- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) In that case, WorshippingJesus, I restate my rejection of that ridiculous philosophy.
I am not surprised.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) To 'die to self' is just to take on someone else's ideology.
That’s true. Only those who realize that there is someone or something greater than they are can give up their mediocre minds to take on greatness. Those who are not able to let go of their own ideology for one greater than themselves has made themselves and their ideology their own god.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) How is the ideology of Jesus any better?
Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matt 19:18, 19Do you know of any ideology that is greater than that?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) Such is the stuff of governments that send their young to die in war in the name of a god and glory.
Have you considered that maybe those who died in war for their god and glory did so willingly?Would you take that right from them?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) Most of the 'good' of christianity has been done so much better by other philosophies, without requiring the death of its founder.
Stu, I thought you were one that likes to deal with facts and not just broad opinionated statements like that? Where is your proof?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,10:19) Why subscribe to this deadly pomp? Stuart
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 1 John 15:13
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
WJ
Quote From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1 NET Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod? Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod?
How can we be sure it's even calling Jesus “God” here? The comma between “Savior” and “Jesus” did not exist in the manuscripts.
So is it: “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
Or
“Our God, and Savior Jesus Christ”?
I only bring this up because A THOUSAND TIMES JEHOVAH IS CALLED “GOD” without question or having to interpret where the comma should be. Yet, Jesus is only clearly called God a few times. To me this seems so strange if they are one and the same.
Quote You accuse me of not speaking the truth while at the same time you reject clear scriptures that teach Yeshua is God.
I'm just saying that perhaps you should take that one scripture out of your “CLEAR scriptures that teach Yeshua is God” list.Quote In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET And neither is this one clear. It is the most debates scripture on the planet. Please remove it from your “clear” scripture list.
If the word is 'with' God, as the context suggests, he is not the same one he is with. Hence, this can of course, be translated different ways.
What does “fully God” even mean?If he's “the” God, then of course he's obviously fully God. But why say it that way? Isn't “God” a word that means “mighty one; strong one” as used in scripture?
Question: Have you been ignoring the Alpha Omega thread? I bring it up about once a week, but no one wants to discuss it. Being that Is 1:18 (and someone I've recently talked to in real life) has said it's one of the greatest trinity proofs, I'd think you'd want to discuss it.
Of course, in reality, it's about as clear as these others scriptures.
Hi WJ
Quote Only those who realize that there is someone or something greater than they are can give up their mediocre minds to take on greatness.
That sounds like a script from a bad vampire movie. Anyway, speak for yourself!
Quote Those who are not able to let go of their own ideology for one greater than themselves has made themselves and their ideology their own god.
What credibility does a genocidal deity’s ideology have? You can only live in fear. What a spineless attitude that would require.Quote Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matt 19:18, 19
Do you know of any ideology that is greater than that?
Yes. Many that don’t tell you to hate your family and die to yourself in order to follow its founder. Lots that do not require a human death in order that followers be ‘saved’ (whatever that means).Quote Have you considered that maybe those who died in war for their god and glory did so willingly? Would you take that right from them?
That is really sick. Remind me not to vote for you if you stand for parliament.Stu: Most of the 'good' of christianity has been done so much better by other philosophies, without requiring the death of its founder.
Quote Stu, I thought you were one that likes to deal with facts and not just broad opinionated statements like that? Where is your proof?
Would you rather that Jesus was not executed? It depends on what the ‘good’ in christianity is. I think it is only Matthew 7:12. That is done much better by Buddhism:Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other
beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.Quote Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 1 John 15:13
Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
Much prefer the Buddhists’ reluctance to concede the need for any killing at all. Christianity is essentially a death cult. I prefer life.Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 10 2008,23:48) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:57) I would think that people who live in fear constantly are devoted to their condition of paranoia or cowardess…or both
Hi Theodore,Isn't Christianity basically a fear based religion.
God says you must believe that I love you or I will send you to hell for eternity.
So these people were already conditioned to live in fear of the person speaking for God.TIm
Greetings Tim…..Fear fosters respect,( eg.you fear the consequences of breaking the law,so you elect to respect it )
The fear I just described is not a life threatening fear it is a form of respect…..When you fear for your physical life,you are compeled to defend yourself or seccumb and I might add that this fear is what gives us courage….Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 14 2008,01:43) Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 10 2008,23:48) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:57) I would think that people who live in fear constantly are devoted to their condition of paranoia or cowardess…or both
Hi Theodore,Isn't Christianity basically a fear based religion.
God says you must believe that I love you or I will send you to hell for eternity.
So these people were already conditioned to live in fear of the person speaking for God.TIm
Greetings Tim…..Fear fosters respect,( eg.you fear the consequences of breaking the law,so you elect to respect it )
The fear I just described is not a life threatening fear it is a form of respect…..When you fear for your physical life,you are compeled to defend yourself or seccumb and I might add that this fear is what gives us courage….
But then we are told that “perfect love casts out fear”. Does this cast out respect with it?Maybe this is one for the “Basket”. 😉
Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 14 2008,01:43) Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 10 2008,23:48) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:57) I would think that people who live in fear constantly are devoted to their condition of paranoia or cowardness…or both
Hi Theodore,Isn't Christianity basically a fear based religion.
God says you must believe that I love you or I will send you to hell for eternity.
So these people were already conditioned to live in fear of the person speaking for God.TIm
Greetings Tim…..Fear fosters respect,( eg.you fear the consequences of breaking the law,so you elect to respect it )
The fear I just described is not a life threatening fear it is a form of respect…..When you fear for your physical life,you are compeled to defend yourself or seccumb and I might add that this fear is what gives us courage….
Theodrej Fear of God, is the beginning of wisdom. But then there is the kind of fear, that can destroy your life and any relationship one has with another human being.
From experience I speak. Being in Germany at the time when the Bombs were falling, and afterwards when as a child I was left to tend for myself, for hrs. at a time, as a very small child of 5 years old, left me with fear all my life.
I know it is not of God, but to rid of it has been almost impossible. So I have ask God to never leave me alone, and He has helped me a lot. I guess I went of topic somewhat, but I feel it is so important for others to understand the fear of a Child. Never leave a small child unattended. My Heart has gone out to so many children that have to suffer, in wars.Peace and Love Irene
Thankfully I have not suffered the experience of living in the middle of a war zone but I see what some religion does to young children in exactly the same light. Cutting young people off from media sources or time with their friends, or telling them that unsaved people go to hell are also things against which they should be protected. For children, I can't think of a manuscript that is any good. Apart from those that might be written by Mozart or Bach.
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 14 2008,02:29) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 14 2008,01:43) Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 10 2008,23:48) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 10 2008,22:57) I would think that people who live in fear constantly are devoted to their condition of paranoia or cowardess…or both
Hi Theodore,Isn't Christianity basically a fear based religion.
God says you must believe that I love you or I will send you to hell for eternity.
So these people were already conditioned to live in fear of the person speaking for God.TIm
Greetings Tim…..Fear fosters respect,( eg.you fear the consequences of breaking the law,so you elect to respect it )
The fear I just described is not a life threatening fear it is a form of respect…..When you fear for your physical life,you are compeled to defend yourself or seccumb and I might add that this fear is what gives us courage….
But then we are told that “perfect love casts out fear”. Does this cast out respect with it?Maybe this is one for the “Basket”. 😉
Greetings Mandy…..Interesting point….I would think that one of the key elements of perfect love has to be respect…Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2008,09:13) Thankfully I have not suffered the experience of living in the middle of a war zone but I see what some religion does to young children in exactly the same light. Cutting young people off from media sources or time with their friends, or telling them that unsaved people go to hell are also things against which they should be protected. For children, I can't think of a manuscript that is any good. Apart from those that might be written by Mozart or Bach. Stuart
Greetings Stu……” Thankfully ” Iam curious who were you thanking for bearing spared….Hi David
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59) From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1 NET Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod? Are men to be slaves of a man or a demigod?
Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:17) How can we be sure it's even calling Jesus “God” here? The comma between “Savior” and “Jesus” did not exist in the manuscripts. So is it: “our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
Or
“Our God, and Savior Jesus Christ”?
I only bring this up because A THOUSAND TIMES JEHOVAH IS CALLED “GOD” without question or having to interpret where the comma should be. Yet, Jesus is only clearly called God a few times. To me this seems so strange if they are one and the same.
Apparently you haven’t heard of the “Grandville Sharp” rule?
From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours. 2 Peter 1:1 NET
The terms “God and Savior” both refer to the same person, Jesus Christ. This is one of the clearest statements in the NT concerning the deity of Christ. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they always had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. In fact, the construction occurs elsewhere in 2 Peter, strongly suggesting that the author’s idiom was the same as the rest of the NT authors’ (cf., e.g., 1:11 [“the Lord and Savior”], 2:20 [“the Lord and Savior”]). The only issue is whether terms such as “God” and “Savior” could be considered common nouns as opposed to proper names. Sharp and others who followed (such as T. F. Middleton in his masterful The Doctrine of the Greek Article) demonstrated that a proper name in Greek was one that could not be pluralized. Since both “God” (θεός, qeos) and “savior” (σωτήρ, swthr) were occasionally found in the plural, they did not constitute proper names, and hence, do fit Sharp’s rule. Although there have been 200 years of attempts to dislodge Sharp’s rule, all attempts have been futile. Sharp’s rule stands vindicated after all the dust has settled. For more information on the application of Sharp’s rule to 2 Pet 1:1, see ExSyn 272, 276-77, 290. See also Titus 2:13 and Jude 4.
This rule is also found in the following scripture…
as we wait for the happy fulfillment of our hope in the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Titus 2:13Paul confirms who it is that will appear in this verse…
Now Enoch, the seventh in descent beginning with Adam, even prophesied of them, saying, “Look! The Lord is coming with thousands and thousands of his holy ones, Jude 1:14Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59)
You accuse me of not speaking the truth while at the same time you reject clear scriptures that teach Yeshua is God.Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:17) I'm just saying that perhaps you should take that one scripture out of your “CLEAR scriptures that teach Yeshua is God” list.
No it is very clear to those who see that Yeshua's nature is no less than the Fathers.Why is this a problem for you David? Even your own Bible interprets John 1:1 as “the Word was a god”?
WJ
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 11 2008,22:59)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NETQuote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25) And neither is this one clear. It is the most debates scripture on the planet. Please remove it from your “clear” scripture list.
To you it is not clear. In light of other scriptures that John penned like John 1:18, 1 John 5:20, and the witness of Thomas in John 20:28, and the previous scriptures mentioned, 2 Peter 1:1, Phil 2:6 and Titus 2:13 by both Peter and Paul and others, it is very clear.Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)
If the word is 'with' God, as the context suggests, he is not the same one he is with.
That is true. John is not a “modalist”, neither are Trinitarians. Hence the reason for the lack of the definite article in John 1:1c. But you have to ask the question, “why did John use the same word “theos” in John 1:1c as in John 1:1b? He could have used another word to show that the Word was not God. He could have used the word “theios” which is an adjective that was used in 2 Peter 1:4 describing the divine nature of which we “partake” or share. He could have used the word “theiotes” which is a greek word for “divine or divinity” found in Rom 1:20. But he didn't did he?Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25)
Hence, this can of course, be translated different ways.
What does “fully God” even mean?
It is highly unlikely that John would have used the same word “theos” in John 1:1b and John 1:1c if he wanted to convey that Yeshua was not God. If you say that it should be qualitative then you have to ask the question how is Yeshua qualitatively less in nature than the Father since he is the express image of his person or substance, Heb 1:3, and he is the “Image of the invisible God”, Col 1:14.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. John 1:1 NET
The Net which was interpreted by 25 scholars who had access to over 60,000 translators notes explains why they interpreted it “fully God”.
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.
sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.
Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25) If he's “the” God, then of course he's obviously fully God. But why say it that way? Isn't “God” a word that means “mighty one; strong one” as used in scripture?
Yes of course you could say that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are mighty and strong, but that is not the greek definition of the word “theos”. Since “true, strict, Biblical Monotheism” demands that there is only “One True God” and all other so-called gods are false or opposites of God and are not “gods” at all, and since the word “theos” is never found in the mouth of the Apostles referring to any other being other than Yeshua, except the obvious opposite of God, satan, and that qualitatively in nature Yeshua is no less than God, then the term “fully God” is a correct term in referring to Yeshua.Quote (david @ Sep. 13 2008,16:25) Question: Have you been ignoring the Alpha Omega thread? I bring it up about once a week, but no one wants to discuss it. Being that Is 1:18 (and someone I've recently talked to in real life) has said it's one of the greatest trinity proofs, I'd think you'd want to discuss it. Of course, in reality, it's about as clear as these others scriptures.
I will look again. But as you know, even if “Alpha and Omega” is a name that describes both the Father and the Son, it would not contradict the Trinitarian view at all, since Trinitarians believe the term “Alpha and Omega” is a name that belongs exclusively to YHWH.WJ
Hi Stu
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53)
Only those who realize that there is someone or something greater than they are can give up their mediocre minds to take on greatness.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00)
That sounds like a script from a bad vampire movie. Anyway, speak for yourself!
Why be so rude? So does this mean that you do not believe there is someone, or some cause, (something) greater than you? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53) Those who are not able to let go of their own ideology for one greater than themselves has made themselves and their ideology their own god. Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00) What credibility does a genocidal deity’s ideology have? You can only live in fear. What a spineless attitude that would require.
Spineless? You think dieing for another is “spineless”? Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53) Jesus replied, “ ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ Matt 19:18, 19
Do you know of any ideology that is greater than that?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00)
Yes. Many that don’t tell you to hate your family and die to yourself in order to follow its founder. Lots that do not require a human death in order that followers be ‘saved’ (whatever that means).
Apparently you do not believe there is any cause worth dieing for?BTW, the figurative use of the word “hate” by Yeshua operates on a relative scale in contrast to ones love for God more than family or self. Of course this would be a concept you would not understand seeing you do not even believe in God.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53)
Have you considered that maybe those who died in war for their god and glory did so willingly? Would you take that right from them?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00)
That is really sick. Remind me not to vote for you if you stand for parliament.
Are you one of those who stand in picket lines against our brave soldiers who willing go and risk their lives for your freedom? If someone died for you to save your life, like a fire fighter, would you consider that sick? Would you die for your own family?Some would die for their God and glory, so why is that sick? But again since you do not believe in God, you would not understand.
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00) Stu: Most of the 'good' of christianity has been done so much better by other philosophies, without requiring the death of its founder.
This is your opinion. The philosophy of Christianity of a man laying down his life for his friends is the highest act of love there is. Just ask the survivors and their loved ones of 911 who were saved by fire fighters who selfishly and thoughtlessly died to save them.Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53)
Stu, I thought you were one that likes to deal with facts and not just broad opinionated statements like that? Where is your proof?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00)
Would you rather that Jesus was not executed? It depends on what the ‘good’ in christianity is. I think it is only Matthew 7:12. That is done much better by Buddhism:Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other
beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
What does “putting oneself in the place of another” mean? It sounds like Buddha had been reading the Bible.Here is some info…
When Buddha was either 16 or 19, he was married to a young woman named Yashodhara. Buddha was apparently somewhat content with the life at his father's palace for the first twenty-nine years of his life, but in his late twenties, he encountered the four signs. He began to think about life in general, and came to the conclusion that all things are changeable. However, instead of acknowledging the one true unchangable God, he sought 'enlightenment' to free him from the cycle of reincarnation which he believed existed. To do this, he left behind his wife, son, and family.
Tell me how his philosophy is better than Yeshua’s or Christianity?
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 13 2008,11:53)
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 1 John 15:13Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 13 2008,23:00)
Much prefer the Buddhists’ reluctance to concede the need for any killing at all. Christianity is essentially a death cult. I prefer life.Stuart
You haven’t realized the end of the story. Yeshua taught that to die is to live. He rose from the grave so that he might bring the hope of Eternal life to all who will believe.Buddhism seeks to stop the cycle of reincarnation therefore ending life and leaving man with no hope after death.
I prefer Christianity that is true life. Jesus said…
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
WJ
Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 15 2008,02:28) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2008,09:13) Thankfully I have not suffered the experience of living in the middle of a war zone but I see what some religion does to young children in exactly the same light. Cutting young people off from media sources or time with their friends, or telling them that unsaved people go to hell are also things against which they should be protected. For children, I can't think of a manuscript that is any good. Apart from those that might be written by Mozart or Bach. Stuart
Greetings Stu……” Thankfully ” Iam curious who were you thanking for bearing spared….
Diplomats, I suppose. Certainly not a petulantly violent celestial serial mass-murderer.Stuart
Hi WorshippingJesus
Quote Why be so rude? So does this mean that you do not believe there is someone, or some cause, (something) greater than you?
I though you were being rude. I am not a genius, but you insulting the intellectual capacity of the human species is something I should be entitled to challenge, as a human. Does your bible tell you to do that? What do you mean by ‘greater than you’?Stu: What credibility does a genocidal deity’s ideology have? You can only live in fear. What a spineless attitude that would require.
Quote Spineless? You think dieing for another is “spineless”?
No, I think not standing up to a homicidal maniac is spineless.Stu: Yes. Many that don’t tell you to hate your family and die to yourself in order to follow its founder. Lots that do not require a human death in order that followers be ‘saved’ (whatever that means).
Quote Apparently you do not believe there is any cause worth dieing for?
How is that apparent? Would you be offended if I suggested that because your ‘salvation’ depends on the death of Jesus that the more people who die the better your chances are? That is the same kind of generalisation that you are making.Quote BTW, the figurative use of the word “hate” by Yeshua operates on a relative scale in contrast to ones love for God more than family or self. Of course this would be a concept you would not understand seeing you do not even believe in God.
Here we go. The christian dictionary is flexible and the definitions always suit the christian apologist. With god any old meanings will do.Quote Are you one of those who stand in picket lines against our brave soldiers who willing go and risk their lives for your freedom? If someone died for you to save your life, like a fire fighter, would you consider that sick? Would you die for your own family?
But those brave people do not have to die. Jesus did have to die. That is the sick part.Quote Some would die for their God and glory, so why is that sick? But again since you do not believe in God, you would not understand.
Have you ever heard of a WWI veteran recommending hand-to-hand combat or trench warfare as a way of bettering the human species? They do not glorify war. They cry about the brutality of it. The glory is in the heads of those who sent them to kill and to die.I do not appreciate the patronising way you claim I cannot understand. I challenge you to say what it is that you can understand that I cannot. I think actually you just have not thought about it.
Stu: Most of the 'good' of christianity has been done so much better by other philosophies, without requiring the death of its founder.
Quote This is your opinion.
Yes, but I did give you an example and reasons.Quote The philosophy of Christianity of a man laying down his life for his friends is the highest act of love there is. Just ask the survivors and their loved ones of 911 who were saved by fire fighters who selfishly and thoughtlessly died to save them.
Do you really equate the myth of a religious martyrdom with the practical bravery of putting your life on the line to save others? How does that work? The thing Jesus is supposedly saving people from are rules that he himself made up (if you are trinitarian). He then had himself killed in order to ‘save’ us from the consequesnces of breaking his own rules. Does that make any sense to you? More than 2/3 of the world’s population don’t think so.Putting oneself in the place of another,
one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other
beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.Quote What does “putting oneself in the place of another” mean? It sounds like Buddha had been reading the Bible.
Here is some info…
When Buddha was either 16 or 19, he was married to a young woman named Yashodhara. Buddha was apparently somewhat content with the life at his father's palace for the first twenty-nine years of his life, but in his late twenties, he encountered the four signs. He began to think about life in general, and came to the conclusion that all things are changeable. However, instead of acknowledging the one true unchangable God, he sought 'enlightenment' to free him from the cycle of reincarnation which he believed existed. To do this, he left behind his wife, son, and family. Tell me how his philosophy is better than Yeshua’s or Christianity?
All I said was that they do Matthew 7:12 better than Matthew 7:12. I do not claim to be an apologist for Buddhism. They are nearly as nutty as devout christians. The philosophy is a bit less absurd because they do not require belief in things that are obviously not true, like virgin birth and walking again after death.Quote You haven’t realized the end of the story. Yeshua taught that to die is to live. He rose from the grave so that he might bring the hope of Eternal life to all who will believe.
What a dumb thing that is to believe.Quote Buddhism seeks to stop the cycle of reincarnation therefore ending life and leaving man with no hope after death.
There is no hope after death. You are dead. Your atoms get recycled. The Buddhists just get the first bit wrong.Quote I prefer Christianity that is true life. Jesus said…
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might
have life.
Like I wrote earlier, bad vampire movie.Stuart
Hi Stu
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29) I though you were being rude. I am not a genius, but you insulting the intellectual capacity of the human species is something I should be entitled to challenge, as a human.
It may surprise you but Judeo Christians are a part of humanity of which you are constantly insulting.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
What a dumb thing that is to believe.
See what I mean?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
Does your bible tell you to do that?
Actually the truth may be insulting to many, i.e. the scriptures condemnation of the filthy acts of Homosexuals which is contrary to nature.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
What do you mean by ‘greater than you’?
Do I have to explain that there is someone or some cause “greater than you”? Maybe you do not believe that.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
No, I think not standing up to a homicidal maniac is spineless.
So then you do agree there are some things worth dieing for like our brave men and woman in WWII who recommended hand-to-hand combat and trench warfare as a way of bettering the human species by getting rid of Hitler?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
How is that apparent? Would you be offended if I suggested that because your ‘salvation’ depends on the death of Jesus that the more people who die the better your chances are? That is the same kind of generalisation that you are making.
No. I am not offended by anything that you say. I just consider the source and move on.Why? Are you offended?
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
The christian dictionary is flexible and the definitions always suit the christian apologist. With god any old meanings will do.
For you it doesn’t look like any explanation will do. But, there is still hope for you since you are one of those who Yeshua gave his life for.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
But those brave people do not have to die. Jesus did have to die.
No he didn’t. He willingly laid down his life.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
That is the sick part.
The sick part is you spending so much time on a web site seeking to offend by insulting the intellectual capacity of the human species!Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
Have you ever heard of a WWI veteran recommending hand-to-hand combat or trench warfare as a way of bettering the human species? They do not glorify war. They cry about the brutality of it. The glory is in the heads of those who sent them to kill and to die.
See above.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
I do not appreciate the patronising way you claim I cannot understand.
Pot meets kettle.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
I challenge you to say what it is that you can understand that I cannot. I think actually you just have not thought about it.
You cannot understand what it is to be in my shoes. Nor I you. You cannot understand what it is at this point to have a relationship with a living God. You cannot prove that my experience is not real nor more than I can prove to you it is.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
Yes, but I did give you an example and reasons.
Not a good one.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
Do you really equate the myth of a religious martyrdom with the practical bravery of putting your life on the line to save others?
Yes.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
How does that work?
You have been around here long enough to know Yeshua died for all including you.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
The thing Jesus is supposedly saving people from are rules that he himself made up (if you are trinitarian).
No. He is not saving people from his rules. Those are your words.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29) He the
n had himself killed in order to ‘save’ us from the consequesnces of breaking his own rules. Does that make any sense to you? More than 2/3 of the world’s population don’t think so.
Again your own words. He laid down his life willingly. He had that power, and he had power to take it up again.Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
All I said was that they do Matthew 7:12 better than Matthew 7:12. I do not claim to be an apologist for Buddhism. They are nearly as nutty as devout christians. The philosophy is a bit less absurd because they do not require belief in things that are obviously not true, like virgin birth and walking again after death.
Again, where is your proof?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
What a dumb thing that is to believe.
“Insulting the intellectual capacity of the human species”! Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
There is no hope after death. You are dead. Your atoms get recycled. The Buddhists just get the first bit wrong.
Speak for yourself! Can you prove that there is no hope after death?Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,19:29)
Like I wrote earlier, bad vampire movie.Stuart
I imagine being in your world would be like being in a bad vampire movie. In that movie though, the Cross is the key.WJ
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 15 2008,06:30) Keith, Nice post, bro.
Have a restful Sunday,
Mandy
MandyThanks! Hope you had a restful weekend also!
WJ
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 15 2008,18:40) Quote (theodorej @ Sep. 15 2008,02:28) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 14 2008,09:13) Thankfully I have not suffered the experience of living in the middle of a war zone but I see what some religion does to young children in exactly the same light. Cutting young people off from media sources or time with their friends, or telling them that unsaved people go to hell are also things against which they should be protected. For children, I can't think of a manuscript that is any good. Apart from those that might be written by Mozart or Bach. Stuart
Greetings Stu……” Thankfully ” Iam curious who were you thanking for bearing spared….
Diplomats, I suppose. Certainly not a petulantly violent celestial serial mass-murderer.Stuart
Greetings Stu……I have been reading your rant for the past few days….and I couldn't help notice your choice of words,spineless,homicidal maniac and so on….Iam curious to know exactly what you do stand for….and if your capable of communicated in a less condecending manner…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
