T D Jakes Net Worth $140 Million

[RodISHI]

Jesus approved of Adam/Eve in the NT and never condemned that story, and being "all-knowing" over the last 2000 years he obviously approves of the Bible or else he'd have told humanity that it (and the talking snake, etc.) are false (he's the main hero in that book, so he has a moral obligation to tell us if it were false), or he simply doesn't care about us, or he's not actually real....one of those 3 choices.

We do like the Golden Rule, however, just not Jesus' magic stuff, since it's obviously unscientific. Also, "Original sin" is not something that we can bring forward, because it's not what's best for the world because of course it effectively serves to reduce people's self-image. Also the verse right before the golden rule says that we are all "evil" or "wicked", depending upon the translation (from bible.cc wed site parallel bible translations.)

So you don't have a cite.

I thought not.

Jesus does not refer to any talking snakes.

Talking pigs, yes.

Talking snakes, no.

I've seen some of those talking 'pigs'. They are easy to spot most of the time.

He did approve of Adam/Eve in the NT, and didn't say they were not true, so was Jesus too dumb to know about the talking snake that is such a big part of said Adam/Eve story?....I would think NOT, so therefore Jesus approved of the talking snake, one has to conclude. It's like: "I know about Tom Brady, but I don't know about the New England Patriots"....not too realistic.

The word for 'snake' is actual a word that describes 'looking intently' or 'gazing'. Adam is 'human, more specifically a red earth human'. Eve is 'life, that spirit in the conscience that teaches the human how to breath'.

So if it's just metaphorical/symbolic (etc.) in nature, then SO IS the interesting metaphor for rebirth in the Bible (the dead guy from Nazareth coming back to life to give you eternal life up in heaven)....correct? Intellectual consistency would require you to apply the same standard to both of them.

Well if you want something that will last through the ages and speak to the heart for people will seek and get to know that Son of God in them, how would you write it?

 

[yiostheoy]

Jesus approved of Adam/Eve in the NT and never condemned that story, and being "all-knowing" over the last 2000 years he obviously approves of the Bible or else he'd have told humanity that it (and the talking snake, etc.) are false (he's the main hero in that book, so he has a moral obligation to tell us if it were false), or he simply doesn't care about us, or he's not actually real....one of those 3 choices.

We do like the Golden Rule, however, just not Jesus' magic stuff, since it's obviously unscientific. Also, "Original sin" is not something that we can bring forward, because it's not what's best for the world because of course it effectively serves to reduce people's self-image. Also the verse right before the golden rule says that we are all "evil" or "wicked", depending upon the translation (from bible.cc wed site parallel bible translations.)

So you don't have a cite.

I thought not.

Jesus does not refer to any talking snakes.

Talking pigs, yes.

Talking snakes, no.

I'm glad I'm a Scientific Humanist - more accepting and loving. If we were in god/Jesus' shoes we'd of course have come down in the last 2000 years to educate people, educate them ENOUGH that they wouldn't, say, approve of "murdering their children if they marry outside of their religion,"

Trust me, you Joy4Uall will never be in Jesus' or God's shoes.

I'll tell you that much guaranteed.

But if god/Jesus are simply not real (and no court-room level of evidence exists that they are real), then we humans would indeed be the highest intellectual source in the known universe, so we kinda are, effectively, in god/Jesus' shoes, one could argue.

To my mind, Constantine The Great is amply evidence that Jesus exists and spoke to Constantine the same way He spoke to St. Paul.

I have no doubt of it.

This single evidence is sufficient for me.

Anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their own beliefs and the freedom to exercise them, but in my mind that does not change the reality of it.

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

now I am sure there are better historians than me on here but didn't the Egyptians and Babylonians have a sky god? I think of that whenever I here preachers teach about the kingdom being a distance place. Not to say that there are not different levels of heaven as there is but best for humans to get that part in them first figured out.

The ancient Egyptians and ancient Babylonians had entire pantheons of gods and goddesses same as the ancient Greeks.

Not just one.

Monotheism is unique to the Jews.

And the moosleems plagiarized it from the Jews.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I prefer to think of this rather as the "monster-id" and the "super-ego" in terms of mild schizophrenia in everybody from a psychological perspective.

Psychology is the application of philosophical principles to mental analysis.

Just as science is the application of philosophical principles to the physical world.

For me my monster-id is silent and sleeping until/unless my own life or someone else's is in danger then He takes over.

The rest of the time my super-ego tries to be nice to everybody and emulate Jesus.

The one's that theirs get dangerous are those ones who attempt to rule over others hearts and minds, trying to overtop what the Lord instilled in them.

Like the moosleems and the Mormons then ?!

The Islamist are definitely at the top of that list but any thugs who try to rule by force or compulsive acts of violence that are a danger to liberty and freedom of choice can be in that category.

I know Mormon families who have quit the Mormon church because they don't want their kids to become brainwashed.

These couples included returned missionaries -- the elite of the Mormon faith.

They told me all about it.

The church uses extreme social pressure to do their thugging.

Perhaps we should ask JakeStarkey from Salt Lake and Avatar4321 the Bk Of Morm evangelist to opine on this matter, huh ?!

I read that the Mormons spend over $1 million dollars on average, as it turns out, per convert, trying to convert people in Japan. Scientific Humanists would spend that money not on just trying to get people to switch from one religion to another religion, but getting those people to believe in science - or go to a charity that helps poor people.

Scientific Humanists would do nothing of the sort. Move along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus approved of Adam/Eve in the NT and never condemned that story, and being "all-knowing" over the last 2000 years he obviously approves of the Bible or else he'd have told humanity that it (and the talking snake, etc.) are false (he's the main hero in that book, so he has a moral obligation to tell us if it were false), or he simply doesn't care about us, or he's not actually real....one of those 3 choices.

We do like the Golden Rule, however, just not Jesus' magic stuff, since it's obviously unscientific. Also, "Original sin" is not something that we can bring forward, because it's not what's best for the world because of course it effectively serves to reduce people's self-image. Also the verse right before the golden rule says that we are all "evil" or "wicked", depending upon the translation (from bible.cc wed site parallel bible translations.)

So you don't have a cite.

I thought not.

Jesus does not refer to any talking snakes.

Talking pigs, yes.

Talking snakes, no.

Trust me, you Joy4Uall will never be in Jesus' or God's shoes.

I'll tell you that much guaranteed.

But if god/Jesus are simply not real (and no court-room level of evidence exists that they are real), then we humans would indeed be the highest intellectual source in the known universe, so we kinda are, effectively, in god/Jesus' shoes, one could argue.

To my mind, Constantine The Great is amply evidence that Jesus exists and spoke to Constantine the same way He spoke to St. Paul.

I have no doubt of it.

This single evidence is sufficient for me.

Anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their own beliefs and the freedom to exercise them, but in my mind that does not change the reality of it.

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

now I am sure there are better historians than me on here but didn't the Egyptians and Babylonians have a sky god? I think of that whenever I here preachers teach about the kingdom being a distance place. Not to say that there are not different levels of heaven as there is but best for humans to get that part in them first figured out.

The ancient Egyptians and ancient Babylonians had entire pantheons of gods and goddesses same as the ancient Greeks.

Not just one.

Monotheism is unique to the Jews.

And the moosleems plagiarized it from the Jews.

The development of montheism is perhaps the most singular attribute of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[yiostheoy]

So you don't have a cite.

I thought not.

Jesus does not refer to any talking snakes.

Talking pigs, yes.

Talking snakes, no.

I've seen some of those talking 'pigs'. They are easy to spot most of the time.

He did approve of Adam/Eve in the NT, and didn't say they were not true, so was Jesus too dumb to know about the talking snake that is such a big part of said Adam/Eve story?....I would think NOT, so therefore Jesus approved of the talking snake, one has to conclude. It's like: "I know about Tom Brady, but I don't know about the New England Patriots"....not too realistic.

The word for 'snake' is actual a word that describes 'looking intently' or 'gazing'. Adam is 'human, more specifically a red earth human'. Eve is 'life, that spirit in the conscience that teaches the human how to breath'.

So if it's just metaphorical/symbolic (etc.) in nature, then SO IS the interesting metaphor for rebirth in the Bible (the dead guy from Nazareth coming back to life to give you eternal life up in heaven)....correct? Intellectual consistency would require you to apply the same standard to both of them.

Well if you want something that will last through the ages and speak to the heart for people will seek and get to know that Son of God in them, how would you write it?

Good point.

The way Jesus wrote it was to choose smart guys like Matthew and John and Paul to write it.

Peter was illiterate but he had his step-son Mark write it.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

I try to explain to people that mastering Philosophy is the first step in understanding ourselves and the world and Earth around us.

Once you reach the limits of Philosophy then you are logically forced to explore Science.

Once you reach the limits of both Philosophy and Science then you must choose from the following:

1 - to pick a religion and become a Theist.

2 - to avoid organized religion and become a Deist.

3 - to refrain from making a choice and become an Agnostic.

4 - to fight against God and become an Atheist.

I have chosen #2 after many years in the Catholic Church.

However I still go to Mass twice at Easter and once at Christmas.

Deists don't believe in a personal god, arguably, so you believe that "prayer to Jesus" is not actually being answered by Jesus or any god, correct? (Supposedly that's more a part of theism.)
We don't fight against god, as SHists....we will gladly believe in Thor, or Jesus, or Allah or any of the other 5000+ gods when one cares for us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for their divinity, and that they are more real than any other god....we love our families enough to believe that our families deserve that. Seems reasonable.

I admire your intelligence and experience on this subject. I enjoy learning from you where I can.

 

[yiostheoy]

Jesus approved of Adam/Eve in the NT and never condemned that story, and being "all-knowing" over the last 2000 years he obviously approves of the Bible or else he'd have told humanity that it (and the talking snake, etc.) are false (he's the main hero in that book, so he has a moral obligation to tell us if it were false), or he simply doesn't care about us, or he's not actually real....one of those 3 choices.

We do like the Golden Rule, however, just not Jesus' magic stuff, since it's obviously unscientific. Also, "Original sin" is not something that we can bring forward, because it's not what's best for the world because of course it effectively serves to reduce people's self-image. Also the verse right before the golden rule says that we are all "evil" or "wicked", depending upon the translation (from bible.cc wed site parallel bible translations.)

So you don't have a cite.

I thought not.

Jesus does not refer to any talking snakes.

Talking pigs, yes.

Talking snakes, no.

But if god/Jesus are simply not real (and no court-room level of evidence exists that they are real), then we humans would indeed be the highest intellectual source in the known universe, so we kinda are, effectively, in god/Jesus' shoes, one could argue.

To my mind, Constantine The Great is amply evidence that Jesus exists and spoke to Constantine the same way He spoke to St. Paul.

I have no doubt of it.

This single evidence is sufficient for me.

Anyone who believes otherwise is entitled to their own beliefs and the freedom to exercise them, but in my mind that does not change the reality of it.

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

now I am sure there are better historians than me on here but didn't the Egyptians and Babylonians have a sky god? I think of that whenever I here preachers teach about the kingdom being a distance place. Not to say that there are not different levels of heaven as there is but best for humans to get that part in them first figured out.

The ancient Egyptians and ancient Babylonians had entire pantheons of gods and goddesses same as the ancient Greeks.

Not just one.

Monotheism is unique to the Jews.

And the moosleems plagiarized it from the Jews.

The development of montheism is perhaps the most singular attribute of the Abrahamic religions.

JakeStarkey !!!

Welcome Jake !!!

Thank you for coming Jake !!!

We are discussing religion and therefore your presence was requested -- by me.

 

[Joy4Uall]

I've seen some of those talking 'pigs'. They are easy to spot most of the time.

He did approve of Adam/Eve in the NT, and didn't say they were not true, so was Jesus too dumb to know about the talking snake that is such a big part of said Adam/Eve story?....I would think NOT, so therefore Jesus approved of the talking snake, one has to conclude. It's like: "I know about Tom Brady, but I don't know about the New England Patriots"....not too realistic.

The word for 'snake' is actual a word that describes 'looking intently' or 'gazing'. Adam is 'human, more specifically a red earth human'. Eve is 'life, that spirit in the conscience that teaches the human how to breath'.

So if it's just metaphorical/symbolic (etc.) in nature, then SO IS the interesting metaphor for rebirth in the Bible (the dead guy from Nazareth coming back to life to give you eternal life up in heaven)....correct? Intellectual consistency would require you to apply the same standard to both of them.

Well if you want something that will last through the ages and speak to the heart for people will seek and get to know that Son of God in them, how would you write it?

Good point.

The way Jesus wrote it was to choose smart guys like Matthew and John and Paul to write it.

Peter was illiterate but he had his step-son Mark write it.

We believe that if Jesus was as smart as a Scientific Humanist that he'd have usually said "write this down....." before any big speech. Would you have done that if you were in his position, yiostheoy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The 'court-room level of evidence' is meaningless when talking about faith and belief.

Joy4Uall wishes to use a standard of proof incompatible with religious belief, every bit as incompatible as religious authority opining on scientific matters.

 

[yiostheoy]

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

I try to explain to people that mastering Philosophy is the first step in understanding ourselves and the world and Earth around us.

Once you reach the limits of Philosophy then you are logically forced to explore Science.

Once you reach the limits of both Philosophy and Science then you must choose from the following:

1 - to pick a religion and become a Theist.

2 - to avoid organized religion and become a Deist.

3 - to refrain from making a choice and become an Agnostic.

4 - to fight against God and become an Atheist.

I have chosen #2 after many years in the Catholic Church.

However I still go to Mass twice at Easter and once at Christmas.

Deists don't believe in a personal god, arguably, so you believe that "prayer to Jesus" is not actually being answered by Jesus or any god, correct? (Supposedly that's more a part of theism.)
We don't fight against god, as SHists....we will gladly believe in Thor, or Jesus, or Allah or any of the other 5000+ gods when one cares for us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for their divinity, and that they are more real than any other god....we love our families enough to believe that our families deserve that. Seems reasonable.

I admire your intelligence and experience on this subject. I enjoy learning from you where I can.

My personal observation is that Jesus does not have time to answer prayers.

He must be busy at the center of The Milky Way Galaxy with His Father doing other stuff.

Ergo I am Deist not Theist.

Q.E.D.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

I try to explain to people that mastering Philosophy is the first step in understanding ourselves and the world and Earth around us.

Once you reach the limits of Philosophy then you are logically forced to explore Science.

Once you reach the limits of both Philosophy and Science then you must choose from the following:

1 - to pick a religion and become a Theist.

2 - to avoid organized religion and become a Deist.

3 - to refrain from making a choice and become an Agnostic.

4 - to fight against God and become an Atheist.

I have chosen #2 after many years in the Catholic Church.

However I still go to Mass twice at Easter and once at Christmas.

So then you believe that the Bible is wrong in many areas, if you "avoid organized religion", since I assume that means the TEXTS of an organized religion, as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joy4Uall speaks personally not authoritatively and many times not even logically. Joy4Uall's personal belief is fine individually, but is meaningless beyond the singular person, being not authoritative beyond Joy4Uall.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Jesus might have EXISTED, but that certainly does not mean that the hearsay about his magic/divinity has any truth to it, nor that their is a magic invisible Hindu-free place up in the sky that you'll magically go if you simply "believe" in a 2000 year-old dead guy, one can argue.
Besides, their is no more evidence for this divinity than the divinity of any other of the 5000+ claimed gods throughout history. Paul just expanded on a myth - so try to ease people's thanatophobia.

I try to explain to people that mastering Philosophy is the first step in understanding ourselves and the world and Earth around us.

Once you reach the limits of Philosophy then you are logically forced to explore Science.

Once you reach the limits of both Philosophy and Science then you must choose from the following:

1 - to pick a religion and become a Theist.

2 - to avoid organized religion and become a Deist.

3 - to refrain from making a choice and become an Agnostic.

4 - to fight against God and become an Atheist.

I have chosen #2 after many years in the Catholic Church.

However I still go to Mass twice at Easter and once at Christmas.

Deists don't believe in a personal god, arguably, so you believe that "prayer to Jesus" is not actually being answered by Jesus or any god, correct? (Supposedly that's more a part of theism.)
We don't fight against god, as SHists....we will gladly believe in Thor, or Jesus, or Allah or any of the other 5000+ gods when one cares for us enough to provide a court-room level of evidence for their divinity, and that they are more real than any other god....we love our families enough to believe that our families deserve that. Seems reasonable.

I admire your intelligence and experience on this subject. I enjoy learning from you where I can.

My personal observation is that Jesus does not have time to answer prayers.

He must be busy at the center of The Milky Way Galaxy with His Father doing other stuff.

Ergo I am Deist not Theist.

Q.E.D.

But the Bible claims that god is timeless, and that their is nothing he can't do. If he doesn't have time to answer prayers, what else can't he do. The Bible says god can't defeats "chariots of iron". He also is incapable of summoning up the courage to give humanity the final cure for cancer, as well.

yiostheoy, if YOU had the final cure to cancer, would you give it to humanity?

 

[yiostheoy]

The 'court-room level of evidence' is meaningless when talking about faith and belief.

Joy4Uall wishes to use a standard of proof incompatible with religious belief, every bit as incompatible as religious authority opining on scientific matters.

Well Constantine was outnumbered when he mysteriously defeated Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge.

That was a pretty big miracle, particularly coming on the moring of his telling his troops to paint crosses on their shields.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Joy4Uall just demonstrated in #73 his inability to grasp symbol, language, and logic.

Joy, can God create a weight He cannot lift? Until you can answer that question, you simply don't have to the tools to contribute much to the discussion.

 

[yiostheoy]

yiostheoy, if YOU had the final cure to cancer, would you give it to humanity?

People die from lots of things besides cancer.

There is stroke, heart attack, flu pneumonia, car accidents, famine, war, lightning, scuba accidents, etc.

 

[Joy4Uall]

Joy4Uall speaks personally not authoritatively and many times not even logically. Joy4Uall's personal belief is fine individually, but is meaningless beyond the singular person, being not authoritative beyond Joy4Uall.

Scientific Humanists don't need "authority"....we like to think for ourselves. We like parts of the Bible/Quran ("Zakat" in the Quran, etc.), but can't bring forward the all-powerful hero in them because we are more ethical than he is, so we are better role models to our children than "god" is. For example, we'd have taken 15 seconds out of the last 2000 years or so to say to humanity "write this down - end slavery w/in the next 30 years".

Jake, would YOU have taken those 15 seconds if YOU were in god/Jesus/ shoes, mi amigo?

Enjoy the rest of this (rainy where I am) night.

 

[yiostheoy]

Joy4Uall just demonstrated in #73 his inability to grasp symbol, language, and logic.

Joy, can God create a weight He cannot lift? Until you can answer that question, you simply don't have to the tools to contribute much to the discussion.

Now you are in the realm of Philosophy -- specifically paradoxes.

 

[Joy4Uall]

yiostheoy, if YOU had the final cure to cancer, would you give it to humanity?

People die from lots of things besides cancer.

There is stroke, heart attack, flu pneumonia, car accidents, famine, war, lightning, scuba accidents, etc.

Come on, you're dodging the question! I did NOT ask "would you cure all ills that ever plague the world", I only asked if you'd give humanity the cure for cancer if you had it, like Scientific Humanists would. If you answer "yes", then you have moved beyond "god" in your compassion, in your love for humanity. I think Hitler would even answer "yes".

 

[yiostheoy]

We believe that if Jesus was as smart as a Scientific Humanist that he'd have usually said "write this down....." before any big speech. Would you have done that if you were in his position, yiostheoy?

Well when there are 2 billion "scientific humanists" then I guess more people will take notice. A dilemma of course.