To All The Unbeliever's Here

[hobelim]

Why would god judge me? Didn't he give us free will? So he gives us something, we use it, and he sends us to the devil? Hmmm. Doesn't seem right.

Its more about cause and effect than crime and punishment.

For instance, If you would set your rational mind aside and "just believe" that a trinity impregnated a virgin to father himself so that he could become fully human without a human father you too could lose your mind to confusion, become a gibbering idiot, and say and do stupid things that injure yourself and the people you love without any sense of shame or guilt for allowing satan to enter your mind to perpetuate lies.

If a person suffers as a result of their own stupidity how is God at fault who clearly warns people to not be so gullible and clearly states the consequences for such behavior in scripture? Its not like no one has ever alerted them to their folly and even if no one ever did, they have the bible they are supposedly reading day and night .

Who if not the person alone is responsible for remaining so?

Is anyone still being forced to worship a human being or eat god crackers?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In my experience, the more a person wears their Christianity on their sleeve, the less likely they are to actually believe in Jesus' actual message. IMO, the best way to get at such is to invest in a Red Letter edition of the N.T. and read just the red words.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In my experience, the more a person wears their Christianity on their sleeve, the less likely they are to actually believe in Jesus' actual message. IMO, the best way to get at such is to invest in a Red Letter edition of the N.T. and read just the red words.

I think for many religious people, their religious affiliation is more like their political affiliation, it's something they mention for polls, and do once in a while, but they'd be hard-pressed to tell you how it's defined.

Many id as either republican or democrat but it'd be interesting to see if most could tell you the positions of those parties on various unpopular topics that aren't on tv often. Just as most who id as a given religion probably dont' know all that much about it since by and large there's two versions of religion: tv/pop culture version, and the actual Scriptural version.

 

[hobelim]

In my experience, the more a person wears their Christianity on their sleeve, the less likely they are to actually believe in Jesus' actual message. IMO, the best way to get at such is to invest in a Red Letter edition of the N.T. and read just the red words.

I'm sure that's better than sitting in Sunday school and learning from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

But even just reading the words of Jesus isn't enough if you cannot comprehend the meaning of the figurative expressions he used and learned by studying the Law and prophets as well as the oral law that Jesus referred to as the traditions of men.

Without a comprehensive knowledge of the oral and written law, Judaism, and a sober acceptance of reality, sciences, literary terms and expressions, understanding what Jesus meant by the things he said and what actually happened according to what was written about him is impossible

 

[Coloradomtnman]

you will have no excuse on Judgment day when you face a Holy God. Believer's here have shared with you biblical truth. If you continue to reject it (the good news of salvation through Jesus) and do not come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, you will only have yourself to blame. Peace.

Really? Is that true? Could you show me how it's true so that I don't just have to take your word for it?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm sure that's better than sitting in Sunday school and learning from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

My attitude is that when Jesus said "Believe in ME", He didn't mean "Believe in anybody who purports to speak in My name". Since He so much emphasized a one-on-one relationship with God, and railed against church bureaucracy like He did, the entire notion of placing your complete trust in he preacher men who have their own agenda strikes me as being against His very teachings.

but even just reading the words of Jesus isn't enough if you cannot comprehend the meaning of the figurative expressions he used and learned by studying the Law and prophets as well as the oral law that Jesus referred to as the traditions of men.

Without a comprehensive knowledge of the oral and written law, Judaism, and a sober acceptance of reality, sciences, literary terms and expressions, understanding what Jesus meant by the things he said and what actually happened according to what was written about him is impossible

and therein lies the rub. In order to understand what Jesus meant, one must rely on others to help explain. How best to do this is anybody's guess.

My biggest criticism of Christianity is that Paul is actually the source of so many modern Christian attitudes rather than Jesus. It was Paul who was most influential in forming Christianity, and his stamp is all over it. If you think about it, here you have a Pharisee who made it his work to persecute Jesus' followers, who changed directions suddenly and started leading them. One way to interpret this is that he had a true epiphany, and changed his ways. Another interpretation is that he saw an opportunity to co-opt the very movement he had been fighting. I tend to think it is the latter, myself, and that is why I wish Jesus' teachings were more central to Christianity rather than Paul.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'm sure that's better than sitting in Sunday school and learning from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

My attitude is that when Jesus said "Believe in ME", He didn't mean "Believe in anybody who purports to speak in My name". Since He so much emphasized a one-on-one relationship with God, and railed against church bureaucracy like He did, the entire notion of placing your complete trust in he preacher men who have their own agenda strikes me as being against His very teachings.

but even just reading the words of Jesus isn't enough if you cannot comprehend the meaning of the figurative expressions he used and learned by studying the Law and prophets as well as the oral law that Jesus referred to as the traditions of men.

Without a comprehensive knowledge of the oral and written law, Judaism, and a sober acceptance of reality, sciences, literary terms and expressions, understanding what Jesus meant by the things he said and what actually happened according to what was written about him is impossible

and therein lies the rub. In order to understand what Jesus meant, one must rely on others to help explain. How best to do this is anybody's guess.

My biggest criticism of Christianity is that Paul is actually the source of so many modern Christian attitudes rather than Jesus. It was Paul who was most influential in forming Christianity, and his stamp is all over it. If you think about it, here you have a Pharisee who made it his work to persecute Jesus' followers, who changed directions suddenly and started leading them. One way to interpret this is that he had a true epiphany, and changed his ways. Another interpretation is that he saw an opportunity to co-opt the very movement he had been fighting. I tend to think it is the latter, myself, and that is why I wish Jesus' teachings were more central to Christianity rather than Paul.

I'd go further and say the whole of Christianity is Paul and the disciples' split from Judaism as Jesus only taught Judaism. None of the Gospels had been written yet so all he had to teach was Judaism.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'd go further and say the whole of Christianity is Paul and the disciples' split from Judaism as Jesus only taught Judaism. None of the Gospels had been written yet so all he had to teach was Judaism.

In Matthew 24 4-5, Jesus warns of false prophets claiming to speak in His name. Voila' -- then comes Saul of Tarsus doing just that. Now, while Saul as Paul never claimed to BE the messiah, he certainly appointed himself as representing Him, and this despite never having been an actual disciple or even so much as hearing one sermon.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'd go further and say the whole of Christianity is Paul and the disciples' split from Judaism as Jesus only taught Judaism. None of the Gospels had been written yet so all he had to teach was Judaism.

In Matthew 24 4-5, Jesus warns of false prophets claiming to speak in His name. Voila' -- then comes Saul of Tarsus doing just that. Now, while Saul as Paul never claimed to BE the messiah, he certainly appointed himself as representing Him, and this despite never having been an actual disciple or even so much as hearing one sermon.

Jesus' Matthew warning was him paraphrasing Deuteronomy 13:1 which is about false prophets.

 

[hobelim]

I'm sure that's better than sitting in Sunday school and learning from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

My attitude is that when Jesus said "Believe in ME", He didn't mean "Believe in anybody who purports to speak in My name". Since He so much emphasized a one-on-one relationship with God, and railed against church bureaucracy like He did, the entire notion of placing your complete trust in he preacher men who have their own agenda strikes me as being against His very teachings.

but even just reading the words of Jesus isn't enough if you cannot comprehend the meaning of the figurative expressions he used and learned by studying the Law and prophets as well as the oral law that Jesus referred to as the traditions of men.

Without a comprehensive knowledge of the oral and written law, Judaism, and a sober acceptance of reality, sciences, literary terms and expressions, understanding what Jesus meant by the things he said and what actually happened according to what was written about him is impossible

and therein lies the rub. In order to understand what Jesus meant, one must rely on others to help explain. How best to do this is anybody's guess.

My biggest criticism of Christianity is that Paul is actually the source of so many modern Christian attitudes rather than Jesus. It was Paul who was most influential in forming Christianity, and his stamp is all over it. If you think about it, here you have a Pharisee who made it his work to persecute Jesus' followers, who changed directions suddenly and started leading them. One way to interpret this is that he had a true epiphany, and changed his ways. Another interpretation is that he saw an opportunity to co-opt the very movement he had been fighting. I tend to think it is the latter, myself, and that is why I wish Jesus' teachings were more central to Christianity rather than Paul.

I'd go further and say the whole of Christianity is Paul and the disciples' split from Judaism as Jesus only taught Judaism. None of the Gospels had been written yet so all he had to teach was Judaism.

Right, so what was the argument all about if not how to correctly understand and apply the Law that leads to the promise of divine providence and eternal life for compliance??

The oral tradition gets into great detail about how to apply a literal interpretation of the words and subjects and Jesus made a great leap of intelligence and used the figurative language of the prophets who spoke for God, a widely accepted teaching of Judaism, and applied that knowledge of figurative expression to teach people to understand the deeper implications of the words and subjects outlined in the law given by Moses, who spoke for God ..

The pharisees were publicly humiliated by the revelation and did everything in their power to discredit and ultimately kill Jesus as if he was some drunken sex fiend whooping it up with sinners and prostitutes, a blasphemous false prophet completely out of his mind

Paul, an admitted Pharisee, just did his best to insure that the Jewish people would never accept Jesus as anything else by insisting that he abolished Mosaic law and claimed to be God.

Its really that simple.....