Which God?

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist

I don't think Jesus was more than a man with interesting ideas for his time (socially innovative, much appreciated) and a touch of megalomania (thinking of himself as son of some supreme being).

Interesting. I see Jesus more of an amalgamation of several preachers of the time, bought togther as one man in the Gospels and by Paul. I don't think Bible Jesus ever existed, not as a single person. In some ways it accounts for the historical inconsistancies within the four Gospels, and the ones Augustine and his committee left out.

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello Mycernius,

Originally Posted by Mycernius

Interesting. I see Jesus more of an amalgamation of several preachers of the time, bought togther as one man in the Gospels and by Paul. I don't think Bible Jesus ever existed, not as a single person. In some ways it accounts for the historical inconsistancies within the four Gospels, and the ones Augustine and his committee left out.

Yes, I know christianity recycled much from myths like Mithrasism etc. Maybe I was being a bit generous. But then my historical knowledge of that age is limited. So I couldn't make very hard statements one way or the other.

Besides, there's little point. Given the angry and frustrated (and self-congratulatory) sounding posts of one of the christians here over the last 48 hours, I highly doubt if any generosity in concessions will be appreciated.

greets,
Peter

[Commodore Angryy]

Originally Posted by Someday

That's not true. If it were true, you would not be here. If it were true, you wouldn't be so obsessed with proving it wrong. If it were true, you wouldn't be obsessed with Jesus.

Actually, i'm obsessed with faith, and Christians. Nothing to do with Jesus whatsoever.

I am actually NOT obsessed with proving it wrong. Perhaps i was in the past, i dunno. But as it stands, if you check my post history, i'm much more interested in the concepts of god, and the rationalisation of faith. Both very human concepts really. No spiritual "obsession" there at all.

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Someday

That's not true. If it were true, you would not be here. If it were true, you wouldn't be so obsessed with proving it wrong. If it were true, you wouldn't be obsessed with Jesus.

We don't prove its wrong. We point out the glaring flaws in your arguments for God and Jesus Christ. The basic statement is "God exists and Jesus is God incarnate who died for our sins". All we say is provide evidence that can be peer tested, prove it is true. So far you can't, and that is the flaw. Any theory has flaws and by the process of having the evidence reviewed, tested and examined we eventually arrive at a common conclusion.
I am not "obssesed" about Jesus, sparky. I see the damage that religion, especially brainwashed fundies, do to people and society. If you were a Muslim I would put that under the screw, same with Judasim, Hinduism etc. It seems to me that there is a section of the religious that wish to keep the whole of humanity in darkness and ignorance. To ignore the evidence against the Christian/Jewish/pick a religions deity. That the "history" of various religious is wrong. That YEC is wrong. Are you one of them?

[One-Lamb-of-God]

Originally Posted by Gray

Good morning Lamb (and others),

This is slightly off-topic, but I'm going to ask you a couple of simple questions...

1. Is English your native language?

2. If it is, can you please tell us something that's not related to God or the Bible? Just so I can see the difference...


You see, what I find amusing is that some Christians' vocabulary gets all "scriptural" when they talk about God. Just read Lamb's last post and you'll see what I mean.

Are you unable to talk about the subject with normal grammar? Or do you think it lends extra weight to your views, and we will take you more seriously if it seems you are speaking the words of God, rather than your own?

So, just tell us about something in your town, or the weather, or what you're doing today. Then please enlighten me about the sudden change when things get biblical.

Thanks

A disciple considers that a compliment. Really. Praise God, His Spirit is changing us daily as we cast aside our old man.

A disciple is being conformed into the Image of Jesus who is The Word of God (The Words in the Bible) why would we want to speak any different? Disciples are witnesses of God's Truth. Jesus got Scriptural also, He quoted also to others. So did Paul, Peter, John, James. Disciples consider themselves in holy company. You can join in anytime. But a disciple will not walk out of God's Word to do anything. God is their Life and we welcome others into His Life as well.

The Spirit and The Bride say, "Come".

[Brad]

OK, let me throw Something into The Pot (damn, OLoG has got Me throwing Capital letters into every Sentance as well now).

OLog seems to be saying that you can't argue against god, 'cos you just don't get it. You won't 'get' it until you've 'got' it. He's got it, so he gets it...

That might sound nonsensical to any rational person, but there is an analogy I could use that may shed some light on his argument.

I enjoy sport. I'll watch almost anything that involves a bunch of guys kicking, throwing or hitting a ball around. Being Welsh originally, I was brought up with Rugby Union (a quick aside here - we won the 6 Nations last week!). I love the game and have always followed it. I guess that's the equivalent to me having been brought up as a member of the Church of England. It just happened to be where I grew up.

Now I live in Sydney and there's a game they play down here called Aussie Rules. It also involves guys throwing and kicking a ball around and it is extremely popular. You'd think that I'd lap it up. I've actually got membership of the SCG where the home town team plays, so effectively I could watch it for nothing. But you know what? I just don't get it. The game leaves me cold. It's just a lot of guys fumbling around with a small ball. I've done my best - I've gone to some games with people who really know what's going on, but to no avail.

Unless you've been brought up in a situation where that sport (or religion) dominates, then maybe you'll never get it. Or maybe the game has some sort of appeal and you may suddenly see the light (like I did with cricket, for example).

Union is my Christianity, but here the analogy breaks down. I know it's not 'better' than any other game and people who say that theirs is the only 'true' game leave me baffled.

Ditto OLoG. He's the Aussie Rules supporter and he can't see how anyone can enjoy any other game in town. More than that, he believes that we only have to give ourselves over and we'll come to see his point of view.

I think that that's blinkered vision. Or should that be Blinkered Vision.

[Mycernius]

Originally Posted by Brad

Being Welsh originally, I was brought up with Rugby Union (a quick aside here - we won the 6 Nations last week!).
Now I live in Sydney and there's a game they play down here called Aussie Rules. It also involves guys throwing and kicking a ball around and it is extremely popular.

Yeah, the Welsh won, yippee, whoop-de-do.
Wouldn't have won the grand slam if England hadn't have choked when we played you
I love watching Aussie rules. First saw it on Channel 4 years ago. Unfortunately it isn't shown enough in the UK

Yeah, I know its OT, but I can't let a rugby comment go.

[Someday]

All we say is provide evidence that can be peer tested, prove it is true.

You know, I love science, I really do. I understand the need for the scientist to confine his occupational worldview to a materialistic approach. All One Lamb of God is inviting you to do is think outside of that box. You can't do this, or won't do this.
You make the claim that most historians who accept that Jesus was an historical figure are somehow wrong, and you utter many other things without evidence that we are just supposed to believe are true because you say they are true. That is rather hypocritical.
I've studied early Christianity at least enough to know that the things you personally parrot without evidence are false. What about these infallible sources you never mention are more infallible than any other sources of history that are widely accepted. You obviously have chosen to accept them over the others. Is that to support your own worldview? Do you believe Confucius existed? What of Buddha? You do realize there is not one shred of secular proof that Muhammed existed? Can you show me any non Greek proof that Thales existed? What if I said that he was invented by later philosophers such as Aristotle? Do you have proof that I am wrong? We have to leave philosophers out of this proof, because you see, they may have had a reason to invent him in order to give their philosophy creditability or something. When was he born? No one knows, do they? Who else can we leave out of history? I could imagine hundreds if I use the sceptics standards.
The topic of this was supposed to be the nature of heaven untill the topic was hijacked into the existence of Jesus.

Not here to prove us wrong eh? Just to spread doubt.