Church. My family when I was growing up were very strict on religion. VERY Catholic ( and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense at all), but I was always taught that the three, meaning Father, Son and Holy Ghost were one and the same. Even in the Methodist Church that I attended for many years.
So what you said that contradicts that, is yet again something new I’ve just learned. Very interesting.
No one can say that they are for sure 100% correct in what they believe and how they practice their belief. But you know what? We’ll ALL find out in the end won’t we!
Just talked to one of my good friends who was raised Catholic and she tells me that I’m mistaken. She says that most Orthodox Catholics do endorse the “Trinity” (God, Jesus and Holy Spirit being the same cat in different guises). She no longer practices Catholicism and has modified her own beliefs. Having shared them with me before, I mistakenly perceived that aspect of her current beliefs to be aligned with Orthodox Catholics.
The church in which I was raised - Church of Jesus Christ of LDS - taught that the three were distinct and I had thought that was also in line with Catholicism.
So many interpretations....Good thing we’re not in a courtroom..heh
Just talked to one of my good friends who was raised Catholic and she tells me that I’m mistaken. She says that most Orthodox Catholics do endorse the “Trinity” (God, Jesus and Holy Spirit being the same cat in different guises). She no longer practices Catholicism and has modified her own beliefs. Having shared them with me before, I mistakenly perceived that aspect of her current beliefs to be aligned with Orthodox Catholics.
The church in which I was raised - Church of Jesus Christ of LDS - taught that the three were distinct and I had thought that was also in line with Catholicism.
So many interpretations....Good thing we’re not in a courtroom..heh
And I’m not exaggerating when I say, that I’ve never heard that some religions think of the Trinity as separate entities. To me that’s shocking!! But obviously, it’s because of how I was taught and raised. I’ll stick with what I was taught.
In my heart, I feel that God is a kind, just and understanding God. It won’t matter to him if we’re Hindu, Muslim(not all are terrorists!), Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon etc, etc.... as long as we practice whatever faith we believe in with sincerity and conviction, and truly believe. To me, that’s what counts. And I’m hopeful that God feels the same way. Because if not, boy, am I in trouble!
Fortunately, a literal minority of world religion’s demand that humans follow a specific edict or doctrine in order to commune with God. Fundy/Evangelical Christians are one....Mormons are another. The more extreme (non-orthodox) brands of Islam also suggest that non-believers will be separated from God in the life following this one.
In my heart, I feel that God is a kind, just and understanding God. It won’t matter to him if we’re Hindu, Muslim(not all are terrorists!), Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon etc, etc.... as long as we practice whatever faith we believe in with sincerity and conviction, and truly believe. To me, that’s what counts. And I’m hopeful that God feels the same way. Because if not, boy, am I in trouble!
What will matter is if you’ve accepted His son: as Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. That kind of narrows it down.
For Steve: There is no end? How do you know? Even the Marguis de Nostre Dame (aka Nostradamus) predicted the world would end in the year 3797.
In my heart, I feel that God is a kind, just and understanding God. It won’t matter to him if we’re Hindu, Muslim(not all are terrorists!), Catholic, Methodist, Church of Christ, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon etc, etc.... as long as we practice whatever faith we believe in with sincerity and conviction, and truly believe. To me, that’s what counts. And I’m hopeful that God feels the same way. Because if not, boy, am I in trouble!
What will matter is if you’ve accepted His son: as Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. That kind of narrows it down.
For Steve: There is no end? How do you know? Even the Marguis de Nostre Dame (aka Nostradamus) predicted the world would end in the year 3797.
“What will matter is if you’ve accepted His son Jesus..... end quote
I understand, and agree.
But does the person who is a Hindu for example and spent literally their entire lives following their beliefs to the letter as they were taught by their parents, and know no other kind of religion, sent to hell when they die for not believing in Jesus Christ?
My interpretation would be that, if they had never heard of Jesus or read His word, then yes, they would not be condemned. It’s only if, upon hearing the Word and not accepting it is one judged.
My interpretation would be that, if they had never heard of Jesus or read His word, then yes, they would not be condemned. It’s only if, upon hearing the Word and not accepting it is one judged.
that’s insane.
You don’t think that perhaps they will be judged by whom they choose and believe to follow?
