[Balloon Knot]

Excellent post Alex. If only they would practice that.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

Ok, Sorry in advance that this is such a long post�. I wanted to address some of the challenges / issues Baloon raised�.

According to your Bible I am to believe that human kind is sinful because Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. Why are we being punished for the original sin? After all, they ate the forbidden fruit, we didn�t. Reason would lead one to say it�s their problem, not ours. Even the bible contradicts itself by claiming in Deuteronomy 24:16, �children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.�

First - it's not not MY bible it's THE bible.. What must be understood is what happened in Eden started in heaven. An angel in heaven challenged God�s sovereignty � his right to rule. By doing so he became Satan (which means �resister�). Satan lied to Eve by telling her that if she ate the fruit she�d be like God and able to decide for herself what was right and wrong�.

This goes back to another of Baloon�s comments:

They believe that snakes talk

When does the talking snake appear? The suspense is killing me.

The snake did not actually speak. Satan used the snake to communicate in the same way ventriloquist would use a dummy. Satan is a powerful spirit creature. Why would it be such a stretch to consider Satan using a snake to communicate? I know Baloon discounts the authenticity of the bible, but there is an occasion when God used an animal to �speak�- Balaam�s donkey from Numbers 22:26-31. So, the �talking snake� is not some fanciful mythology. The snake did not actually speak � Satan communicated by means of a snake.

Back to the issue� God gave Adam & Eve free moral choice � they could be obedient, acknowledge God�s right to decide right and wrong for his creation or eat the fruit and demonstrate their rejection of God�s right to rule. The price they would pay for willful disobedience was death. God kept his word � they ate, they died.

3 main things happened here�

-- 1: A challenge was made by Satan. He stated he could govern mankind better than God. God didn�t want this issue to ever come up again so he decided to let Satan have a go of it and to have his angels and all humans see what would happen if humans followed Satan rather that God. After approximately 6000 years we see how good of a job Satan has done � death, disease, war, etc. God is not to blame for the condition of earth today - Satan is. He�s the big shot who said he had a better way. God has allowed Satan sufficient time to try every form of government and every human idea. God proved that mankind alienated from him (in a sinful state) can�t make it work. God proved Satan a liar.

--2: What happened to Adam and the human family. Adam sinned. The price one pays for sin is death. Thus, he died. He never had children while in a perfect state. So, none of his children could inherit perfection. Think of sin as a birth defect. We inherited sin. The price one pays for sin is death. This goes to Baloon�s issue: �Why are we being punished for Adam�s sin?� We�re not being punished. We are feeling the effects of Adam�s sin and Satan�s rebellion. We are being allowed an opportunity to demonstrate obedience to God and acknowledgement of his right to govern mankind. The effects of sin � disease, imperfection, death � are not God�s fault. It is Satan�s fault for raising a challenge.

--3: God set up a way for mankind to return to a harmonious relationship with him. God provided his son to live as a perfect human on earth with free moral choice. He was born as a perfect human. This again goes back to one of the issues Baloon raised�.

They beleive that some woman was impregnated by some magical event called the immaculate conception oooooh how interesting

�The Immaculate Conception� is a Catholic doctrine and NOT a bible teaching. What you were clumsily trying to make reference to is the Virgin Birth � which is a bible teaching. Many sincere bible students believe that God is the giver of life and is capable of transferring the life force of his son from heaven to the womb of a virgin. The bible does NOT teach that Mary was without sin. The bible does NOT teach that she was always a virgin � Jesus� brothers and sisters are mentioned. How the Catholic church came up with the idea of �immaculate conception� and �ever virgin� are beyond me � ask a Catholic - �cause I can�t jive that story with the bible.

Anyhow, as I was saying� Jesus proved obedience is possible, he offered his life as a �ransom� to pay back the damages caused by Satan and Adam. His sacrificial death made it possible for mankind to be forgiven of sin. We are living now in the time when a choice is being laid before mankind: choose to follow Satan�s rebellion and Adam�s willful sin and live with sin and death OR accept that God has the right to rule, accept the value of Jesus� ransom sacrifice and enjoy life without sin in a world that is soon to come where Satan and his influence is gone and mankind returns to the paradise Adam enjoyed. This is something promised in the bible.

HERE�S THE MAIN POINT: If someone is saying, �I want to decide what�s right and wrong. I think mankind is able to govern themselves� they are following the course of Adam. I�m not saying people involved in politics are Satan worshippers. It�s not that black and white. Just remember that Satan lied to and misled Eve by appealing to her desire to decide for herself what was right and wrong which is, in its� purest sense, government. If someone puts their hope in a human to solve their problems � good luck. I hope it works for you. However, for that person to use the veneer of religion to mask their true intentions is what I take offense at. A truly Christian person will look solely to Jesus and his kingdom to bring about social changes. Sponsoring, advocating, or lobbying for any human or human law is to basically (when you really boil it down) agree with Adam and say, �yeah, mankind can do this on our own.� So, full circle, back to Baloon�s original point. Religion has NO place in politics and it irritates me (and him) when folks wave the Jesus flag when they insert themselves into politics.

One is either a Christian with their hopes and dreams resting on the kingdom of God or non-Christian with their hopes and dreams resting on mankind. The two camps are diametrically opposed and for one to claim allegiance to both is insulting to both parties.

Wow, that was really long, sorry. Like Baloon, I get passionate about this and tend to ramble.

[Balloon Knot]

This thread was started because people often try to use the Bible to answer such important questions as whether abortion is wrong, whether homosexuality is wrong, and whether humans evolved from apes. Before we or, anyone for that matter, rely on the Bible this way, #1.we need to assess whether it is actually the word of God, and #2 how accurate it is in general.

Well #1 is highly unlikely and question #2 answers itself. The contradictions are astoundingly high so that in itself renders it inaccurate.

Is the Bible just fairytales and fables? Written by men who didn't think that there were other people in the world different from them?

Adam and Eve. Does it not sound like a fable with a bad ending? I'm not making fun of it neither. Satan, Snakes, Apples, Adam, Eve It's like a scary Dr Seuss book. It's just can't buy into that whole story. It sounds crazy and I do not mean any disrespect. Some hot chick (I'm assumming) took a bite of an apple and screwed the rest of humanity, that would come after her, up. But it's Satans fault. Not to mention all the incest that had to take place for this story to be factual.

I'm sorry I'm not buying this.

Alex you may be interested in watching this film it's 2 hours BUT the part you should watch is not 2 hours. Just watch the beggining when it goes through all the religions. Click the one on the right the "blue" one. It's VERY good.

The beginning is all black no images just a guy talking. It's all about Christianity. Get past the george carlin stuff it will get good. Even though i enjoyed the George Carlin stuff it may offend some. Enjoy.

*I'm not trying to hurt anyone or make fun of anyone. Just listen to the facts presented in this film (about Christianity). These are FACTS. I'm looking forward to your thoughts after you watch it.*

Zeitgeist - The Movie

[prometheus]

dude, I tried to get thru that movie. Seriously, I was like 3 minutes in - that guy's German accent was gettin' to me. I was bored and could NOT follow his train of thought.

Sorry, don't want to dismiss the movie out of hand. maybe when I'm feeling a bit more alert I'll revisit the movie. But I don't have nearly enough coffee in me to trudge thru it right now.

[ninja please]

I don't care your the one who will go to helll for that.

lol, fine with me. I'll see a lot of people I know, it'll be one big party.

[CipherDias]

WOW, I am **AMAZED** that this thread has not been locked!

[prometheus]

WOW, I am **AMAZED** that this thread has not been locked!

Why would it be? It's a civil discussion among people intrerested in exchanging ideas and debating theology in a social forum clearly labled at the outset as a "religious" discussion. If someone doesn't want to participate in a social, religious forum - then they shouldn't be here. Quit trying to stir the pot. Your argument is invalid and poorly presented. Now, please (the second appeal to you personally) either contribute to the discussion or go away.

[prometheus]

WOW, I am **AMAZED** that this thread has not been locked!

PS - Thanks for the warning in your sig line regarding the OS and deleting vendor codes. I was unaware of that. I'm having a rough time dowloading Verizon OS and was thinking of finding another carrier's upgrade DL - you may have saved me a big headache.

[prometheus]

they condemn incest as a sin YET in their little story of Adam and Eve it reeks of it.

Ok, regarding the issue of incest... You must keep in mind that things were different in Adam�s times. Adam and Eve were created perfect. God commanded them to �multiply and fill the earth�. This would require that their offspring marry one another and reproduce. But as perfect humans, their children would have been perfect as were their parents. Even though Adam and Eve sinned and became imperfect, Cain and his brothers and sisters were still so near to physical perfection that the children they produced did not turn out all weird as we would expect today from a similar union. 2000 years later, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. God had no problem with this. About 450 years after Abraham married his half sister God gave Israel the law thru Moses (the Mosaic law) forbidding incest on penalty of death. By then imperfection had worked its� course enough that no longer was it safe for close relatives to marry. However, prior to that time it was neither unlawful, immoral, or unsafe. Yeah, incest is nasty, gross, and illegal (unless your cousin�s really cute � joking) However, incest in the Adam & Eve story needs to be seen as an ancient account where modern laws and genetics don�t apply. Once incest is part of the narrative is starts making more sense. Baloon - you said it yourself - Incest has to be there for this to be factual..

Not to mention all the incest that had to take place for this story to be factual.

So, do you concede that IF incest did occur and IF it was not against God's laws in place at that time the story is getting more easy to accept?

Another issue...

There are just so many contradictions in the Bible that you have to really question it. Don't turn the other way really look at it and you will see that it is filled with nothing but contradictions

The contradictions [in the bible] are astoundingly high so that in itself renders it inaccurate

You didn�t give too many specifics. But, a favorite one of the bible bashers is �where did Cain get his wife if there was just one family and he was banished from it after murdering his brother? For answer - see above. He married his sister. To prove there were sisters read Genesis 5:4 �And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.�
Come on Baloon � don�t make blanket statements �the bible contradicts itself.� Without offering examples that can be discussed. Give me something to work with here. I believe the bible is accurate and true and is inspired of God. I relish the thought of disproving someone who challenges it by saying it contradicts itself. Please state specific instances where you observed contradictions. You make a blanket statement � so, I�ll make a blanket statement in return. No, it doesn�t. (that was to be read in the voices of Bugs Bunny / Daffy Duck � think of them �yes it does� �no, it doesn�t� �yes, it does� �no , it doesn�t� and so forth. Or was it Elmer Fudd??)

Some hot chick (I'm assumming) took a bite of an apple and screwed the rest of humanity

yeah, Baloon - Eve must�ve been a hottie. I mean she was �perfect� - right?

[Balloon Knot]

I don't believe in the story of Adam and Eve. Its simply a fable. In MY opinion.

In order for me to believe anything in the Bible I have to believe its the word of God. Which I don't. I would have to believe in a character named Jesus Christ. Which I don't.

There is not one shred of eveidence that some dude named Jesus walked the earth OUTSIDE of religious material. Not one. There were plenty of people alive back then and oddly there is never a mention of him. Don't you find that a bit strange? If such a man was alive back then somebody would have written about him.

If somebody can provide me evidence that he existed, I don't mean a body neither, I will look at it. Christian material does not count.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

Ok I'll find the references. I know of 2. One from Josephus - a first century contempoary of Jesus, he was a Jewish historian. He made a reference to "James, the brother of Jesus of nazareth" or something to that effect.

The other is Tacitus a Roman historian I think from late first century who referred to "christians" taking their name from Jesus the so-called Christ of Nazareth or something like that.

I'll get the specifics later and post them. However, I doubt the literary references will do much to sway your mind. I mean if the whole weight of holy scrpitures doesn't motivate belief - why would 2 lines from obscure ancient historians make one fly-speck bit of difference?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[GinaR1173]

Well put Alex!

[Balloon Knot]

You are a smart man Alex. I totally respect the way you present your arguements and you have shown me the same respect. I think by opening these types of dialogue we can better understand one another.

My disbelief in anything Christian does not make me a "bad" person just as your belief in Christian concepts and teachings does not make you a good person.

We differ only on our belief system. I think this discussion is one of the best I have ever had with a believer. Your knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is something I have a lot of respect for because while you have strong beliefs you condemn nothiing or no one.

When you do have some spare time do view the film. it does not trash or condemn religion at all. It only shows you where these ideals and concepts come from.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

I cut and pasted from Wikipedia�. When looking at the dates of when these historians lived and were active � keep in mind that Jesus ministry was from 29 � 33 and the gospel account of the bible were written completed between 41 for Matthew and as late as 98 for John. So, Josephus may not have even been exposed to the writings or teachings of John when he wrote his book � not any proof of anything, just remarkable that Josephus was almost �there� when Jesus preached / died or the very least got to talk with eyewitnesses. I personally put more stock in the words of a friend and companion of Jesus (Matthew and John) rather than someone I know not too much about about. But, Baloon asked for external references to Jesus � here goes. First quote is background on the writer:

--quote �Josephus (AD 37 � c. 100), also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus, was a first century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

Josephus's two most important works are The Jewish War (c. 75) and Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94). The Jewish War recounts the Jewish revolt against Rome (66-70). Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history of the world from a Jewish perspective. These works provide valuable insight into the background of first century Judaism and early Christianity. �-- end quote from Wikipedia

Josephus wrote 2 passages about Jesus. One of the passages has been debated by critics as being inserted later on by Christians and thus not authentic. So, we�ll leave that one out � �cause I don�t have enough education on ancient manuscripts to argue for its authenticity. The other is very small and brief � but at least it drops the name Jesus:

--quote �The other reference in the works of Josephus often cited to support the historicity of Jesus is also in the Antiquities, in the first paragraph of book 20, chapter 9. It concerns the execution of a man whom traditional scholarship identifies as James the Just.

�.. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned� � --end quote from Wikipedia

This is not in itself anything I�d rest my faith and belief in. But, Baloon asked for external references to Jesus. Ok. One more. A guy named Tacitus. Here�s his bio from Wikipedia:

-- quote �Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 56 � ca. 117) was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. The surviving portions of his two major works�the Annals and the Histories�examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those that reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96. There are significant lacunae in the surviving texts.
Other works by Tacitus discuss oratory (in dialogue format, see Dialogus de oratoribus), Germania (in De origine et situ Germanorum), and biographical notes about his father-in-law Agricola, primarily during his campaign in Britannia (see De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae).
An author writing in the latter part of the Silver Age of Latin literature, his work is distinguished by a boldness and sharpness of wit, and a compact and sometimes unconventional use of Latin.� -- end of quote

Here�s what he wrote and some background on the writing:

-- quote from Wikipedia �The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals (c. 116) about the Great Fire of Rome (64), included an account of how the emperor Nero blamed the Christians in Rome for the disaster and initiated the first known persecution of early Christians by the Romans. This has become one of the best known and most discussed passages of Tacitus' works. Although partly aimed at showing the inhumanity of the emperor, Tacitus' remarks have been studied more by modern scholars for information about his own religious attitudes and about the early history of Christianity.
Tacitus describes the support for the homeless provided by Nero and the rebuilding of the city, then refers to religious rituals carried out based on a consultation of the Sibylline Books. However, none of this did away with the suspicion that the fire had been started on Nero's orders:
Annales 15.44, in the second Medicean manuscript
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. ��end quote

Wow � that was exciting and fun. Are you still awake?

While I was dabbling around in Wikipedia I came across a few articles on �historicity of Jesus� I don�t know how to paste links, sorry. But, I respect that if someone actually wants to read about that � they will. It actually IS intreresting. Something else to keep in mind is that Roman authorities were trying to suppress the spread of Christianity in its infancy this may be a clue as to why historians of the day generally avoided mentioning Jesus.
When I have a bit more time I�ll post the compelling argument that establishes Jesus as a real historical person. The gospel accounts in the bible are not vague and evasive. A fairy tale or just plain �story� would sound like, �once upon a time in far away place�. However, when one reads the gospels and they'll read references to EXACT dates and places and people that are verifiable from other (non-biblical sources).

[gregerator]

Alex, after our PM conversation and your posts here it just brocomes more and more apparent how closely our beliefs lie. And for my input, as posted by sirkt87 about his/her lifestyle, although believers in the messiah-ship of Jesus of Nazareth desire to be perfect and often sadly push others to *be* perfect, it simply won't happen. We somehow learn early on to lie when we do something "wrong". Hand in the cookie jar. Our natural inclination tends to things that are not pleasing to God. The biggest thing I've been learning (that ever continuing process) is that choice has to exist if unconditional love exists. Without the choice between God's desire for eve *not* to eat of the tree of good and knowledge, life would have been a coresion. God wants is to choose his way of living but doesn't *make* is do it. Anymore than we should *make*, via politics or any other manner, perple live a certain way. I call myself a Christian, but I'm pro-choice. We need to get to choose. The op's description of God is very spot on. He is pure unconditional love. Man broke the relationship. God gave man some rules to renew their relationship, mosaic law. Man couldn't follow that. So God gave us Jesus. Himself incarnate so that man and God may be reconciled. Put back into a right relationship. But guess what. We still get to choose if that's what we want. I try to live my life loving God and loving others, not condeming. I do wish we would all choose God's way every time but that's not going to happen. Alex has shown that. Man wants to rule himself. Politics. I have a way and I think it's best and I will make everyone do these things by law. Jesus never showed that as a proper way of life. I'd you read Matthew, He was always about calling out the religious right of His time and having compassion on everyone else including the Samaritans whom were publically verbally assulted by *good* Jews at the time. I'd you check Luke 17, the good samaritan story, the teacher of the law who challeneged Jesus in the first place can't even say the word Samaritan. He answers jesus' question of, "who was a neighbor to the man?" by saying "the one who had mercy on him." they couldn't even say Samaritan. But Jesus talked to a Samaritan. A samaritan woman nonetheless. Jesus did not hold to condemning anyone *except* the religious right of His time. These bible thumpers should focus their energies on helping people. People who aren't like them. People who they don't share ideals with. Much like the beautiful civil discussion between Alex and Baloon here. Okay my thumbs are tired.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[prometheus]

Gregerator - I saw at the bottom of the post that was apon wap (!!!) Dang. Good thumbing.

I really like the theological question you raise: is God's love for man unconditional? I need to mull this over for a little bit. My jury is still out on that.

Yes - I agree that Jesus exposed the religious right of his day. Folks tend to think people who use religion as a weapon is somehow a christian or 20th, 21st century phenomenon. It's not. Religious zealots have always been a pain in the a$$

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

Alex. Read the book The Shack.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

I am PRO Religion.

I Think Religion is a Good thing- ON Paper.

Once you get People, and Add in the HUMAN Factor things go Wonky.

Is it Literal, is it Figurative?

Am I going to H-E-L-L, Am I going to Heaven?

Is God Talking to Me? Or Is It Time for me to take my Abilify Already?

Religion has always been used as a Tool for the Masses.

A cooping tool, something to help us with tough times, and to help explain the unexplainable.

Humans as a Whole normally need something to lean against.

In the Natural State we need something higher than us to give us hope.

Be that a "god" or a "golden calf".

Religion Helps Us Enstill Morals and Ethics into our society, But Once things get out of Hand-

Those Ethics and Morals will be the same tools used to shackle you.

And Again, Yes I am PRO Religion, So Long as Religion Stays in Your Place of Worship, Or in YOUR Home.

Don't bring it to my parks, my malls, my airports.

Religion is good, but in a time where reality becomes more real, It is only natural that Religion takes a backseat.

And those that are "pious" or "religious" will only get angry that they no longer have such a central role in society.

Because in the grand scheme-

You don't need Religion to be Moral, or Ethical.

All you need is Mister Roger's Neighborhood.

[musicnf123]

Think about it this way. When you die, if you are wrong, you lose EVERYTHING. When I die, if I am wrong, I lose NOTHING

Sirkt I hate to break it to you but Jesus is about as real as Santa Clause. I don't know if you should be particularly proud of what you just wrote.

Ill give it some time to circulate and somebody will pick up what I'm seeing. The more you talk the deeper you dig a hole. But please continue.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

Got this from a dear friend of mine. (glad I can copy and paste!)

"Unconditionally means that God (or anyone who loves in that way) loves the person no matter what they are like, what they have done, or what they will do. It does not mean the intended recipient will requite or even accept that love.I can love my wife unconditionally and she can still decide to divorce and run. God can love the whole world unconditionally and people can still turn away His offer. (But they cannot turn away the eternal consequences of doing so, which is why we share the Gospel.)In addition, we have to remember that while God is love, He is also justice and righteousness, and it would be unjust of Him to allow sin into Heaven. SOMEone has to pay the penalty, one way or another - and if someone refuses His loving offer of Christ's payment, then His justice has no choice but to charge the sinner as originally intended under the Law.Plus, how loving would it be to FORCE someone into an eternity they spent their whole lives rejecting? If someone does not want to spend eternity with God, God will lovingly not insist.His love cannot overpower His justice - they must work together in perfection. His love cannot simply excuse all sin or His justice would be flawed.And for what it's worth, "Unconditional love" was never used to describe God until the 1900's. That is very much a term from the fuzzy feel-good universalist Christianity of the 20th Century"

Not my words but I would agree with 95% or more of it.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

Old Testament God= Angry, Vengeful, Will-Castrate-you-then-order you- to-sacrifice-your-son-for-repentence God

New Testament God= Happy, Fluffy-Bunny, Tree-Hugging, Hippy God

Which Do you think Fits the Bill?

[phayro999]

I have read the intial posters post and just have to say something. Everything you posted about "Bible thumpers" is correct. I am a Baptist. I guess that would make me a "bible thumper". Yes I believe homosexuality is taught to be a sin in the Bible, as well as living together, excess drinking, sex before marraige, etc. But because of the nation we live in we are allowed to try to pass laws protecting what our beliefs our and what this country was founded upon. As does everyone in this country. We put it to a vote. If more people believe like me then it passes. if more dont it fails. Am i saying that I am perfect? far from it. But I do have the right to express myself and my Christian freedoms. Someone needs to tolerate me as well as making me tolerate their beliefs.

Of course you have lumped all types that call themselves Christian into one catagory. You also ejoin to make fun of my beliefs in the virgin birth or that my god is Judgemental, yet expect me to accept that I turned into the being i am from being an APE or Monkey, which to me is utterly ridiculous. Yet I have to send my children to school where they are taught this drivel and not our beliefs. My son is not allowed to openly ask a blessing over his food. to me the "ridiculous beliefs" you say come up in politcs are not ridiculous. They are the standards I try to live my life by and adhere my family to.

In closing, I would like to say, why do i need to tolerate you, if you dont need to have tolerance for me?

[xxxxpradaxxxx]

But I do have the right to express myself and my Christian freedoms. Someone needs to tolerate me as well as making me tolerate their beliefs.

In closing, I would like to say, why do i need to tolerate you, if you dont need to have tolerance for me?

But I do have the right to express myself and my Human Freedoms.

My Right to Express My Sexuality, My Right to Indulge in Alcohol, Gambling, Smoking, Excessive Spending, Gluttony, and Narcissim.

I practice Indulgence, in Moderation.

You Practice Masochism, and Self Sacrifice.

No one is saying you can't practice what you wish to practice.

Just don't tell me I can't practice what I want to practice.

Whether that takes place in the bedroom, the bar, or the mall.

[musicnf123]

That's also what separates Christianity from other religions. We don't have to DO things for salvation.

Golfnut I have layed out before you a very good arguement as to the all the contradictions that are present in Christianity and yet you have not addressed any of them.

What I say is simple logic. 2 plus 2 =4

Only thing you present is faith? Faith is blindly believing in a concept.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[gregerator]

Also, and this is from Baloon's "faith is blindly believing" statement, I don't think Matthew and the other 11 disciples plus the thousands of other first hand eye witnesses had any "blind" part to their faith. "blessed are those who believe without seeing"

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com