I was wondering why the christian god only has been around for 2000 years? Why did it take so long for him to finally convey the 'true' christain message to the people.

maybe someone has an answer.

Why ask?
You know they're going to have an answer and you know they're going to make pointless bible references and you know in the end they will have effectively said nothing.

me stupid

Christian's believe God the Father has been around forever. The Alpha and Omega.

In the context of the question, that Jesus Christ having been around for only 2000 years, in his human form this is true, but Christians also believe Jesus is the "Word". As the Son of God he too has existed eternally.


John 1


The Word Became Flesh

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. "

I can't say that this will convince you, but that's the short answer.

Biblical God, of course according to bible, existed for quite long time..! Jews, Christians and Muslims refering to God of Adam, God of Abraham down to Jesus & Mohammed.

I've seen somewhere on the net that Abraham written in hebrew or arabic is equivalent to Brahmma written in sanscrit. Sara Vs Sarasvati, wife and consort of Abraham and Bramha respectively. Brahmma is not worshipped like Shiva or Vishnu, but venerated as very wise and cause of creation in Hindu pantheon. I'm not sure about the connection.. It could be a coincidence.. not sure... for and against could be discussed by experts, in detail without getting passionate or lunatic..:cool:

But a/c to Xtian Jesus is GOD Too. So, he is not that old after all.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
me stupid

i dont noe dog
you think sciforums has roum fer 2 stoopid peeple? i mite have to ask ya to mv out.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
me stupid If you say so...

Bridge,


As the Son of God he too has existed eternally.Just a minor point, and I know how Christians aren’t too keen on logic but…

The term ‘son’ implies offspring. Doesn’t this mean that the father would have to come first and the son comes later? In which case the son cannot have existed eternally.

If they both existed eternally then the term ‘son’ has no real meaning as we understand it.

The use of the word ‘son’ seems more to do with the emotiveness that can be conjured when talking about sacrificing one’s only begotten son. Otherwise it doesn’t seem to have any value apart from its use in the Christian indoctrination process.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. "

Seven Great Words, again based on the sacred three sounds A U M. These produced creation, or the manifestation of the seven planes of our solar system. They are committed not to human entities, but to the seven great Devas or Raja-Lords who are the ensouling lives of a plane; hence in the various initiations their collaboration is necessary, before these key words can be committed to the initiate.

http://beaskund.helloyou.ws/netnews/bk/initiation/init1060.html

Originally posted by MarcAC
If you say so...

maybe I do

christians might believe that there god has been around forever, but why has this god never been mentioned before as the christian god. Surely an allpowerful god could correct the false notions that have been created about him. Surely it was not in the best interest of mankind to not make gods own presence not clear right from the start. From day one people must have gone straight to hell, because they didn't know god was around and they didn't know how to live a proper life, since jesus hadn't even been born yet. What's the logic in that...i don't see it.

Originally posted by Cris
The term ‘son’ implies offspring. Doesn’t this mean that the father would have to come first and the son comes later? In which case the son cannot have existed eternally.Very good observation. Temporal perception is key. The Word has existed eternally with God who is three in one. The Word was incarnated as Jesus, 2000 yrs ago. Thus, the Word was Jesus; Jesus was the Word Incarante and Jesus was the Son of God. If they are the same entity, just like H2O = Ice = Water = Steam, it follows that, in essence, the Word who is also referred to as the Son of God has existed as long as God has. Instead of looking at the molecular strcuture [which seems to be the rationale on this site] you look deeper at the atomic structure - alas! They're the saaaaaaaame thing!?!?:eek:


If they both existed eternally then the term ‘son’ has no real meaning as we understand it.Temporal reference again. People on this website really have a problem with this. 2000 yrs ago, the Word became incarnate through Mary as her son. Since God was the one who effected the pregnancy and no man did, well, you'd assume He's the Father.:)


The use of the word ‘son’ seems more to do with the emotiveness that can be conjured when talking about sacrificing one’s only begotten son. Otherwise it doesn’t seem to have any value apart from its use in the Christian indoctrination process. I agree to an extent, but as was shown above, it still has meaning. In any event, only those who understand Christianity and don't just criticize it would understand that the context in which Son is used functions as an analogy to the sacrifice which God made in coming down to earth in the first place.;)

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
christians might believe that there god has been around forever, but why has this god never been mentioned before as the christian god.Well, Christianity has been around for only 2000 yrs [go figure]. In essence, the Hebrew god [God of the Jews] is the Christian God, except that we understand his nature differently.
Surely an allpowerful god could correct the false notions that have been created about him.He's trying, but you just aint listening. Matthew 13:14-15; "... "These people will listen and listen but never understand. They will look and look, but never see. [15] All of them have stubborn minds!...
Surely it was not in the best interest of mankind to not make gods own presence not clear right from the start.Well, He actually did.Gen 1:28; "God gave them His blessing and said: Have a lot of children...".
From day one people must have gone straight to hell, because they didn't know god was around and they didn't know how to live a proper life,...Well they, were actually instructed.Gen 1:28-29; 2:15-17; 3:17-19... etc
... since jesus hadn't even been born yet.The Christians on this site need to start a Christian Education thread like one of those "... For Dummies" books - and I'm not referring to anyone as a dummy. Smart people read those books.
What's the logic in that...i don't see it.Well from your illustrated understanding of Christianity... that's good.;)
maybe I doHmm... please don't mind my attempted humour.:cool:

Hmmm, I like that idea of the Christian Education Forum. I'm not christian but it would help others who have no faith and read the bible to understand it better.

Originally posted by MarcAC
The Word has existed eternally with God who is three in one. The Word was incarnated as Jesus, 2000 yrs ago. Thus, the Word was Jesus; Jesus was the Word Incarante and Jesus was the Son of God. If they are the same entity, just like H2O = Ice = Water = Steam, it follows that, in essence, the Word who is also referred to as the Son of God has existed as long as God has. ;)

Can God take any form as He feels it is necessary.. Do all christians agree with the reincarnation of the Word as Jesus, the Son ?

Starting a fresh thread to elaborate on this would be interesting.

Marcac,


The Word has existed eternally with God who is three in one. Only if you define eternity as beginning in the 4th century when the fantasy of three in one was created in a transparent attempt to overcome the Christian embarrassment of claiming there is only one god and at the same time claiming a father god and a son god.

The phrase ‘what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive’ comes to mind. Having created the myth of Jesus without completely thinking through the implications resulted in the eventual farce of the trinity in a futile attempt to avoid admitting the mistake of creating the Jesus myth in the first place. That’s the trouble with fantasies, they have no basis in reality so just like cartoon characters they can be used to claim that anything is possible, even the impossibility of 3 separate things being one thing, when to even the simplest mind that is clearly impossible and defies intelligence definition.


If they are the same entity, just like H2O = Ice = Water = Steam, it follows that, in essence, the Word who is also referred to as the Son of God has existed as long as God has. Now I fully understand your desperation and need to show there is a precedent for the impossibility of three things being one thing but the H2O story doesn’t work. Ice, Water and Steam are not H2O, but three separate substances that use H2O as building blocks. A more appropriate analogy is house bricks which can be used to construct a house in one case and then a mansion in another case. They are both made from bricks but no one would claim that the house and the mansion are the same thing.

Once you introduce god the father and god the son and a ghost then you have three entities and not one. There is no conceivable way that you can rationally argue that three things are one.

The OT clearly states there is only one god. The Christianity myth screwed up and created a massive contradiction for itself which pretty much condemns it to the scrap heap of other impossible fantasies where it belongs.


Instead of looking at the molecular strcuture [which seems to be the rationale on this site] you look deeper at the atomic structure - alas! They're the saaaaaaaame thing!?!? LOL. Dream on kiddo. And by “rationale on this site” I assume you mean we tend to keep to reality rather than trust to fantasies.


Temporal reference again. People on this website really have a problem with this. ”Son” still implies a product that came later. Since I have just destroyed your trinity farce you are still stuck with explaining a father/son relationship where both cannot be eternal.


the Word became incarnate through Mary as her son. Since God was the one who effected the pregnancy and no man did, well, you'd assume He's the Father. So you are saying that people have just made a simple mistake by assuming Jesus is a son, right? So that means that John 3:16 is equally nonsense “for god so loved the world he gave his only son …”.


In any event, only those who understand Christianity and don't just criticize it would understand that the context in which Son is used functions as an analogy to the sacrifice which God made in coming down to earth in the first place.Right!!! Or it might just be that I understand Christianity so well that I can see right through its transparent attempts at deception.

And ‘sacrifice’, what sacrifice? I think you don’t understand your own religion. God (the father) didn’t sacrifice anything; if you read your myth correctly you’ll find that Jesus allegedly sacrificed himself. But sacrifice implies a real loss but how can eternal god(s) lose anything? Certainly not their lives.

Originally posted by MarcAC
Gen 1:28; "God gave them His blessing and said: Have a lot of children...".[/color]Well they, were actually instructed.Gen 1:28-29; 2:15-17; 3:17-19... etc

my point was that these instructions never arrived with the first humans. He let generations of humans go pass by without making his presence clear.

these quotes are from the bible...the bible hasn't been around since the first humans came about, since they probably couldn't even read or write then. We also know that there have been many other religions before christianity. So why would god create this confusion and condemn people to ignorance and possibly hell.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I was wondering why the christian god only has been around for 2000 years?

jesus christ was born 2,003 years ago. below is a picture of what jesus would look like if we were to do an autopsy. anyway, god suposidly created the earth 6,000 years ago.

http://www.deicide.tv/Copy%20of%20_borders/transperant_jesus2.gif

lets make a few clarifications on your previous post. We don't really know exactly when Jesus was born. Oddly enough even the experts are not sure. I have read accounts that Christ was born anywhere from 7 BC to 2 BC but hardly anyone thinks the year was exactly as we now base our calendar's starting point.

Why?

One reason aside from poor record keeping methods, is the Jewish calendar is based on a 29.5 day lunar month and a 354
day lunar year.




anyway, god suposidly created the earth 6,000 years ago

Only according to the fundamentalists who read the genealogies like Bishop Usher. He claimed that he had deduced the EXACT age of the earth, to the day:

October 22, 4004 BC.


Amazing isn't it? Either my Bible has some pages missing or his Bible was a lot more accurate than mine. Stop and think about it. How would he know on what month, day, hour or minute everyone was born? For that matter think about how many changes have been made to the measuring of years through the ages.

If Usher were alive today his theory would be ripped to shreds by more logical thinkers. Unfortunately, Church authority wasn't questioned much in the old days.

Originally posted by Cris
Marcac,

Only if you define eternity as beginning in the 4th century when the fantasy of three in one was created in a transparent attempt to overcome the Christian embarrassment of claiming there is only one god and at the same time claiming a father god and a son god.Here is an example of the need for a Christian Education forum. The Christian concept of God being three in one started with Jesus' disciples. In the old testament, God refers to himself in plural form. A word of advice... always investigate on your own and don't reiterate a bag of crappy hearsay.;)


... Having created the myth of Jesus without completely thinking through the implications resulted in the eventual farce of the trinity in a futile attempt to avoid admitting the mistake of creating the Jesus myth in the first place.... There is no doubt that a Jesus character existed, except of course, in the minds of religious atheists.
... That’s the trouble with fantasies, they have no basis in reality so just like cartoon characters they can be used to claim that anything is possible,... Science, at present, in essence is tending toward the statement that anything is possible. And contrary to the above opinion, all fantasies have a basis in reality. Then this argument seemed to veer off course; What is the relevance of fantasy in a discussion about the age of the Christian God?
... even the impossibility of 3 separate things being one thing, when to even the simplest mind that is clearly impossible and defies intelligence definition.Well I agree with this, only simple minds - maybe like those of monkeys [no reference made to spuriousmonkey] - would not be able to rationalise such an occurence.


Now I fully understand your desperation and need to show there is a precedent for the impossibility of three things being one thing but the H2O story doesn’t work. Ice, Water and Steam are not H2O, but three separate substances that use H2O as building blocks. A more appropriate analogy is house bricks which can be used to construct a house in one case and then a mansion in another case. They are both made from bricks but no one would claim that the house and the mansion are the same thing.Perception is key, and well, a little knowledge in chemistry and physics would do some good, not to mention the skill of active reading. The statement said "in essence" they are the same, just as the Christian God, yet they have distinct Identities. Anybody know what a phase diagram is? Well you can consider God to be at the triple pointHave a look. (http://www.chemistrycoach.com/Phase_diagram.htm):)


Once you introduce god the father and god the son and a ghost then you have three entities and not one. There is no conceivable way that you can rationally argue that three things are one.Not for simple minds.


The OT clearly states there is only one god. The Christianity myth screwed up and created a massive contradiction for itself which pretty much condemns it to the scrap heap of other impossible fantasies where it belongs.Of course it did, Cris, everybody knows that - as is apparent. The NT says God is three in one.


LOL. Dream on kiddo. And by “rationale on this site” I assume you mean we tend to keep to reality rather than trust to fantasies.You tend to keep to your 'realities', Cris.


”Son” still implies a product that came later. Since I have just destroyed your trinity farce you are still stuck with explaining a father/son relationship where both cannot be eternal.A veritable example of the fabricated reality referred to above. Well, even a simple mind can get this Cris, so... Jesus was referred to as Son, and Jesus, after He [The Word] was incarnated, and this was in the previous post. We need to brush up on our active reading skills people!:D


So you are saying that people have just made a simple mistake by assuming Jesus is a son, right? So that means that John 3:16 is equally nonsense “for god so loved the world he gave his only son …”.No! Read again, actively.


Right!!! Or it might just be that I understand Christianity so well that I can see right through its transparent attempts at deception.In 'reality' I think you do.


And ‘sacrifice’, what sacrifice? I think you don’t understand your own religion. God (the father) didn’t sacrifice anything; if you read your myth correctly you’ll find that Jesus allegedly sacrificed himself. But sacrifice implies a real loss but how can eternal god(s) lose anything? Certainly not their lives.Rarely I do this, but I can say with certainty, I understand Christianity much better than you Cris. Proof? Read your posts.

Oh well.

Dear Cris,

I think your missing the boat on some Christian doctrine related to Christ's sacrifice.

One of the better summations on the issue that I've read is here:



http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sacchrst.html


Read the whole thing and pay particular attention to the The Kinosis Doctrine .

Amazing isn't it? Either my Bible has some pages missing or his Bible was a lot more accurate than mine.


Well, they both have at least one thing in common. That is that, they both contain fraudulent records of what happened in history. The bible was, in my opinion, written by an ancient government or kingdom for use of controlling its people.


http://www.churchofsatan.com/Graphics/cos-smalln.jpg

9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years!

Originally posted by Bridge
Dear Cris,

I think your missing the boat on some Christian doctrine related to Christ's sacrifice.

One of the better summations on the issue that I've read is here:



http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sacchrst.html


Read the whole thing and pay particular attention to the The Kinosis Doctrine .

i looked through the page and noticed that all the clues in the bible to why he was crucified etc, was completely scattered around in random parts of the bible and that they also were short sentences, which without the explanation that followed were meaningless.

this raise the following thoughts in my head:
A. Why does the bible has to be unclear about everything and basically turn everything into a 'puzzle'
B. maybe there isn't a puzzle, but the bible was made purposely vague and suited for multiple interpretations.

JSB, I suggest playing a little pretend. Pretend you are a historian who wants to compile all relevant material on the life and teachings of a man call Jesus. You'll have to narrow it down to people who knew Him and were endorsed by Him. You could go further and research all the material that He based His teaching on, and then comapre the validity of those historical accounts with other historical figures, such as Plato, Caesar or Homer.

See what you come up with. It's a big job compliing rolls of related vellum and papyrus manuscripts strewn over centuries that progresses on a straight line from beginning to end. Among other interesting facts, you'll see that the Romans were the government in control, Judaism was the closest related religion, and that they both were threatened by it and tried to suppress these teachings. So much for being a tool of control.

Monkey, it's because they are related parts. If you do a search on the net for a certain piece of information, would you find it all neatly in order next to each other?

I do not believe in god, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell. I don’t even care about any point a Christian has to make, because they are all based on opinions and have no relevance in argument as fact.

Originally posted by Jenyar
J

Monkey, it's because they are related parts. If you do a search on the net for a certain piece of information, would you find it all neatly in order next to each other?

if i write a scientific article in which i want to bring accross an important message I build up to that message in that particular paper. I do not put one sentence in one article, then another one in an article I write 10 years later and refer to an obscure sentence in someone else his article.

This leads me to believe that we are now discussing something that was totally unimportant to the writers. You may draw the conclusion from this that the authors of the site that was mentioned earlier are merely describing their own thoughts.

This is how i view the situation at the moment, and as you might imagine this forces me not to take the message of this webpage very seriously at all.

The webpage is intended as an aid to Bible study. I'm sure you are aware that the epistles were written to early Christian congregations, with specific problems and questions as well as n specific circumstances.

For instance, Paul was imprisoned when he came to Philippi, where his first church was started. He was miraculously freed from prison, and many people converted because of this miracle. Later, he travelled to Rome, where he was imprisoned again. But this time he did not get saved 'miraculously', and his church in Philippi became divided over whether he was still 'endorsed by God'. So he wrote to them that they should ake pride in his imprisonment, because through it God would do even greater things than before. The letters have a greeting, an introduction, a message and a conclusion. They weren't essays on a subject, but letters about many subjects, all bound together by one thing: unity in Christ.

Every New Testament book has a different history. The gospels are accounts of Jesus' life, but one was from a Jewish perspective, and another was from a Greek or Roman perspective.

If you read even one of these books, and try to find out more about its message and context, I'm sure you'll see what I mean. These weren't made up myths or scientific articles - they were reports of real events, and its teachings about a message. They do build up to a point. What you see as a weakness is actually its strength - that different accounts in different circumstances to different audiences all work together and illustrate the message even while they are preaching it. Kind of like a true parable.

i analyzed (not just read) genesis once in a history of science seminar. In order to analyze the view on nature.

if the rest of the bible is like that I'm not going to bother.

:) I know what you mean. Try reading Numbers... But seriously, the rest isn't like that. The first five books, the "Law" part, is pretty hardcore reading. After that come the "Prophets" - history of the ancient Kings and God's people. Everything you need to know about justice.

Third are the "writings" in three groups: Poetic books, the Psalms, Proverbs and Job (yes, it's a rather dramatic poem - hence the personification of Satan, and lots of dramatic irony; for a nice layout of this book see this chart (http://cspar181.uah.edu/RbS/JOB/RBC/sb141.html#page3)).

Then there are the wisdom books, festival books and Restoration books. These are only categorations according to content, but its useful if you read them.

But please read Romans, Ephesians or Philippians. They're actually quite readable, not too long, and interesting. Not at all like Genesis, I can assure you.

by Jenyar
Monkey, it's because they are related parts. If you do a search on the net for a certain piece of information, would you find it all neatly in order next to each other?Enormous point. Most people are just lazy when it comes to reading the bible or just plain lazy. They are willing to labour and search for info to rectify a problem otherwise, but in the biblical sense, never. When they see a seemingly contradictory statement or something in the Bible , they just resign and say, "Oh well that doesn't make sense, it's all crap.". If physical scientists, historians, mathematicians, medical professionals, theologists,... etc... all had that attitude where would we be as a human race? We'd still be thinking the earth was flat. We'd still be worshipping men as gods and trying in vain to 'preserve their bodies for the afterlife'. We'd be in the stone-ages.

I think that the only way you are going to understand the Bible, is if you want to.

I do not believe in god, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell. I don’t even care about any point a Christian has to make, because they are all based on opinions and have no relevance in argument as fact.

Well good for you and I don't believe in classical music, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or operas. I don't even care about any point a classical musician has to make because they are all based on opinions and have no relevance in argument as fact.

Originally posted by MarcAC
When they see a seemingly contradictory statement or something in the Bible , they just resign and say, "Oh well that doesn't make sense, it's all crap.". If physical scientists, historians, mathematicians, medical professionals, theologists,... etc... all had that attitude where would we be as a human race? We'd still be thinking the earth was flat. We'd still be worshipping men as gods and trying in vain to 'preserve their bodies for the afterlife'. We'd be in the stone-ages.


that's funny...being a scientist myself I think 'oh well, that doesn't make sense, it's all crap' all the time in scientific matters...

this raise the following thoughts in my head:
A. Why does the bible has to be unclear about everything and basically turn everything into a 'puzzle'
B. maybe there isn't a puzzle, but the bible was made purposely vague and suited for multiple interpretations.

I have often wondered about the vagueness in the bible. What exactly is the clensing the world with fire? Its hard for me to follow anything that has such a dramatic need for interpertation. I relize that everything needs interpretation, however, the degree in which christianity is set seems cause for a lot of disagreements and probably a lot of violence. I hope that it never comes to that (insert extreme sarcasm here)


To sum it up :

Vagueness & Interpretation = bad medicene.

~Robin

It is the nature of the world that wherever there are differences of opinion or interest, there is bound to be violence. The disagreements between Christians about interpretation are in most cases healthy, while everybody is interested in the truth. Resolutions for unhealthy differences are earnestly attempted, but not always possible, because they tend to be personal, and not biblical in substance.

The Bible has a core message that is very clear and unambiguous: the salvation and redemption of mankind by the grace of God. Everything radiates from that in concentric circles - the further you go from the central message, the more vague and symbolic things become - and also more dependent on context.

To examine your example: cleansing by fire. It sounds like a ritual, so we will look in one of the Jewish law books first, where rituals are described:

Numbers 31:22
Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water.

Now apply this to people, since all laws were meant for people, and every law has an equal spiritual (symbolic) meaning. We are tainted by sin and must be purified. You'll know form metallurgy that purifying a metal is a very delicate process. Now we have to find out what the Bible itself says about its symbolism. Isaiah is a good place to look, because the prophet was one of the intermediaries between practical and spiritual things:

Isaiah 4:2 In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. 4 The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. 5 Then the LORD will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy. 6 It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain.

You'll read elsewhere that the "branch of the Lord" is the messiah. The Spirit of judgement and fire (note: fire) is the Holy Spirit, who descended and rested like a flame on Jesus and His disciples when he was baptized (yes: cleansed with water). This is why Christians are still baptized with water.

"As for me, I baptize you [The Greek here can be translated in, with or by] with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

It's not really a puzzle, but you have to read the Bible. Remember, these parts were written hundreds of years apart, but they run like a thread thoughout the Bible. Almost like sciforums, you have to decide on a thread, and then pick it up from there :)

Originally posted by Bridge.
Well good for you and I don't believe in classical music, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart or operas. I don't even care about any point a classical musician has to make because they are all based on opinions and have no relevance in argument as fact.

It seems to me that this is your way of getting even with me. Getting even is a sin. The pure thought of getting even with some one is a thought that Christians and Satanists believe comes from Satan, here is a reference; #5 of the 9 satanic statements. http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/NineStatements.html

Moreover, how can you say that you don’t believe in classical music? It is factual information that Bach, Mozart, Schubert etc, wrote music. This music is broken into categories that are based on the time period they exited in, in this case classical music. To be technical Bach’s Music was composed in the later Baroque period.

I think your response to my post is very childish and I’m sure your pastor would even agree. I am not saying that God doesn’t exist, but I do not believe he exists because there is no evidence to support that theory. Your faith in god is what makes him exist to you. But please do not mistake your faith as being public fact. In addition, Your Christian institution cannot claim that God exists in fact because the whole idea of Christianity is to ‘believe in God’ in faith not fact. When a Christian is in discussion with another Christian then it can be considered as factual information, since both believe the same thing. When a Christian is in discussion with a non-Christian then “fact” can only be information that is considered to be accepted fact by both Christians and no-Christians alike. Ex. (Grass is green, both agree.) (Jesus was the Son of God, only Christians agree.) (The cosmos began with a big bang, only evolutionists agree.) The point I’m trying to make is that when I stated “I do not believe in god, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell. I don’t even care about any point a Christian has to make, because they are all based on opinions and have no relevance in argument as fact .” I was simply implying that since I do not believe in god, nothing Christians say has any relevance in an argument as fact.

Conclusion: Christians should not get angry at evolutionists for not believing in their opinions and evolutionists should not get at Christians for not believing in their opinions. It is OK to believe what you want. CHRISTIANS- it is OK for people to not believe in god. If you think people are wrong for not believing in Christ then you have no business living in a democracy, and the Christians should move to a dictator controlled country. statisticly, Christians control less than 2% of votes.

Final note to Christians: Please respect everyone’s beliefs openly and do not try to change them. God gave you a duty to spread the word, not to dictate the world.

Jenyar,

Thank you for the Clarification,

I understand that everything will have different interpretations to it - it just frightens me when the interpretations spread so far that one faction decides to throw planes at another. To interpret something that you base your life on, and then judge another for not agreeing with your interpretation seems like a reciepe for hate and violence.

I personally just press for acceptance in all that i do, which happens to be another central core belief in the Christian dogma. I have heard the phrase "Judge not lest ye be judged" so many times it is cliche; however, it is one of the most hypocritical and disobeyed commands that was issued in the bible.

~Robin

I just thought i'd mention that i absolutely love the tangents that these threads get off on (my brain just works like that though)

~Robin

Not really. There aren't that many intepretations, really, if you test everything from the same place it comes from. It's when you start interpreting sentences, verses, etc. independently, that trouble starts.

To take for instance again "Judge not lest ye be judged". There is a whole book in the Bible called Judges, of people who were meant to bring justice, and we have a judge in every court in the world. So it doesn't mean we may not decide between right and wrong. You are right - what the Bible is condemning here is hypocrisy. So you actually discovered the truth what it says firsthand.

Romans 2
1___Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
3___But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

Again, you see why Jesus came to the world:

John 3:17
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God [who has taken the punishment for our injustice - nobody else could do that -J.].

Not really. There aren't that many intepretations


Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutherian, Evangalistic, Seventh Day Adventest, United Church of Christ, Mormanism, Non-Denominational...

These are just a few of the sects of Christianity - one of the three major Religions that branched off from Judiasm. The Differences are amazing even within Christianity - look at North Ireland and the incredible amount of violence that goes on up there in the name of interpretation.

Lets not even Discuss the slander and violence between Christianity and Islam, which both have founding in Judism.

And lets never forget, Hitler was Catholic.

What else can be named for the sake of misinterpretation and the inability to accept others beliefs?

~Robin

You mean applications, not interpretations. While some of these denominations read a lot inbetween the lines, (or in the case of Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, actually change a few things), they differ mostly in the presentation of Jesus' salvation.

Some use conservative readings (believing that the closer you stay to the text the safer you are of not misinterpreting something), and others are liberal (to the point of standing inbetween the Bible and the "layperson").

We had a person here from North Ireland recently who said we shouldn't even try to understand the complexities of what is going on there. What is going on there has long since not had anything to do with the Bible.

Hitler. Here are two quotes:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

Does this sound like any Christian you know. And by the way, there would be no Protestants if nobody disagreed with the way the Catholic church used to apply the Bible.

Romans 3:9
What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[ 3:9 Or worse] ? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
(Whole Chapter: Romans 3_In context: Romans 3:8-10)

Romans 3:29
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
that's funny...being a scientist myself I think 'oh well, that doesn't make sense, it's all crap' all the time in scientific matters... After a thorough investigation, hopefully. Otherwise I wouldn't dare hire you to do any research for me as a scientist. If all scientists had that mind set science would not have advanced thus far [and we don't even know how far ahead we are anyway].

It seems to me that this is your way of getting even with me. Getting even is a sin.

Typical atheist hypocritical thinking, tell the world you don't believe in something and then you turn around and use that same pillar to prop up your point. So you don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan, Heaven or Hell but you do believe in Sin? What a joker.


I think your response to my post is very childish and I’m sure your pastor would even agree.

I agree it was childish- as it was intended to be and as far as my Pastor is concerned, you're jumping to conclusions, you don't know me from Adam. My reply to you was intended to be a reflection of your very childish post about not caring about "any point" a Christian has to make and that their opinions have no relevance. Your own reply back indicates the level of hypocrisy to that claim.

Most of your reply is about trying to convince Christians to be tolerant of others, respect others beliefs, what they're allowed to do and not do. So apparently it is perfectly okay for you to tell Christains what to believe but the opposite doesn't hold true?

At the very least, in having you slow down and read your own words back again, I made my point because you yourself admitted:


(1) Please respect everyone’s beliefs openly and (2) do not try to change them.

I agree. Yes, to the first, no to the second. Even you yourself are trying change others, so how can you possibly criticize others for doing so?

Jenyar,


Originally posted by Jenyar
You mean applications, not interpretations. While some of these denominations read a lot inbetween the lines, (or in the case of Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses, actually change a few things), they differ mostly in the presentation of Jesus' salvation.


Semantics.

The fact remains that a majority of the blood spilt on God's green earth was from religious disagreements that erupted into a fountain of violence.

I agree that N. Ireland's feud is hardly about religion, but it did BEGIN that way. The point that it escaladed is of no consequence. If you want another, more recent example look at Israel. There are a lot of political aspects to that conflict, but the reason that there is such hate and deaths is because the Israelis and the Palestinians choose to be intolerable of each other's beliefs.

~Robin

Originally posted by MarcAC
If all scientists had that mind set science would not have advanced thus far [and we don't even know how far ahead we are anyway].

i will just postulate the opposite. With a closed mind science would have come to a standstill many years ago...decades...centuries....

i do not know at what level you are practising science, but during the education phase science seems more fixed than it really is. That is because you are presented with 'facts' all the time. Later these facts disappear and are exchanged with data and interpretation.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
i will just postulate the opposite. With a closed mind science would have come to a standstill many years ago...decades...centuries....

i do not know at what level you are practising science, but during the education phase science seems more fixed than it really is. That is because you are presented with 'facts' all the time. Later these facts disappear and are exchanged with data and interpretation.I'm not sure I get the first paragraph as antithetical to what I stated. Anyway, I am well aware of the nature of science and the scientific community and the evolution of these. That is why I argue like I do.

my mistake then...i misinterpreted your statement