Jesus Christ

[Tarlam!]

O.K. Easter just finished and believe me, I am sick of seeing Christian films on TV.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. At least not the way he is portrayed. I look at him as Muslims seem to: a prophet.

How can anyone with the ultimate skills ever known to man remain mute at his various trials and tribulations and simply get crucified?. He could have done so much more than just die for us. Expect us to "believe". Crap!!!

I believe in a supreme being that I happen to name God. I think all people that worship in any house of belief are worthy of complete respect. I don't do that, but, being Germany, you either get Catholic or Protestant. And Jesus Christ is everywhere. And I don't disrespect Christians by any means. I disagree with them most respectfully. I respect Hindus, Buddhists, Maoists and any other Believer - or even Non Believer. Please, don't get me wrong. This is not about religion in general. This is only about Christ.

I don't believe that he was so placid as described and .... you know the rest.

I really shouldn't post this. I won't win any awards.

[sheepshead]

Maybe that's part of your problem. Nice timing by the way.

[Tarlam!]

Maybe that's part of your problem. Nice timing by the way.

An arrogant reply.

Many people have problems. People I know, people that believe Christ is the saviour. Guess what? They are more "bla bla" than I am.

The timing is Easter Monday, when better to bring up the question of this?

Sheep, if you just want to insult me, then PM as usual. If you want to really have a discussion, then I suggest you attack the topic, not the author.

[HowardRoark]

He could have done so much more than just die for us.

As yesterday was Easter, it seems apropos to at least acknowledge, according to Christian belief, that he did something after dying. Without what happened on Easter, I would have to agree with your post. Because of Easter, I don't.

[Tarlam!]

[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.

[sheepshead]

Maybe that's part of your problem. Nice timing by the way.

An arrogant reply.

Many people have problems. People I know, people that believe Christ is the saviour. Guess what? They are more "bla bla" than I am.

The timing is Easter Monday, when better to bring up the question of this?

Sheep, if you just want to insult me, then PM as usual. If you want to really have a discussion, then I suggest you attack the topic, not the author.

It posted here on Easter. (Im in Chicago)-Just saying maybe he can help. Not an attack.

[Tarlam!]

It posted here on Easter. (Im in Chicago)-Just saying maybe he can help. Not an attack.

Sorry, but I'm not always aware of time differences. I continue to repeat, I am not trying to be in anyway disrespectful.

[australianpackerbacker]

Not that i agree with everything in the list below, but it is good for a solid laugh. Enjoy!

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian


10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Peace and happy easter!

[sheepshead]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

[Tarlam!]

An Aussie riding shotgut for an Aussie. Who'd have thought?

Thanks, Mate.

[Tarlam!]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

Are you attempting a serious discussion with this comment? Sorry, I'm too stupid to get it.

[australianpackerbacker]

An Aussie riding shotgut for an Aussie. Who'd have thought?

Thanks, Mate.

No worries buddy! Hows life in Germany treating you? We are getting some serious torrential rains here in Sydney, been gloomy all easter.

Peace

[retailguy]

Tar - I don't know whether you were soliciting responses or just venting. I took it as the former, but if it is the latter, just ignore me.

You said many things, most of which I believe are not true. I thought it best to go point by point. Maybe there is a better way to respond, if so, I don't know how to do it.

As you stated, I mean no disrespect.




I'm sorry, but I don't believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. At least not the way he is portrayed. I look at him as Muslims seem to: a prophet.

I believe if you spend some time in the Bible, you'll see that this is one definition that he hasn't left open to us. He clearly claims in the Bible to be God. To me this means one of three things:

1 - He was God
2 - He wasn't God, but thought (believed) he was God
3 - He wasn't God, and knew that he wasn't God.

Obviously, I believe the 1st possibility. Looking at 2 & 3, this means he was either evil and dishonest (choice 3), or a crazy lunatic (choice 2). Neither would qualify him for "Prophet" status in any religion. Number 1 clearly doesn't qualify him to be a prophet either, since God would be by definition - not a prophet.




How can anyone with the ultimate skills ever known to man remain mute at his various trials and tribulations and simply get crucified?. He could have done so much more than just die for us. Expect us to "believe". Crap!!!

This has to do with Grace. I'm not going to try in a small internet post to explain this, however, again, if you spend some time in the Bible, you'll begin to understand the reasons for this.

Here's a wikipedia definition of "Divine Grace". I'm sure I could find something better (or closer to what I believe if you're interested), but this will give the general concept from many different religious perspectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace


Your above post also indirectly refers to "choice". In order to have love, you have to have choices. Otherwise, how do you, or anyone else for that matter, know you have love? You have to choose it.

In order to have choice you have to have a second option. That would be to choose to "not love" God. I happen to believe that there is plenty of fact surrounding Christianity, the humorous post by APB notwithstanding.



I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

Well, Tar, Jesus spent 40 days after the resurrection here before his ascension into heaven. There were many more than a "handful" of witnesses to his resurrection. Some accounts put the number about 500.

I'll leave you to judge the "credibility" of the witnesses, but logic tells me that at least one of the 500 had to be considered "credible" in most peoples minds. Jewish customs at the time required "one or two" credible accounts...

Personally, I believe that the witnesses were "credible". Many were executed for their beliefs. I find it difficult to believe that if the witnesses "made it up" they would not willingly go to their deaths holding a "made up belief" to be true. By any applied standard that doesn't make sense to me.

Look at this site (warning - could be viewed as fundamentalist) for more information.

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/witness-to-the-resurrection-faq.htm



If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

And here is the key to Christianity. You either believe in the necessity of grace, or you don't. Tar - I fully admit that to believe in Jesus, you need to believe in the bible as the written word of God. That's a different discussion, but acceptance of that, needs to happen for the rest of the belief to make sense.

There are plenty of written defenses of the validity of the bible. You can gather the data if you wish. I'll be happy to help with sources.

I always recommend that people who are seeking more information participate in a course called "Alpha". It was developed by a British Pastor, and is undoubtedly being held somewhere close to your home. By the very definition of the course, it is to be "NO PRESSURE". I'd be very disappointed to hear that anyone associated with this course put pressure on you, or anyone else, related to "acceptance" of the information provided. That's not its purpose.

That being said, as APB humorously pointed out, all Christians aren't openminded. I think "all" of anyone is not openminded, but... that's another discussion.

You can check out the alpha course at http://www.alpha.org or http://www.alphakurs.de/ in German.

[texaspackerbacker]

Most of us "fundamentalist Christians" take that top ten list and embrace it--although many of the details are based on church teachings rather than true Biblical Christian concepts.

Tarlam, it takes a lot of faith to hold the belief you hold and a lot of courage to express it in opposition to the dominant religion--although I suppose that is less true in Europe than here.

I have no quarrel with anybody expressing non-belief about what I consider to be the True Religion. Heaven knows, the contradictory and unBiblical teachings of some (or all) major Christian denominations tends to foster that sort of thing. As long as non-believers remain benign and are not part of movements or false religions aimed at tearing down our own religion, our own freedom, and our own way of life, then those non-believers can live without a target on their back--as far as I'm concerned anyway.

[Tarlam!]

RG, Tex, thank you both for the respectful comments.

But he died. He friggin' died. With all of his might, he could have done so much had he lived. I just don't accept him dying and having his story documented many generations after the fact to be the correct choice for manhood. Sorry, I don't. It was a cop out, IMHO.

I don't know what it's like in the USA or elsewhere at this time of year, but German TV is just full of Jesus. I guess with my loss I feel it stronger. But, I'm hurting and this Jesus cult isn't helping a bit.

[SkinBasket]

Forget dying. If he was the son of god, does he really allow this to be his legacy?

http://operachic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/21/jc_supastar_lights.jpg

When did the lord abandon the the fire and brimstone thing in exchange for critical reviews?

[retailguy]

But he died. He friggin' died. With all of his might, he could have done so much had he lived. I just don't accept him dying and having his story documented many generations after the fact to be the correct choice for manhood. Sorry, I don't. It was a cop out, IMHO.


Yes, he died. But, he was supposed to die. If you accept death as "final" then, well, I understand your belief.

But, put bluntly, do you "know for certain" that death is final? If so, how? We know for certain, that death is final for us from "this" life, we don't know what happens next.

There are 500 accounts of people seeing the risen Jesus. I'd suggest researching those accounts, and understanding the context behind those accounts before you believe it "isn't possible".

You said earlier that you believe in a "higher power" you call God. I'd guess, that by default, you would also believe that the God you believe in is not subject to the same "rules or limitations" that we as humans are. Therefore, if that is true, there could be life after death, and, more importantly, God could raise someone from the dead if he so chose.

Tar - I know you're hurting right now. The death of a loved one, especially, a loved one in the prime of her life is not fair, not expected, and not understandable. The "empty void" in your childrens lives can't be filled, and as a parent, I'd be damn frustrated with that.

If you want to vent, you're certainly entitled, if you want more information, I can help you with that. There are valid reasons why life is the way it is. You don't have to like them (I certainly don't), but, I think after the pain passes they can make sense to you.

My recommendation, if you want it, is to gather information relating to Grace. Understand what God accomplished by crucifying Jesus, and what it means to me and you. Then gather information on "why" you can trust the Bible as the word of God. After that, if you're interested in reading a part of the Bible for yourself, I'd start with John's Gospel.

PM me backchannel if you wish, I'd be happy to talk with you about any private concerns you have.

[texaspackerbacker]

RG, Tex, thank you both for the respectful comments.

But he died. He friggin' died. With all of his might, he could have done so much had he lived. I just don't accept him dying and having his story documented many generations after the fact to be the correct choice for manhood. Sorry, I don't. It was a cop out, IMHO.

I don't know what it's like in the USA or elsewhere at this time of year, but German TV is just full of Jesus. I guess with my loss I feel it stronger. But, I'm hurting and this Jesus cult isn't helping a bit.

The dying was not the big deal; It was the Resurrection--which, Tarlam, you, of course, have a perfect right not to believe happened, if that's what your faith tells you. However, I think it was Gibbons in his book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, who stated that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events in human history.

[sheepshead]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

Are you attempting a serious discussion with this comment? Sorry, I'm too stupid to get it.

You and APB are clearly the same person, most forums permanently ban people that create 2 user names and use them.

[retailguy]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

Are you attempting a serious discussion with this comment? Sorry, I'm too stupid to get it.

You and APB are clearly the same person, most forums permanently ban people that create 2 user names and use them.

Interesting.... Sheep, how'd you get so damn smart? Err. Let me rephrase that. You can't see the IP, I can, and they are "CLEARLY" not the same person.

So why don't you tell me how you know that they "CLEARLY" are the same person? Inquiring minds want to know....

[gex]

Not that i agree with everything in the list below, but it is good for a solid laugh. Enjoy!

Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian


10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Peace and happy easter!

Thats funny cause its true.
:lol:

[sheepshead]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

Are you attempting a serious discussion with this comment? Sorry, I'm too stupid to get it.

You and APB are clearly the same person, most forums permanently ban people that create 2 user names and use them.

Interesting.... Sheep, how'd you get so damn smart? Err. Let me rephrase that. You can't see the IP, I can, and they are "CLEARLY" not the same person.

So why don't you tell me how you know that they "CLEARLY" are the same person? Inquiring minds want to know....

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

[retailguy]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

[Joemailman]

This discussion reminds of a saying I once heard:

If you're not a believer, no explanation is possible.
If you are a believer, no explanation is necessary.

Of course, this isn't totally true because if it were, believers would never stray, and non-believers would never be converted. There is an element of truth to it however. Explaining faith to a non-believer can by its very nature be difficult since faith is belief despite an absence of physical evidence. I think Christ showed he understood this when he said to Thomas, "You believe because you've seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me but believe."

[sheepshead]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

No further questions your honor.

[retailguy]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

No further questions your honor.

Then how about some answers to a simple question.

How do you know so "clearly"? Let's hear it. We're all really curious how you got so smart.

[mraynrand]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

No further questions your honor.

Then how about some answers to a simple question.

How do you know so "clearly"? Let's hear it. We're all really curious how you got so smart.

Didn't you already make your point?

[mraynrand]

Tar, keep searching man.

[sheepshead]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

No further questions your honor.

Then how about some answers to a simple question.

How do you know so "clearly"? Let's hear it. We're all really curious how you got so smart.

Didn't you already make your point?

Oh no, he has a little issue here I think...

[hoosier]

This discussion reminds of a saying I once heard:

If you're not a believer, no explanation is possible.
If you are a believer, no explanation is necessary.

Of course, this isn't totally true because if it were, believers would never stray, and non-believers would never be converted. There is an element of truth to it however. Explaining faith to a non-believer can by its very nature be difficult since faith is belief despite an absence of physical evidence. I think Christ showed he understood this when he said to Thomas, "You believe because you've seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me but believe."

Who said something to the effect of "You wouldn't be seeking me if you hadn't already found me"? (We could translate this for Tarlam as "You wouldn't be doubting me if you hadn't already found me.") I want to say it was Pascal, but somewhere in the back of my mind it sounds like something Christ was reputed to have said himself.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Using the bible to justify the existence or meaning of Jesus is like Bush using the Niger reports of yellowcake uranium to justify attacking Iraq.

The bible is a bunch of stories culled. What was left out is just as important as what was included.

Or would you guys prefer to not know about the gospels according to Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc.

[falco]

Didn't you already make your point?

Oh no, he has a little issue here I think...

apparently it is okay here for a moderator to bait a poster into a conflict.

[Tarlam!]

apparently it is okay here for a moderator to bait a poster into a conflict.

Excuse me. An accusation against me was made that I will not comment further upon. But I am glad a moderator took this up. I don't see this as baiting. I see this as moderating.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Why dont you go stand in the corner, if we need a cop-wannabe or somebody's asshole neighbor type guy we'll call on you.

That's the best you could come up with? Please, you disappoint me.

I ask again, how do you know so "clearly"? C'mon it's not so tough. Enlighten me.

No further questions your honor.

Then how about some answers to a simple question.

How do you know so "clearly"? Let's hear it. We're all really curious how you got so smart.

Battle Royale....Retail "the smug asshole" vs. Sheep "the dick"

In the end, we all lose.

[falco]

apparently it is okay here for a moderator to bait a poster into a conflict.

Excuse me. An accusation against me was made that I will not comment further upon. But I am glad a moderator took this up. I don't see this as baiting. I see this as moderating.

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

[Tyrone Bigguns]

apparently it is okay here for a moderator to bait a poster into a conflict.

Excuse me. An accusation against me was made that I will not comment further upon. But I am glad a moderator took this up. I don't see this as baiting. I see this as moderating.

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

QFT

[Tarlam!]

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

Call me "stupid" falco, but Sheep has accused me of having two identities and called for me to be banned. A moderator has stepped in and asked for proof of that accusation. And, the mod is being insistent about it.

I often disagree with RG, as you know. But in this case he is acting on behalf of the forum. Either I am a dual identity poster, in which case I should be banned. Or I am not in which case I have earned an apology.

I just find it sad that Sheep destroyed the topic of this thread.

[falco]

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

Call me "stupid" falco, but Sheep has accused me of having two identities and called for me to be banned. A moderator has stepped in and asked for proof of that accusation. And, the mod is being insistent about it.

I often disagree with RG, as you know. But in this case he is acting on behalf of the forum. Either I am a dual identity poster, in which case I should be banned. Or I am not in which case I have earned an apology.

I just find it sad that Sheep destroyed the topic of this thread.

i don't think you are stupid.

[Zool]

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

Call me "stupid" falco, but Sheep has accused me of having two identities and called for me to be banned. A moderator has stepped in and asked for proof of that accusation. And, the mod is being insistent about it.

I often disagree with RG, as you know. But in this case he is acting on behalf of the forum. Either I am a dual identity poster, in which case I should be banned. Or I am not in which case I have earned an apology.

I just find it sad that Sheep destroyed the topic of this thread.

Maybe instead of asking for proof of how Sheep would know such a thing, he could just tell him to shut up?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

Call me "stupid" falco, but Sheep has accused me of having two identities and called for me to be banned. A moderator has stepped in and asked for proof of that accusation. And, the mod is being insistent about it.

I often disagree with RG, as you know. But in this case he is acting on behalf of the forum. Either I am a dual identity poster, in which case I should be banned. Or I am not in which case I have earned an apology.

I just find it sad that Sheep destroyed the topic of this thread.

Maybe instead of asking for proof of how Sheep would know such a thing, he could just tell him to shut up?

That is an outrageous scenario that leaves no room for Retail to roll his eyes and mutter under his breath about how "we don't get it."

If he can't be smug and sanctimonious what is he?

[Tarlam!]

Maybe instead of asking for proof of how Sheep would know such a thing, he could just tell him to shut up?

Didn't it amount to the same thing?

Too bad about my thread.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not sure about how I feel about Jesus either, dear. I mean, the average age people lived to back then was about 40. So he knocked off a couple years. I think the point would have been better made had he lived to be 150 or so and then made the sacrifice for us. I had a friend tell me that it was because of the suffering not the dying, but then why did he die so much more quickly than others who were crucified? It's a leap of faith. I'd always wanted to have that blind faith, but it never was there no matter how much I tried letting go.

[sheepshead]

i disagree Tar, but i will add that i think sheep is no better than RG. unfortunately we should hold our mods to higher standards

Call me "stupid" falco, but Sheep has accused me of having two identities and called for me to be banned. A moderator has stepped in and asked for proof of that accusation. And, the mod is being insistent about it.

I often disagree with RG, as you know. But in this case he is acting on behalf of the forum. Either I am a dual identity poster, in which case I should be banned. Or I am not in which case I have earned an apology.

I just find it sad that Sheep destroyed the topic of this thread.

I said if it's true, you should be banned. An apology from me? Come on man, you really need to do some soul searching at many levels, I wish you well.

[Tarlam!]

I said if it's true, you should be banned. An apology from me? Come on man, you really need to do some soul searching at many levels, I wish you well.

You made an accusation. Prove it or apologize like any real man would. While you're figuring out what the right thing to do is, I'll continue my soul searching. Real men soul search without shame.

[retailguy]

Tar - you summed it up brilliantly. Yes, I thought sheep was out of line, but he presented his position so firmly, I figured he could explain it. True to form, he just hides behind one liner, smart ass comments.

I suspected at the beginning, that he was incapable of admitting he was wrong. That was a correct suspicion. Perhaps I carried it one post too far, but in hindsight, I guess I was just trying to give him a 3rd chance.

I knew what was really motivating this thread Tar, and I understand how you feel. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably be pissed at God too. I think after the anger subsides there is an answer to the questions that you have, and I remain willing to help with that if I can.

As to those who criticized me in this thread. With one exception (Falco), you've proven yourselves incapable of admitting when you are wrong. There is ample evidence of that. I see that as a lack of integrity. What matters, I guess, is how each of you see it.

Tarlam, I apologize for my part in trashing your thread. I appreciate the fact that you can see what my goal was, and hope that you can still see the message through the bullshit that seems to infect every thread around here, where integrity lacking fools can't take responsibility for mouthing off before they know what they're talking about.

Shoot me a PM if I can help you further.

[sheepshead]

I said if it's true, you should be banned. An apology from me? Come on man, you really need to do some soul searching at many levels, I wish you well.

You made an accusation. Prove it or apologize like any real man would. While you're figuring out what the right thing to do is, I'll continue my soul searching. Real men soul search without shame.

I just asked a question, scroll back man.

See above as retail tries to unravel his tirade. You should see the profanity laced PM he sent me for asking this guy a question. If anyone wants a good time-do a search on tarlams posts as they relate to mine. Some fine fine reading to be sure. Actually really sick shit, all because, as he likes to tell, he used to stalk me on another forum. Not engage, as far as I know we never mixed it up in a thread. He never posted there to my knowledge. He just was a "fan". So, its reasonable to question ones internet habits and motivations when you are confronted with really sick stuff like that.

Certain people will not be questioned on here apparently. No matter how insulting or off the wall they are.

[Freak Out]

dont you get banded for having 2 sock puppets?

Are you attempting a serious discussion with this comment? Sorry, I'm too stupid to get it.

You and APB are clearly the same person, most forums permanently ban people that create 2 user names and use them.

[Tarlam!]

Thank you Freak Out.

Sheep, maybe in Chicago, people "ask questions" in a statement form? Can you enlighten us on that?

As to me stalking you, HAAA! I was a JSO poster well before you. I had 5000 posts there before you raised your woolly head. But, unbeknownst to you, there was an exodus from JSO of which I amongst many were a part. I admit, I still visited that place from time to time to see who was still posting.

And, I saw with disgust what you were all about. I called you out about it when you got here openly and after your PM tirades also privately.

Be a man and tell the truth. I am glad to.

Thank you again for ruining my thread.

[Dylan McKay]

I have a couple of feelings on Jesus Christ, and the religion of Christianity.

First, Jesus Christ lived on this Earth and he died on this Earth. Regardless if you take the New Testament as truth, or if you question its reliability like Tyrone summed up in his post it doesn't really matter in my opinion. Take the latter, if you can take these "stories" about Jesus and apply them to your life and try everyday, although impossible to follow the message of Jesus Christ you will be a better person, and a more loving, and caring person. You don't need to question anything about the Bible, or even Jesus himself to do this. It may not solve all of your problems, or questions about life and death, it may not even answer your questions about spirituality, but when you are lying in your death bed I don't think salvation will be that hard to find if you did apply these "stories" to your life and tried to mirror Jesus Christ.

The Christian faith has become many huge corporations all competing for the largest piece of the pie, which is of course, our dollars.

[Cleft Crusty]

... most forums permanently ban people that create 2 user names and use them.

Do they? That seems like an unfriendly thing to do.

[falco]

As to those who criticized me in this thread. With one exception (Falco), you've proven yourselves incapable of admitting when you are wrong. There is ample evidence of that. I see that as a lack of integrity. What matters, I guess, is how each of you see it.

RG, just to be clear, I have no problems with you as a poster. I would call you pretentious, but I have learned that there is a fine line between arrogance and confidence, and it is even blurrier here in the ambiguous realm of the internet. So I am not qualified to judge that.

I see nothing wrong with your postings, nor your interactions with fellow posters, except for your title of moderator. I believe if you are to hold that role, then your behavior must be beyond reproach. Even if I didn't have a problem with your heavy handed moderation, my objection would be to the fact that you don't mete out your punishment objectively.

So in other words, I put you on about the same level as the rest of the wackos in here - which is exactly the problem! :lol:

[sheepshead]

As to those who criticized me in this thread. With one exception (Falco), you've proven yourselves incapable of admitting when you are wrong. There is ample evidence of that. I see that as a lack of integrity. What matters, I guess, is how each of you see it.

RG, just to be clear, I have no problems with you as a poster. I would call you pretentious, but I have learned that there is a fine line between arrogance and confidence, and it is even blurrier here in the ambiguous realm of the internet. So I am not qualified to judge that.

I see nothing wrong with your postings, nor your interactions with fellow posters, except for your title of moderator. I believe if you are to hold that role, then your behavior must be beyond reproach. Even if I didn't have a problem with your heavy handed moderation, my objection would be to the fact that you don't mete out your punishment objectively.

So in other words, I put you on about the same level as the rest of the wackos in here - which is exactly the problem! :lol:

Golly..finally some sanity. Thank You.

[falco]

Golly..finally some sanity. Thank You.

for what it is worth, i'm neither defending nor condemning you.

[sheepshead]

Golly..finally some sanity. Thank You.

for what it is worth, i'm neither defending nor condemning you.

You didnt need to, I am happy to defend my own positions. I just thought your post was well written. Thanks again.

[texaspackerbacker]

I have a couple of feelings on Jesus Christ, and the religion of Christianity.

First, Jesus Christ lived on this Earth and he died on this Earth. Regardless if you take the New Testament as truth, or if you question its reliability like Tyrone summed up in his post it doesn't really matter in my opinion. Take the latter, if you can take these "stories" about Jesus and apply them to your life and try everyday, although impossible to follow the message of Jesus Christ you will be a better person, and a more loving, and caring person. You don't need to question anything about the Bible, or even Jesus himself to do this. It may not solve all of your problems, or questions about life and death, it may not even answer your questions about spirituality, but when you are lying in your death bed I don't think salvation will be that hard to find if you did apply these "stories" to your life and tried to mirror Jesus Christ.

The Christian faith has become many huge corporations all competing for the largest piece of the pie, which is of course, our dollars.

Too many people around here ruin too many perfectly good--interesting--threads with petty personal bickering.

I admire your idealism, Dylan. That kind of thing--living a Christ-like life whether you believe the Bible or not--is something that SHOULD transcend liberal/conservative lines--although obviously, it doesn't.

I tend to be just the opposite--a true believer who false way short of the ideal.

The real point, however, is the truth or falsehood of the most significant event of all: Christ's Resurrection from the dead.

If it is false, then everything is meaningless. The world degenerates into a social Darwinism scenario--nothing more than survival, no right or wrong, you just do what you have to do to get ahead, everybody else be damned.

On the other hand, if the story is true, then everything else, the teachings, the hope for the future, etc. all have meaning.

Hence, it must suck to be a non-believer; And it is the height of illogic to put others ahead of one's self if you are a non-believer.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

[digitaldean]

The Christian faith has become many huge corporations all competing for the largest piece of the pie, which is of course, our dollars.

Partially agree with this. There are too many people who have besmirched the name of Christianity through violence, sexual misconduct, greed, etc. Televangelists galore have done more harm than good.

I will try to be brief, but I think I have to state my beliefs. Too many people use the Word of God to beat people into the ground instead of using it as the roadmap to eternal life in heaven. Also too many people believe that if you live a good life it will merit a reward to your soul.

No matter what I own, say or do, nothing can take away the things I've said, thought or done against someone else. I have my vices or faults that I struggle with, we all do to one form or another.

For that, I am condemned to hell. But only for the love of God, who wants all to be saved, am I and everyone else redeemed. Christ did live for the whole world. A pure, totally sinless life that led him to dying on the cross. He died and suffered the torment of hell for all of us and the sins we have committed. He rose from the dead to prove the final victory over evil (Satan).

If you choose not to believe it, it's your choice. If I hate or look down on someone who doesn't believe then it undercuts what I just said. All of Christianity is based on love. If God didn't love us, Christ wouldn't have come. If those who believe didn't love others, they wouldn't try sharing their faith either through their lives or in telling others about God's love. They want others to share in the joy of their faith and the joy that awaits those who believe in heaven.

This isn't meant to alienate anyone. Call me a whack job, nut case, whatever you want. Just stating what I believe. It may or may not be what you wanted to hear, but what I say comes from the heart.

I am by NO MEANS better than anyone else. If I have come across that way, directly or indirectly, that is my fault. But if I don't state what I believe - at this moment on this topic - then I am failing what I believe as well.

This is the extent that I will discuss about the topic outside of a thread I create or a similar topic that someone else starts.

Your fellow rat,
DD

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well said, Dean.

[HowardRoark]

You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

Who determines whose ethics are right? And what if I don’t expect anything out of you and act accordingly?

In another thread we learned that we are all just a blip on the Evolutionary screen. Accordingly, I should look out for my survival and MY survival only. The idea of caring what others think would be ludicrous.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If those who believe didn't love others, they wouldn't try sharing their faith either through their lives or in telling others about God's love. They want others to share in the joy of their faith and the joy that awaits those who believe in heaven.

Really? How would you feel about Muslims, hindus, etc. proslytizing.

Might be hard for you to understand, but there are many of us who find your sharing to be tedious and arduous.

Do you even realize how patronizing that philosophy is?

[HowardRoark]

If those who believe didn't love others, they wouldn't try sharing their faith either through their lives or in telling others about God's love.

Poignant video on this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

I'm neither a politician nor a preacher. If I was either, it would be in my self-interest to care what others think.

The good old Golden Rule--which you so eloquently stated--is, of course, Christian doctrine.

You'd be correct in what you say if you substitute the word "expect" for the word "want" to be treated--barring the existence of God, of course, which I assume is where you are coming from, Ziggy. Acting "ethically" in that scenario would only be logical if you rationally believe others will act ethically toward you. And the only reason that is even true to a very limited extent is religion--specifically OUR religion. Certainly, some other religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule, but the very prominent one currently being discussed over in FYI most certainly does not--nor does the reputed "religion" of atheists, Darwinism.

Seeing good in people is a very admirable trait, Ziggy, but it is only realistic among people where Judeo-Christian principles dominate the population. In places like that--places like America--even atheists get treated decently--for the most part.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

I'm neither a politician nor a preacher. If I was either, it would be in my self-interest to care what others think.

The good old Golden Rule--which you so eloquently stated--is, of course, Christian doctrine.

You'd be correct in what you say if you substitute the word "expect" for the word "want" to be treated--barring the existence of God, of course, which I assume is where you are coming from, Ziggy. Acting "ethically" in that scenario would only be logical if you rationally believe others will act ethically toward you. And the only reason that is even true to a very limited extent is religion--specifically OUR religion. Certainly, some other religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule, but the very prominent one currently being discussed over in FYI most certainly does not.

Seeing good in people is a very admirable trait, Ziggy, but it is only realistic among people where Judeo-Christian principles dominate the population. In places like that--places like America--even atheists get treated decently--for the most part.

Like most of the time, you are wrong again.

The golden rule didn't spring outta christianity...infact, there is little about christianity that is unique.

the golden rule has it's origins in greek philosophy. :oops:

Lastly, if is hilarious for you to say that is christian when it is based on Leviticus...which as far as i recall was the old testament..dont' believe there were any christians. :oops:

[Charles Woodson]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

[digitaldean]

If those who believe didn't love others, they wouldn't try sharing their faith either through their lives or in telling others about God's love. They want others to share in the joy of their faith and the joy that awaits those who believe in heaven.

Really? How would you feel about Muslims, hindus, etc. proslytizing.

Might be hard for you to understand, but there are many of us who find your sharing to be tedious and arduous.

Do you even realize how patronizing that philosophy is?

Ty, if you read the last sentence I wrote, I stated I'm not going to gushing sermons in every post. I stated what I thought at the proper moment, nothing more, nothing less.

In response to your thoughts on other religions trying to spread their faith, that's their right. If you aren't willing to stand on what you believe what good is it?

No, it's not hard for me to understand that others think I'm a pain for stating what I posted. But then again, there are other topics from other posters that I think are tedious and arduous, but somehow I have seemed none the worse for wear. Because we are all entitled to state what we think and believe. Besides this thread was titled "Jesus Christ" not "Who the Packers should pick?" If it was titled the latter, your points would be more valid.

If you took what I wrote as patronizing, then I must be missing something. Please point out to me the words that are.

From your post I take it that if I state my Christian belief, to you I'm a backward hick that believes in a fairytale and has no grey matter between the ears.

If anyone has been patronizing here, it's been you. If you want the free exchange of ideas in the proper format, stop coming across as so bitter when someone states something contrary to your own belief system.

[MJZiggy]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

I'm neither a politician nor a preacher. If I was either, it would be in my self-interest to care what others think.

The good old Golden Rule--which you so eloquently stated--is, of course, Christian doctrine.

You'd be correct in what you say if you substitute the word "expect" for the word "want" to be treated--barring the existence of God, of course, which I assume is where you are coming from, Ziggy. Acting "ethically" in that scenario would only be logical if you rationally believe others will act ethically toward you. And the only reason that is even true to a very limited extent is religion--specifically OUR religion. Certainly, some other religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule, but the very prominent one currently being discussed over in FYI most certainly does not--nor does the reputed "religion" of atheists, Darwinism.

Seeing good in people is a very admirable trait, Ziggy, but it is only realistic among people where Judeo-Christian principles dominate the population. In places like that--places like America--even atheists get treated decently--for the most part.

You may be neither a preacher nor a politician, but you do call yourself a Christian, and with that comes a standard of behavior. You do not meet the standard.

As to the ethics part, I can't expect anyone to treat me the way I wish to be treated if I don't act in the same manner. I can't speak for how others feel on the matter. It's not my place to judge them. I merely use their behavior in my decisions on whether to deal with them on a daily basis. If they act like shit, I am not so likely to want to be close to them. If I want people to be close to me, I act in a way that draws people to me. Being a complete turd would defeat that goal.

The golden rule is the basis of behavior for pretty much every religion in existence. Some simply practice better than others. You can't tell me the Buddhists do not practice the golden rule: what is karma afterall besides the ramifications of breaking the golden rule? The universe does have a way of biting you in the ass doesn't it? Then again, I don't believe that the universe works in accordance with individual behavior. The karma for being a piece of shit, only interested in working his way to the top, is that he winds up a lonely piece of shit never knowing if he has true friends or if they're just using him for his money. He also gets to live his life knowing he is a piece of shit and deserves what he wound up with.

[digitaldean]

But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

CW,
Very well stated.

[Zool]

Isn't strange how one man who lived 2000 years ago preaching peace and love is at the center of so much angst and strife?

Son of God or no son of God, the man made some very valid statements that will ring true through the entirety of the human race.

I forget what movie its from, but it went something like "a person is smart, but people are dumb"

[MJZiggy]

Says the guy with the red diaper in his avatar. Well said.

[Zool]

I prefer to think of it as a cotton cod piece.

[MJZiggy]

Where did that name come from anyway. I hope what you're covering doesn't smell like cod. (going to shut up now before this thing winds up elsewhere)

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If those who believe didn't love others, they wouldn't try sharing their faith either through their lives or in telling others about God's love. They want others to share in the joy of their faith and the joy that awaits those who believe in heaven.

Really? How would you feel about Muslims, hindus, etc. proslytizing.

Might be hard for you to understand, but there are many of us who find your sharing to be tedious and arduous.

Do you even realize how patronizing that philosophy is?

Ty, if you read the last sentence I wrote, I stated I'm not going to gushing sermons in every post. I stated what I thought at the proper moment, nothing more, nothing less.

In response to your thoughts on other religions trying to spread their faith, that's their right. If you aren't willing to stand on what you believe what good is it?

No, it's not hard for me to understand that others think I'm a pain for stating what I posted. But then again, there are other topics from other posters that I think are tedious and arduous, but somehow I have seemed none the worse for wear. Because we are all entitled to state what we think and believe. Besides this thread was titled "Jesus Christ" not "Who the Packers should pick?" If it was titled the latter, your points would be more valid.

If you took what I wrote as patronizing, then I must be missing something. Please point out to me the words that are.

From your post I take it that if I state my Christian belief, to you I'm a backward hick that believes in a fairytale and has no grey matter between the ears.

If anyone has been patronizing here, it's been you. If you want the free exchange of ideas in the proper format, stop coming across as so bitter when someone states something contrary to your own belief system.

DD,

My comment wasn't based upon your posting, and didn't mean to imply that. You can post away.

Faiths: Of course it is their right to spread. Who is against that. Thank god for separation of church and state..otherwise your religion wouldn't have thrived here.

The point, which you are missing, is that many faiths don't proslytize. Many dont' want to be proslytized to. That is what i was referring to.

But, let's also be a little bit honest here. If an atheist went about preaching their faith...most christians would be up in arms.

Hick: what did i say that prompts that? Nothing. IF you look at what i wrote, it is that it is all about faith. There is no point in you or any other christian trying to defend or argue your faith..because it is a bunch of ludicrous stories that have almost no basis in fact.

That isn't to say that they didn't happen..but, you nor anyone else can prove it..any more than than i can prove that the flying spaghetti monster and his noodley appendage didnt' create the whole thing.

The whole thing is that you are free to believe what you want..but, for many of us, we would prefer not to hear about it (this doesn't mean posts). I go back to the good old days of faith being a private matter.

Maybe you are young, but there was a time in this country (the 70s and before) when talking about your faith wasn't the norm. There was a time before people had a personal relationship with jesus...and you know what...we were just fine.

Patronizing: What is patronizing is the implied assumption that you are right and the rest of us are wrong. That without your version of the truth we won't find heaven. That is very patronizing and morally superior.

You might be surprised to find that many religions don't adhere to this. For example, judiasm doesn't take this stance.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

Has it ever occured to you that Jesus may not have existed? Does that mitigate anything?

It isnt' easy being christian..of course not. When you've set up a construct like original sin...it sure ain't.

[Charles Woodson]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

Has it ever occured to you that Jesus may not have existed? Does that mitigate anything?

It isnt' easy being christian..of course not. When you've set up a construct like original sin...it sure ain't.
No that has never occurred to me. I fully believe that Jesus did exist and that he fulfilled everything in the Bible

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

Has it ever occured to you that Jesus may not have existed? Does that mitigate anything?

It isnt' easy being christian..of course not. When you've set up a construct like original sin...it sure ain't.
No that has never occurred to me. I fully believe that Jesus did exist and that he fulfilled everything in the Bible

Why do you believe he exists? Other than the bible there is scant evidence.

but, if he didn't, would that change things for you?

Fulfilled? According to who/what? Not the old testament.

BTW, it is very telling that when you choose to use the word bible you use the new testament...otherwise you wouldn't be making some of your statements.

[HowardRoark]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

Has it ever occured to you that Jesus may not have existed? Does that mitigate anything?

It isnt' easy being christian..of course not. When you've set up a construct like original sin...it sure ain't.
No that has never occurred to me. I fully believe that Jesus did exist and that he fulfilled everything in the Bible

Why do you believe he exists? Other than the bible there is scant evidence.

but, if he didn't, would that change things for you?

Fulfilled? According to who/what? Not the old testament.

BTW, it is very telling that when you choose to use the word bible you use the new testament...otherwise you wouldn't be making some of your statements.

Sorry Ty, obviously he is referring to the Old Testament. How can you fulfill something that you are doing? The New Testament is all about Jesus’ life and the early Christian church thereafter.

As a Jewish person, why do you think that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. BTW, unlike you, I am not asking this to be confrontational.

[Charles Woodson]

Why do you believe he exists? Other than the bible there is scant evidence.

but, if he didn't, would that change things for you?

Fulfilled? According to who/what? Not the old testament.

BTW, it is very telling that when you choose to use the word bible you use the new testament...otherwise you wouldn't be making some of your statements.
What religion are you?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Disclaimer: The following was directed to try to answer Tarlams! question as best as possible.
**Tyrone- this is not directed at you, so if you arent going to say anything constructive then i ask that you will skip it.



[Because of Easter, I don't.

I guess you're referring to the almighty "resurrection". There were less than a handful of "reliable" witnesses to that event. But I won't begin to dispute that.

If he was the bodily son of God and 1/3 of the Holy trinity, he had no business dying on the cross. I don't get it. I am just saying, I don't get it. I don't get he died for me. He should have lived for me. And he isn't alive. Jesus doesn't live. He's dead, buried and lost somewhere.

Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just have lost faith in Jesus Christ. If you want to attack the topic, great. The author, please PM to relieve the forum members.
I havent read any of this thread
But what i have understood is that Jesus died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. Why did he do that? Because he loves us. thats really the only answer. It really is mind blowing, because God didn't have to choose to save us, but he did because he loves us. I really feel for you Tarlam because its not as easy as everyone says it is to be a christian, i mean Jesus in a way did live for us, because of his death no matter what we do is covered by him. The question of why doesn't it matter if we sin then is answered by if we truly belive in him, then we should not want to sin. I mean its not that easy, we still will struggle but God helps us through it.

Has it ever occured to you that Jesus may not have existed? Does that mitigate anything?

It isnt' easy being christian..of course not. When you've set up a construct like original sin...it sure ain't.
No that has never occurred to me. I fully believe that Jesus did exist and that he fulfilled everything in the Bible

Why do you believe he exists? Other than the bible there is scant evidence.

but, if he didn't, would that change things for you?

Fulfilled? According to who/what? Not the old testament.

BTW, it is very telling that when you choose to use the word bible you use the new testament...otherwise you wouldn't be making some of your statements.

Sorry Ty, obviously he is referring to the Old Testament. How can you fulfill something that you are doing? The New Testament is all about Jesus’ life and the early Christian church thereafter.

As a Jewish person, why do you think that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament. BTW, unlike you, I am not asking this to be confrontational.

If he is referring to the old testament..then clearly he didnt' fulfill everything in the bible.

the new is basically a marketing strat designed to position him/religion.

Fulfill: Umm, any reasonably intelligent person should know the answer to this...the fact that christians don't just shows how insular they are.

The #1 criteria of the messiah is to bring heaven upon earth. Now, i'm willing to grant you that we are as close to heaven as possible with Obama...yet, i think many jews and christians would have a hard time thinking this is heaven.

[digitaldean]

Ty, I'm 45 and no I don't remember a lot of people in my church talking about their faith in public. But not talking about it doesn't have to be accepted as the norm. If that's the case, the early Christian church never would have got off the ground and flourished.

My faith has been nurtured on the teachings that if you believe, you are saved, if you don't you won't. It's pretty cut and dried. It's not meant to be patronizing. This thread has been the ONLY time I went to such extent on stating my belief. But if I raise myself above others and act that I am better than someone else who doesn't share my faith, than I am losing the whole point of why Christ came. So the "morally superior" point is only how you interpret it.

I have the teachings of the Bible that I believe is the inspired Word of God. Can I provide you with written documentation of everything that happened in the Old and New Testament? No. It's comes down to something called faith. It's been made fun of from the beginning of time. You aren't the first, you aren't the last.

I will only bring up one topic that you probably consider ludicrous, creation. Where did life come from? You can go back through your beliefs on evolution, the big bang theory, etc. but where did all the building block materials come from? They couldn't just be there, they had to come from something. Spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis has been disproved over a century ago. You obviously can't prove that the building blocks of life itself didn't just come into existence. It wouldn't be logical. So if I follow your line of reasoning, then those who don't believe that this universe wasn't created have to be subscribing to an illogical theory.

You want honesty? I am not threatened by any atheist. But, man, it sure seems a lot of atheists feel threatened about religion, especially Christianity. Oh, it can be worded in a variety of ways, but the mockery/snide comments (e.g., flying spaghetti monster) usually are a common theme.

Many faiths don't proselytize? Please, get real. Tell that to those who have seen Jehovah's Witnesses or (in more urban areas) Nation of Islam members handing out leaflets about their faith. In islam worldwide, it is known as "dawah". It's looked upon as a meritorious activity. Though not actively pursued today, Buddhists performed proselytizing missions into Western Asia/Mediterranean before Christ's birth (same applies to Jews during the Hellenistic period).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty, I'm 45 and no I don't remember a lot of people in my church talking about their faith in public. But not talking about it doesn't have to be accepted as the norm. If that's the case, the early Christian church never would have got off the ground and flourished.

My faith has been nurtured on the teachings that if you believe, you are saved, if you don't you won't. It's pretty cut and dried. It's not meant to be patronizing. This thread has been the ONLY time I went to such extent on stating my belief. But if I raise myself above others and act that I am better than someone else who doesn't share my faith, than I am losing the whole point of why Christ came. So the "morally superior" point is only how you interpret it.

I have the teachings of the Bible that I believe is the inspired Word of God. Can I provide you with written documentation of everything that happened in the Old and New Testament? No. It's comes down to something called faith. It's been made fun of from the beginning of time. You aren't the first, you aren't the last.

I will only bring up one topic that you probably consider ludicrous, creation. Where did life come from? You can go back through your beliefs on evolution, the big bang theory, etc. but where did all the building block materials come from? They couldn't just be there, they had to come from something. Spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis has been disproved over a century ago. You obviously can't prove that the building blocks of life itself didn't just come into existence. It wouldn't be logical. So if I follow your line of reasoning, then those who don't believe that this universe wasn't created have to be subscribing to an illogical theory.

You want honesty? I am not threatened by any atheist. But, man, it sure seems a lot of atheists feel threatened about religion, especially Christianity. Oh, it can be worded in a variety of ways, but the mockery/snide comments (e.g., flying spaghetti monster) usually are a common theme.

Many faiths don't proselytize? Please, get real. Tell that to those who have seen Jehovah's Witnesses or (in more urban areas) Nation of Islam members handing out leaflets about their faith. In islam worldwide, it is known as "dawah". It's looked upon as a meritorious activity. Though not actively pursued today, Buddhists performed proselytizing missions into Western Asia/Mediterranean before Christ's birth (same applies to Jews during the Hellenistic period).

There is a big difference between talking to the masses in a town square and constantly talking to one at work and other places.

There is a big difference between proslytizing and sharing. I think you are smart enough to see the difference.

Saved: You of course dont' see that as patronizing?

Creation: I understand the point you are making. However, i could just as easily ask you how god came into existence. Same issue. THe difference is that there is more science, logic, etc. behind our existence than creationism.

Atheists: They aren't threatened..they are asking for what this country is all about..separation of church and state. You don't even realize when you are abusing it...for example...on our currency and in our pledge of allegiance. Neither of which mentioned God till the 50s.

Your problem is that as a christian you are so used to getting things your way that you look at what is fair as taking away.

Proslytize: Umm, Jehovahs witnesses are christians. AS for the rest..nobody proslytizes like the christians. And, for you to use jews from the hellenistic period or rome is ludicrous. You dont find jews telling anybody that their way is the only way. BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

Spag: How dare you insult my god. Lack of respect on your part.

[mraynrand]

The #1 criteria of the messiah is to bring heaven upon earth. Now, i'm willing to grant you that we are as close to heaven as possible with Obama...yet, i think many jews and christians would have a hard time thinking this is heaven.

Observations and questions.

Some in the Christian faith maintain that Christ did bring heaven on earth, if only all people would freely follow his teachings.

Question: People of Jewish faith maintain that their messiah has not yet arrived. What would the the messiah they wait for be like? Would he/she be like Jesus is depicted or like something else? What exactly is heaven on earth supposed to be like?

(These are both meant to be serious)

[Charles Woodson]

Ty, I'm 45 and no I don't remember a lot of people in my church talking about their faith in public. But not talking about it doesn't have to be accepted as the norm. If that's the case, the early Christian church never would have got off the ground and flourished.

My faith has been nurtured on the teachings that if you believe, you are saved, if you don't you won't. It's pretty cut and dried. It's not meant to be patronizing. This thread has been the ONLY time I went to such extent on stating my belief. But if I raise myself above others and act that I am better than someone else who doesn't share my faith, than I am losing the whole point of why Christ came. So the "morally superior" point is only how you interpret it.

I have the teachings of the Bible that I believe is the inspired Word of God. Can I provide you with written documentation of everything that happened in the Old and New Testament? No. It's comes down to something called faith. It's been made fun of from the beginning of time. You aren't the first, you aren't the last.

I will only bring up one topic that you probably consider ludicrous, creation. Where did life come from? You can go back through your beliefs on evolution, the big bang theory, etc. but where did all the building block materials come from? They couldn't just be there, they had to come from something. Spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis has been disproved over a century ago. You obviously can't prove that the building blocks of life itself didn't just come into existence. It wouldn't be logical. So if I follow your line of reasoning, then those who don't believe that this universe wasn't created have to be subscribing to an illogical theory.

You want honesty? I am not threatened by any atheist. But, man, it sure seems a lot of atheists feel threatened about religion, especially Christianity. Oh, it can be worded in a variety of ways, but the mockery/snide comments (e.g., flying spaghetti monster) usually are a common theme.

Many faiths don't proselytize? Please, get real. Tell that to those who have seen Jehovah's Witnesses or (in more urban areas) Nation of Islam members handing out leaflets about their faith. In islam worldwide, it is known as "dawah". It's looked upon as a meritorious activity. Though not actively pursued today, Buddhists performed proselytizing missions into Western Asia/Mediterranean before Christ's birth (same applies to Jews during the Hellenistic period).
My thoughts exactly, but i agree faith is the essential part to any religion, even atheism.
Btw ty, point out any promise in the old testament that wasnt fulfilled by Jesus

[digitaldean]

This is my absolute last post in this thread. I already promised another fellow rat to refrain from going any further in this thread. I just had this urge to reply back on your erroneous stances.

No, I don't see being saved as patronizing. To be honest, if you're right and I'm wrong, then I'm just going to be dead, not to be resurrected on Judgement Day to have my body and soul united in heaven with my Savior. I'm not trying to coerce anyone to believe what I believe, contrary to your insinuations.

Ty, Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT Christian. They deny the physical resurrection of Christ, which is one of the main points of Christianity. No physical resurrection, no meaning to the death on the cross or Christ's life and no victory over sin and Satan.
THAT IS THE BIG FREAKING DIFFERENCE.

As for the town square/workplace analogy, I don't go around preaching at work or in public. If someone brings up a topic and states their viewpoint on something at work and their reasoning or beliefs, then I'll bring my point and why. Big difference there.

As for separation of church and state, it's the same twisting of Jefferson's letter to the Anabaptists I've heard for years. I'm not interested in, nor want, a theocracy. This getting my way baloney you're stating is quite comical.

I can state all sorts of historical instances of God being called upon by those in power, from the founding fathers to Abraham Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation and so on. Not one hinted at theocracy.

As for creation, you have proven my point. God is eternal. No one needed to create Him. That's why He can do something like create the universe.

[Freak Out]

Says the guy with the red diaper in his avatar. Well said.

Zardoz!

[GrnBay007]

But if I raise myself above others and act that I am better than someone else who doesn't share my faith, than I am losing the whole point of why Christ came. So the "morally superior" point is only how you interpret it.


:tup:

[gex]

Using the bible to justify the existence or meaning of Jesus is like Bush using the Niger reports of yellowcake uranium to justify attacking Iraq.

The bible is a bunch of stories culled. What was left out is just as important as what was included.

Or would you guys prefer to not know about the gospels according to Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc.

I would like to know more about these gospels that were left out of the bible. Is there a place where they are all consolidated that one could learn more about the whole truth.

[mraynrand]

Using the bible to justify the existence or meaning of Jesus is like Bush using the Niger reports of yellowcake uranium to justify attacking Iraq.

The bible is a bunch of stories culled. What was left out is just as important as what was included.

Or would you guys prefer to not know about the gospels according to Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc.

I would like to know more about these gospels that were left out of the bible. Is there a place where they are all consolidated that one could learn more about the whole truth.

Try:


http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
A bit fluffy and written at a time when the women's liberation movement was in full swing. That influence is there, but still this work is approachable, if a bit less scholarly.


http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Scripture-Frederick-Fyvie-Bruce/dp/083081258X/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_t
A more scholarly examination of the assembly of the canon - doesn't focus on the gnostic gospels as much

[Tarlam!]

I would like to know more about these gospels that were left out of the bible. Is there a place where they are all consolidated that one could learn more about the whole truth.

I believe they are termed "The Apocryphies" and are the books that got cut when the new testament was being edited.

It is worth mentioning, all of the Bibel was passed on by word to mouth for centuries before it was actually written down. Both new and old testament.

[Tarlam!]

A few years ago, my wife and I were leaving the US from O'hare. On the way to our terminal, we stopped at a vendor and bought sunglasses.

About 3 months ago, my pair developed a horizontal crack, which pisses me off, cause, they were not cheap.

Yesterday, I had them in my hands again. I took note of a vertical crack in the same lens. My sunnies are cracked and a crucifix is visible.

I'm freaked.

[mraynrand]

About 3 months ago, my pair developed a horizontal crack,

ouch

[sheepshead]

:whist:

[Tarlam!]

:whist:

If you don't want to contribute, that's fine. But I would ask you politely to no longer disturb this thread.

[sheepshead]

:whist:

If you don't want to contribute, that's fine. But I would ask you politely to no longer disturb this thread.

Go Fuck Yourself you sick asshole. Do not presume to tell me when, how or where to post. The fact you stalk me and insult me at every turn needs to be addressed. And since no one affiliated with this site will do it(quite the contrary) I shall. Now...LEAVE ME ALONE.

[sheepshead]

Thank you Freak Out.

Sheep, maybe in Chicago, people "ask questions" in a statement form? Can you enlighten us on that?

As to me stalking you, HAAA! I was a JSO poster well before you. I had 5000 posts there before you raised your woolly head. But, unbeknownst to you, there was an exodus from JSO of which I amongst many were a part. I admit, I still visited that place from time to time to see who was still posting.

And, I saw with disgust what you were all about. I called you out about it when you got here openly and after your PM tirades also privately.

Be a man and tell the truth. I am glad to.

Thank you again for ruining my thread.


Like I said...

[texaspackerbacker]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

I'm neither a politician nor a preacher. If I was either, it would be in my self-interest to care what others think.

The good old Golden Rule--which you so eloquently stated--is, of course, Christian doctrine.

You'd be correct in what you say if you substitute the word "expect" for the word "want" to be treated--barring the existence of God, of course, which I assume is where you are coming from, Ziggy. Acting "ethically" in that scenario would only be logical if you rationally believe others will act ethically toward you. And the only reason that is even true to a very limited extent is religion--specifically OUR religion. Certainly, some other religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule, but the very prominent one currently being discussed over in FYI most certainly does not.

Seeing good in people is a very admirable trait, Ziggy, but it is only realistic among people where Judeo-Christian principles dominate the population. In places like that--places like America--even atheists get treated decently--for the most part.

Like most of the time, you are wrong again.

The golden rule didn't spring outta christianity...infact, there is little about christianity that is unique.

the golden rule has it's origins in greek philosophy. :oops:

Lastly, if is hilarious for you to say that is christian when it is based on Leviticus...which as far as i recall was the old testament..dont' believe there were any christians. :oops:

First it's Greek, then it's based on Leviticus. Make up your mind!

So is it your position that Christians don't recognize merely the book of Leviticus? Or do you think they/we don't recognize the whole Old Testament?

Surely you can do better than that.

Again, you are diverting from the main discussion--where you are hopelessly wrong--that ethical behavior is only rational when there is an expectation of ethical behavior toward you--and THAT if true at all, is only true because of the Judeo-Christian heritage and values in this country and other civilized western countries.

[texaspackerbacker]

Discussion promoting the so-called Gnostic Gospels might be more credible if it wasn't the A-gnostic posters in here doing the promoting.

There is a degree of logic and rational thought, and a degree of acceptance on faith involved in Christian belief. That degree of each varies with different people. Acceptance of the Bible as the inspired Word of God--and therefore, infallible extends beyond the writing to the compilation--which includes leaving out certain "gospels" which may or may not have divergent viewpoints.

[MadtownPacker]

Thank you Freak Out.

Sheep, maybe in Chicago, people "ask questions" in a statement form? Can you enlighten us on that?

As to me stalking you, HAAA! I was a JSO poster well before you. I had 5000 posts there before you raised your woolly head. But, unbeknownst to you, there was an exodus from JSO of which I amongst many were a part. I admit, I still visited that place from time to time to see who was still posting.

And, I saw with disgust what you were all about. I called you out about it when you got here openly and after your PM tirades also privately.

Be a man and tell the truth. I am glad to.

Thank you again for ruining my thread.


Like I said...Stop your stupid shit or wait on the new guy to reactivate you.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The #1 criteria of the messiah is to bring heaven upon earth. Now, i'm willing to grant you that we are as close to heaven as possible with Obama...yet, i think many jews and christians would have a hard time thinking this is heaven.

Observations and questions.

Some in the Christian faith maintain that Christ did bring heaven on earth, if only all people would freely follow his teachings.

Question: People of Jewish faith maintain that their messiah has not yet arrived. What would the the messiah they wait for be like? Would he/she be like Jesus is depicted or like something else? What exactly is heaven on earth supposed to be like?

(These are both meant to be serious)

1. The christians that are saying this (which i'm not familiar with) are just echoing judiasm, well Rabbi Maimon. In order for the messiah to come good acts must be performed..fulfilling 613 mitzvot. Tikkun Olam


I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the moshiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.

Maimon

The kicker is of course that the last ones are the hardest to do and most be done communally.

Maimon felt that the messiah won't be known by miracles, etc, but by leading the jews to a better observance of the torah and mitzvot. After the jews fall in line, then the messiah will lead the rest of the world to serve god.

But, more importantly, those Xians have altered the conditions of the messiah. According to the bible, the messiah will establish a gov't in Israel that is the center for all world gov't (scary for you conservs who worry about world gov), rebuild the temple, establish jewish law as the law of the land, etc.

Those Xians are kidding themselves if they think following jesus's teachings would bring about those things.

2. I guess that would depend on how well versed they are. But, i would expect the moschiach to be a man....if i really believed in it. Why? I'll answer below.

Heaven on earth: well, what is prayed for is...ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service.

BTW, just as i'm honest about chistianity, so am i about judiasm. Many modern scholars feel the messiah is a "newer" concept as it wasn't in the torah. Prolly something to do with jews being in bondage and wishing to be free.

Lastly, when i use the term messiah, don't think it is the same as yours...savior. The moschiach doesn't translate to messiah..the notion of a divine or semi divine being who will sacrifice himself for man's sin is yours only.

Unfortunately, the term messiah has been so ingrained with your concept that the term really can't be used with judiasm.

The moschiach means, the annointed one. So, it means the one annointed with oil, the common practice back then for kings. So, the moschiach will be the one who is annointed as king when the end is near.

So, using the bible, it would be a man..not a woman, as back then women weren't kings. BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE MOSCHIACH WILL NOT BE A GOD, DEMI GOD, OR SUPERNATURAL BEING. The moschiach must be a human being.

There are a bunch of other things that the moschiach must be: related to king david, versed in jewish law, observant, great military leader, charismatic, etc.

Also, there are many messiahs...or rather, in each time there is a person born who can be the messiah. If that person dies without fulfilling..then they weren't the messiah. So, jesus may have had the POTENTIAL of being the messiah..but, he wasn't.

And, if we are rating those who came close to being the messiah, biblicly speaking..well, even then jesus falls way short. Bar Kokhba beats him hands down..but, like jesus...the romans killed him.

I'm quite positive that Obama isn't related to david...so for the jews, the conservative messiah jokes just fall flat.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Btw ty, point out any promise in the old testament that wasnt fulfilled by Jesus

Charles, i answer this question in detail in response to Rand.

You question is kinda wierd/stupid. If he fulfilled, we would be living on heaven on earth as defined by the jews.

And, if he fulfilled...then why the second trip? Think.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Using the bible to justify the existence or meaning of Jesus is like Bush using the Niger reports of yellowcake uranium to justify attacking Iraq.

The bible is a bunch of stories culled. What was left out is just as important as what was included.

Or would you guys prefer to not know about the gospels according to Mary, Judas, Thomas, etc.

I would like to know more about these gospels that were left out of the bible. Is there a place where they are all consolidated that one could learn more about the whole truth.

Simply google those gospels.

Or, look for the apocrypha (spelling) or gnostics.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't think that's true at all. If it's false, then it all comes down to acting how you want to be treated. You act ethically because that is what you expect out of others and there's no longer an entity to forgive you if you screw up. Screw up and you have to live with what you did.

But Tex, you talk a good game, but you don't walk the walk. That is what people see.

I'm neither a politician nor a preacher. If I was either, it would be in my self-interest to care what others think.

The good old Golden Rule--which you so eloquently stated--is, of course, Christian doctrine.

You'd be correct in what you say if you substitute the word "expect" for the word "want" to be treated--barring the existence of God, of course, which I assume is where you are coming from, Ziggy. Acting "ethically" in that scenario would only be logical if you rationally believe others will act ethically toward you. And the only reason that is even true to a very limited extent is religion--specifically OUR religion. Certainly, some other religions teach something similar to the Golden Rule, but the very prominent one currently being discussed over in FYI most certainly does not.

Seeing good in people is a very admirable trait, Ziggy, but it is only realistic among people where Judeo-Christian principles dominate the population. In places like that--places like America--even atheists get treated decently--for the most part.

Like most of the time, you are wrong again.

The golden rule didn't spring outta christianity...infact, there is little about christianity that is unique.

the golden rule has it's origins in greek philosophy. :oops:

Lastly, if is hilarious for you to say that is christian when it is based on Leviticus...which as far as i recall was the old testament..dont' believe there were any christians. :oops:

First it's Greek, then it's based on Leviticus. Make up your mind!

So is it your position that Christians don't recognize merely the book of Leviticus? Or do you think they/we don't recognize the whole Old Testament?

Surely you can do better than that.

Again, you are diverting from the main discussion--where you are hopelessly wrong--that ethical behavior is only rational when there is an expectation of ethical behavior toward you--and THAT if true at all, is only true because of the Judeo-Christian heritage and values in this country and other civilized western countries.

Yes. I think you have it. The greeks invented it, jews coopted it. Is that difficult to follow. :lol:

Leviticus: Of course not. But, to then say it is christian and not acknowledge it as jewish just smacks of..well, stealing.

Who said ethical behavior had to be rational?

Sorry, but you are wrong. The golden rule exists throughout the world...a world that had no knowledge of jews or christians.

But, dont' let facts get in your way. You haven't thus far.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, call it Judeo-Christian--there's no evidence of any "co-opting" from the Greeks. You spew as much hate about Judeo-Christian traditions, culture,and morality as you do about Christian stuff.

It's still just a diversion to the irrelevant like you are so famous for.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

OK, call it Judeo-Christian--there's no evidence of any "co-opting" from the Greeks. You spew as much hate about Judeo-Christian traditions, culture,and morality as you do about Christian stuff.

It's still just a diversion to the irrelevant like you are so famous for.

Greek: Hmm, the greeks didn't run the western world did they? Their influence isn't found throughout the mediterrean.

Why call it judeo christian. It is in the old testament. It is jewish.

And, again, sorry, but it universal. Confucious said it 500 years before jesus.

P.S. Please stop talking about Judeo Xian...as you don't follow any part of the Judeo. Infact, you hardly follow Xian.

[HowardRoark]

The #1 criteria of the messiah is to bring heaven upon earth. Now, i'm willing to grant you that we are as close to heaven as possible with Obama...yet, i think many jews and christians would have a hard time thinking this is heaven.

Observations and questions.

Some in the Christian faith maintain that Christ did bring heaven on earth, if only all people would freely follow his teachings.

Question: People of Jewish faith maintain that their messiah has not yet arrived. What would the the messiah they wait for be like? Would he/she be like Jesus is depicted or like something else? What exactly is heaven on earth supposed to be like?

(These are both meant to be serious)

1. The christians that are saying this (which i'm not familiar with) are just echoing judiasm, well Rabbi Maimon. In order for the messiah to come good acts must be performed..fulfilling 613 mitzvot. Tikkun Olam


I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the moshiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.

Maimon

The kicker is of course that the last ones are the hardest to do and most be done communally.

Maimon felt that the messiah won't be known by miracles, etc, but by leading the jews to a better observance of the torah and mitzvot. After the jews fall in line, then the messiah will lead the rest of the world to serve god.

But, more importantly, those Xians have altered the conditions of the messiah. According to the bible, the messiah will establish a gov't in Israel that is the center for all world gov't (scary for you conservs who worry about world gov), rebuild the temple, establish jewish law as the law of the land, etc.

Those Xians are kidding themselves if they think following jesus's teachings would bring about those things.

2. I guess that would depend on how well versed they are. But, i would expect the moschiach to be a man....if i really believed in it. Why? I'll answer below.

Heaven on earth: well, what is prayed for is...ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service.

BTW, just as i'm honest about chistianity, so am i about judiasm. Many modern scholars feel the messiah is a "newer" concept as it wasn't in the torah. Prolly something to do with jews being in bondage and wishing to be free.

Lastly, when i use the term messiah, don't think it is the same as yours...savior. The moschiach doesn't translate to messiah..the notion of a divine or semi divine being who will sacrifice himself for man's sin is yours only.

Unfortunately, the term messiah has been so ingrained with your concept that the term really can't be used with judiasm.

The moschiach means, the annointed one. So, it means the one annointed with oil, the common practice back then for kings. So, the moschiach will be the one who is annointed as king when the end is near.

So, using the bible, it would be a man..not a woman, as back then women weren't kings. BUT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE MOSCHIACH WILL NOT BE A GOD, DEMI GOD, OR SUPERNATURAL BEING. The moschiach must be a human being.

There are a bunch of other things that the moschiach must be: related to king david, versed in jewish law, observant, great military leader, charismatic, etc.

Also, there are many messiahs...or rather, in each time there is a person born who can be the messiah. If that person dies without fulfilling..then they weren't the messiah. So, jesus may have had the POTENTIAL of being the messiah..but, he wasn't.

And, if we are rating those who came close to being the messiah, biblicly speaking..well, even then jesus falls way short. Bar Kokhba beats him hands down..but, like jesus...the romans killed him.

I'm quite positive that Obama isn't related to david...so for the jews, the conservative messiah jokes just fall flat.

Just as an FYI Ty; you fulfill scripture.

[sheepshead]

Thank you Freak Out.

Sheep, maybe in Chicago, people "ask questions" in a statement form? Can you enlighten us on that?

As to me stalking you, HAAA! I was a JSO poster well before you. I had 5000 posts there before you raised your woolly head. But, unbeknownst to you, there was an exodus from JSO of which I amongst many were a part. I admit, I still visited that place from time to time to see who was still posting.

And, I saw with disgust what you were all about. I called you out about it when you got here openly and after your PM tirades also privately.

Be a man and tell the truth. I am glad to.

Thank you again for ruining my thread.


Like I said...Stop your stupid shit or wait on the new guy to reactivate you.


Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

[Tarlam!]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

[mraynrand]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

Either one of you could walk away at any time from your pissing match. And it isn't ruining the thread, as I - and I suspect others - can easily choose to read the posts we care to read and avoid your posts as well.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well said, aynrand. I tend to respect both of those guys, but both of them are getting kinda petty here.

Tyrone, we've had a couple of Muslims come out of the closet or the woodwork or whatever lately. I'm expecting anytime now for you to announce you're Jewish ....... Jewish AND black! What are you, the illegitimate son of Sammy Davis? That would make you Sammy Davis the 3rd.

This whole irrelevancy about the origin of the Golden Rule started when I pointed out that NOWADAYS--in the MODERN WORLD--the only reason there can be any expectation of the ethical behavior Ziggy was speaking of from others is the FACT that such a thing--commonly called the Golden Rule--is practiced in western civilized countries--Judeo-Christian influenced countries--OK, call it just Christian--Jews nowadays seem to be more into the old "eye for an eye" concept, which has a lot of merit too.

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.

You weren't able to dispute that rationally, so you diverted to the crap about the origin of it--typical of your testicularly challenged/intellectually challenged way of posting.

[mraynrand]

Well said, aynrand. I tend to respect both of those guys, but both of them are getting kinda petty here.

Tyrone, we've had a couple of Muslims come out of the closet or the woodwork or whatever lately. I'm expecting anytime now for you to announce you're Jewish ....... Jewish AND black! What are you, the illegitimate son of Sammy Davis? That would make you Sammy Davis the 3rd.

This whole irrelevancy about the origin of the Golden Rule started when I pointed out that NOWADAYS--in the MODERN WORLD--the only reason there can be any expectation of the ethical behavior Ziggy was speaking of from others is the FACT that such a thing--commonly called the Golden Rule--is practiced in western civilized countries--Judeo-Christian influenced countries--OK, call it just Christian--Jews nowadays seem to be more into the old "eye for an eye" concept, which has a lot of merit too.

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.

You weren't able to dispute that rationally, so you diverted to the crap about the origin of it--typical of your testicularly challenged/intellectually challenged way of posting.

Plus, you didn't say the Christian church was responsible for the idea, only that is was Church doctrine.

And there is a distinct difference in the Golden Rule as viewed from Christian versus secular/evolutionary perspectives. In the evolutionary/secular filter the Golden rule can only work as quid pro quo - treat others well so that they will treat you well. It enhances your survival - maybe it enhances theirs too, but ya gotta live right? You are making a survival bargain - treating others in a way that will prevent them from harming you and may enhance your status. The Christian version is sacrificial and a mandate: Do unto others (command) as you would have them do unto you. There is no guarantee of return here, only a guide for behaviour that may not enhance your survival, but will demonstrate your belief and is more Christ-like, which is what Christians should strive for (and unfortunately often fail at) all the time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.



"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.



"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." :oops:

I suppose that's from the Koran? How about what he wishes for his sister? Or maybe for the Jew who lives down the road?

Anyway, as I said in the last post, bring it back to the 21st century and what is practiced now--instead of diverting with stuff like this.

[MJZiggy]

Well said, aynrand. I tend to respect both of those guys, but both of them are getting kinda petty here.

Tyrone, we've had a couple of Muslims come out of the closet or the woodwork or whatever lately. I'm expecting anytime now for you to announce you're Jewish ....... Jewish AND black! What are you, the illegitimate son of Sammy Davis? That would make you Sammy Davis the 3rd.

This whole irrelevancy about the origin of the Golden Rule started when I pointed out that NOWADAYS--in the MODERN WORLD--the only reason there can be any expectation of the ethical behavior Ziggy was speaking of from others is the FACT that such a thing--commonly called the Golden Rule--is practiced in western civilized countries--Judeo-Christian influenced countries--OK, call it just Christian--Jews nowadays seem to be more into the old "eye for an eye" concept, which has a lot of merit too.

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.

You weren't able to dispute that rationally, so you diverted to the crap about the origin of it--typical of your testicularly challenged/intellectually challenged way of posting.

Plus, you didn't say the Christian church was responsible for the idea, only that is was Church doctrine.

And there is a distinct difference in the Golden Rule as viewed from Christian versus secular/evolutionary perspectives. In the evolutionary/secular filter the Golden rule can only work as quid pro quo - treat others well so that they will treat you well. It enhances your survival - maybe it enhances theirs too, but ya gotta live right? You are making a survival bargain - treating others in a way that will prevent them from harming you and may enhance your status. The Christian version is sacrificial and a mandate: Do unto others (command) as you would have them do unto you. There is no guarantee of return here, only a guide for behaviour that may not enhance your survival, but will demonstrate your belief and is more Christ-like, which is what Christians should strive for (and unfortunately often fail at) all the time.

That's not true in the least. I posted what it meant to me from a secular standpoint and this ain't it. The idea is very karmic in that no one wants to truly associate themselves with an asshole and you don't want to be an asshole, therefore don't act like one. Treat others (and that means all of them, Tex, not just the Christians) with the respect that you would have them show to you, regardless of whether they actually show it.

[packinpatland]

Well, that's another way of interpreting the 'Golden Rule' :lol:

[mraynrand]

The idea is very karmic in that no one wants to truly associate themselves with an asshole and you don't want to be an asshole, therefore don't act like one. Treat others (and that means all of them, Tex, not just the Christians) with the respect that you would have them show to you, regardless of whether they actually show it.

And why would you do these things?

[MJZiggy]

Because it's the proper way to treat people. They are human beings deserving of respect.

[mraynrand]

Because it's the proper way to treat people. They are human beings deserving of respect.

How do you know it is the proper way to treat people?

[MJZiggy]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

[Kiwon]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

And where does that innate knowledge of right and wrong come from?

[mraynrand]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

It's not necessarily a religious question. But there are two options - you either do it because it is the right thing to do - as a mandate with no expectation of a return, or you do it (either evolutionarily or for Karma, etc.) because you have the expectation of a positive return for yourself.

If the former, which you argue for in the post quoted above, then you have to ask how you know what is the right thing to do. If you had been raised, say by Peter Singer, you would likely believe that is was perfectly acceptable to kill a child for convenience at any age up to 2 years old. If you were raised in more conservative Muslim cultures, you would believe that honor killings, clitorectomies, wearing hijabs were appropriate treatment for women. How would you possibly know that they were 'wrong?'

[falco]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

And where does that innate knowledge of right and wrong come from?

jesus ?

[MJZiggy]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

It's not necessarily a religious question. But there are two options - you either do it because it is the right thing to do - as a mandate with no expectation of a return, or you do it (either evolutionarily or for Karma, etc.) because you have the expectation of a positive return for yourself.

If the former, which you argue for in the post quoted above, then you have to ask how you know what is the right thing to do. If you had been raised, say by Peter Singer, you would likely believe that is was perfectly acceptable to kill a child for convenience at any age up to 2 years old. If you were raised in more conservative Muslim cultures, you would believe that honor killings, clitorectomies, wearing hijabs were appropriate treatment for women. How would you possibly know that they were 'wrong?'

The knowledge of the right way to treat others comes from the way you'd want to be treated. Human dignity and respect. Would I want someone to kill me? No, therefore killing others is wrong, regardless the reason. Causing pain is wrong. It's not about treatment by others for myself. It's about my behavior toward others. If I hurt you, it's wrong.

[HowardRoark]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

Either one of you could walk away at any time from your pissing match. And it isn't ruining the thread, as I - and I suspect others - can easily choose to read the posts we care to read and avoid your posts as well.

I suppose this thread could have been titled Jesus, Etc.

[hoosier]

Maybe it is time mad. Time for the mods and their little BFF's to find solace elsewhere perhaps.

It's really too bad that you have decided to ruin this thread with your personal beef. It might not have occured to you, but serious posters are having a discussion. It would be very polite of you to no longer interfere.

Either one of you could walk away at any time from your pissing match. And it isn't ruining the thread, as I - and I suspect others - can easily choose to read the posts we care to read and avoid your posts as well.

I suppose this thread could have been titled Jesus, Etc.

Or Jesus Christ on a ham sandwich.

[MJZiggy]

Now that's not kosher. :rs:

[mraynrand]

Because it's the way I would want to be treated. Hence the rule--treat others as you would have them treat you. I would not wish to be harmed, therefore I do no harm others. When we read these stories about people who do grotesque things to children, why are we so shocked and offended? Because even without religion to tell us so, it is plain that the behavior is wrong. You don't REALLY need religion to tell you that abusing, raping and killing a child is wrong, do you? It goes against your basic human senses. It goes against human dignity and you feel it is wrong, because it is.

It's not necessarily a religious question. But there are two options - you either do it because it is the right thing to do - as a mandate with no expectation of a return, or you do it (either evolutionarily or for Karma, etc.) because you have the expectation of a positive return for yourself.

If the former, which you argue for in the post quoted above, then you have to ask how you know what is the right thing to do. If you had been raised, say by Peter Singer, you would likely believe that is was perfectly acceptable to kill a child for convenience at any age up to 2 years old. If you were raised in more conservative Muslim cultures, you would believe that honor killings, clitorectomies, wearing hijabs were appropriate treatment for women. How would you possibly know that they were 'wrong?'

The knowledge of the right way to treat others comes from the way you'd want to be treated. Human dignity and respect. Would I want someone to kill me? No, therefore killing others is wrong, regardless the reason. Causing pain is wrong. It's not about treatment by others for myself. It's about my behavior toward others. If I hurt you, it's wrong.

So you are doing the right thing because it is right (right being "The way you want to be treated"), not because you expect something in return (option 2 that I described above).

[MJZiggy]

For the most part. None of us is perfect, but the goal is to try to live a good life, be a good role model for my kid, etc. I don't think you have to have a deity telling you what to do (and also blanket forgiving any transgression for you--would it not be better to take responsibility for your own failings and make them right with the person you hurt in the process?) in order to have the goal of living well and behaving accordingly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think you have to have a deity telling you what to do (and also blanket forgiving any transgression for you

There is no blanket forgiveness. He knows we'll sin, but it's about your conviction. You don't get blanket forgiveness.

[texaspackerbacker]

Well said, aynrand. I tend to respect both of those guys, but both of them are getting kinda petty here.

Tyrone, we've had a couple of Muslims come out of the closet or the woodwork or whatever lately. I'm expecting anytime now for you to announce you're Jewish ....... Jewish AND black! What are you, the illegitimate son of Sammy Davis? That would make you Sammy Davis the 3rd.

This whole irrelevancy about the origin of the Golden Rule started when I pointed out that NOWADAYS--in the MODERN WORLD--the only reason there can be any expectation of the ethical behavior Ziggy was speaking of from others is the FACT that such a thing--commonly called the Golden Rule--is practiced in western civilized countries--Judeo-Christian influenced countries--OK, call it just Christian--Jews nowadays seem to be more into the old "eye for an eye" concept, which has a lot of merit too.

Our enemies--primarily Muslims--don't practice either. They practice gouging the eye, then running and hiding--kinda like the way leftists in this forum post, now that I think about it. There can be no expectation of ethical behavior or even rational behavior from an enemy like that.

You weren't able to dispute that rationally, so you diverted to the crap about the origin of it--typical of your testicularly challenged/intellectually challenged way of posting.

Plus, you didn't say the Christian church was responsible for the idea, only that is was Church doctrine.

And there is a distinct difference in the Golden Rule as viewed from Christian versus secular/evolutionary perspectives. In the evolutionary/secular filter the Golden rule can only work as quid pro quo - treat others well so that they will treat you well. It enhances your survival - maybe it enhances theirs too, but ya gotta live right? You are making a survival bargain - treating others in a way that will prevent them from harming you and may enhance your status. The Christian version is sacrificial and a mandate: Do unto others (command) as you would have them do unto you. There is no guarantee of return here, only a guide for behaviour that may not enhance your survival, but will demonstrate your belief and is more Christ-like, which is what Christians should strive for (and unfortunately often fail at) all the time.

That's not true in the least. I posted what it meant to me from a secular standpoint and this ain't it. The idea is very karmic in that no one wants to truly associate themselves with an asshole and you don't want to be an asshole, therefore don't act like one. Treat others (and that means all of them, Tex, not just the Christians) with the respect that you would have them show to you, regardless of whether they actually show it.

Well, it looks like we've come full circle.

What I said--the last time you just said what you said now--basically, is the if you do that ANYWHERE EXCEPT CIVILIZED WESTERN MOSTLY CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, YOU'LL GET YOUR ASS HANDED TO YOU BIG TIME! That could easily happen certain places and certain situations in this country--thanks to the tearing down of values and morals. And who's responsible for that? Pretty much everybody on your side of the political spectrum, Ziggy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

[texaspackerbacker]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

Oh, it's relevant, all right. Just consider the political slant of those states.

[MJZiggy]

Well, it looks like we've come full circle.

What I said--the last time you just said what you said now--basically, is the if you do that ANYWHERE EXCEPT CIVILIZED WESTERN MOSTLY CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES, YOU'LL GET YOUR ASS HANDED TO YOU BIG TIME! That could easily happen certain places and certain situations in this country--thanks to the tearing down of values and morals. And who's responsible for that? Pretty much everybody on your side of the political spectrum, Ziggy.

They're not only very civilized in Tibet, they're very happy with the little they have there as well. They are phenomenal in Japan. Incredibly respectful folks I've been dealing with over there the last few months and last year, the guys from Abu Dhabi were wonderful. I haven't had my ass handed to me once. Ok, we did have one guy from Romania who was kind of a beast, but he was the exception. Everyone else over there is fine. The guy from Qatar was nice enough, though I have to admit I worked more with his American counterpart in New York. I haven't personally had to deal with anyone from Africa, but I've heard they're very nice in Botswana. You'd be amazed at how much you can get done by being civil to people. Where do you suppose I'm going to get my ass handed to me? Just ask me what religion the nicest guy in our office is....

I could forward you a story of a friend in Raleigh and the moral of the story was that being perceived as nice can take you a long way. It saved the dude thousands of dollars and a week's time in getting a goal accomplished. And that was in a government office. You have your cynicism, but I just don't see the world that way and it seems to work out well.

[Joemailman]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

[texaspackerbacker]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

[falco]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

oh i've got the balls. but i'm not sure what you said, so i can't deny it.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.

You would actually deny that Muslims are the enemy BECAUSE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THEMSELVES OUR ENEMY? How naive and ludicrous can you get if that is your position.

You America-hating leftists are completely oblivious to the perpetual hate and harm toward basically everybody and everything that is good--America at the top of the list--by those who SET THEMSELVES UP as our enemies.

Deny that if you have the balls.

I deny. I have long saggy balls.


Am starting to think you're the enemy of america with you're backwards thinking.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

This isn't really relevant to the topic, but I read a list that I found interesting. There are only four states in which the percentage of residents who considered religion an important part of their daily life was less than 50%. All were in the Northeast: Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Rhodes Island and Connecticut were also on the list of least religious states.

You wouldn't find it that interesting if you knew history. This country wasn't established by ultra religious peoples, save for the puritans.

Censuses taken around 1700 show that over half the people didn't even have a religion.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Christ told us to love our enemies. Tex loves them so much he feels compelled to constantly create new ones.'

ROTFLMAO