playa2 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:playa... "This is my story and I'm sticking to it." If that doesn't tell you how close minded you are, nothing will.
If that's what your religion is teaching you, you are a dying breed. and THANK GOD for that!

My story is based upon the good book, #1 best seller of all-time.

Everybody has the chance to change with God's help if they want to.

#1 I don't have religion
#2 My mind is so open I can treat everybody equal, I don't have to agree with someone's belief just like you
#3 I got delivered from religion years ago, a personal relationship is what men lack with God.
He never created man to live without him, Jesus never had religion he had a relationship with God.

People who follow religion will never understand the true heart of God concerning his creation.

2 cor 5:19 For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people's sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation.

#1 best seller of all time.... sounds like a good fictional book LOL.

Yea to those who don't believe.

But as soon as we get gravely ill or somebody holds a pistol to our head in a attempt to rob us.

God is the 1st one we call go figure. SMH

completely agree. not the bible though. which is what you were talking about... #1 best seller.

playa2 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:playa2...is it a perfect example of your prejudice? then i agree, but whatever else you said in your post....
christianity is 2014 years old. there are at least a few organized and well established religions that outdate christianity by a lot, so if you are going to take the religious route, maybe you should study those first before quoting scripture. who made you executioner and decide whether it was shame whether it was this or that... that's not for you to decide. all you should do is love your fellow man unless they have exhibited violent behavior.

#1 God did not make or tell people to be christians and make christanity, he wanted followers of Christ.

They were called of "the way",the term christian came from unbelievers who were mocking and making fun of them.

Calling someone a christian back in the 1st century was like using the N-word, it didn't become noble until the 3 or 4th century

God in his word, called followers of Christ "sons" "Royal Priesthood" "believers" Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 1 peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.

Men who didn't believe in God called them christians 1st, because they reminded them of Jesus.

Religion is man made , being a follower of Christ is based on a spiritual relationship with the creator and his son Jesus.

God never called his followers christians or religious. Men did. They might didn't teach you this in religion.

I am speaking what the word of God says , I'm not making this up as what i say.

Take it up with God if you disapprove with what he says in his word.

Anybody can say they are christians because it's a man made religion, but anybody can't say they are a follower of Christ.

I agree, religion is man-made, being a follower of Christ is based on information from a book that was written by God through men according to you. Who eventually accepted the term "Christian" as you say, followed a religion we called Christianity to differentiate it from "believers" of other messiahs and gods.

"Christian" was a dirty word? I guess you are getting that information from extra-Biblical sources, because to say that it was the equivalent of "nigger" is really really hard to get solely out of the context of Acts. At most, it is a term non-Christian, non-Jewish Greeks & Romans called Christians. It being a slur is conjecture. Other Jews probably wouldn't use the word because they didn't accept Jesus as the Christ (Greek for Messiah). Χριστιανός is Greek for "follower of Christ"... they may not have used that word for themselves because maybe they were mostly Aramaic speakers and/or used more symbolic language like "Kingdom of God" like you prefer... admittedly my semi-educated conjecture. If you prefer "followers of Christ" or "disciples" or "sons of God" to "Christian" I guess that's your prerogative, but that is just preferring a euphemism, or ignoring that these passages are descriptive, speaking of the quality of this alleged relationship with God's son. To simply call you a "disciple" or "son of God" seems pretty vague terms in a multi-religious context whether it the Roman empire or modern-day USA – a disciple and son of which god? And like you said, "followers of Christ" embraced the term "Christian" (again, which simply means "followers of Christ" for Christ's sake!) by the 3rd or 4th century (I'll take your word for that, could have even been in the 2nd century and probably related to it breaking off from Judaism and its popularity with Gentiles), the time your beloved book was still being wrapped up as a whole package.

You want to tell us stuff you believe from your particular reading of this book that you say is the word of God, while you are the same person who will put up some ****amamy YouTube video and say that is evidence for whatever other nonsense you believe.

jrod, you wanna vouch for your boy, still? Haha.

playa, you will never get how illogical you are. You present weak arguments with an agenda whilst painting others as agenda-driven and when they quickly crumble, you go into circular reasoning with crappy evidence. It was cute for a while, but it's really just pathetic. You talk about a lack of faith and "unnatural" lifestyles as what will bring this country down. I think it's crappy thinking and delusion that allows the people in power to stay in power at the expense of the masses. Maybe if people weren't so worried about getting into the afterlife, they'd pay better attention to the life we have now.

You definitely are a peculiar person though.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Sorry to feed the troll, y'all, but I had the peace of my morning commute disrupted by a preacher talking about sin and homosexuality and adultery and repentance and blah, blah, blah... had to take out my frustration somewhere.

I live in the Bible belt. You no doubt have my sympathies, brother.

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:The problem is you are blaming the tool rather then the wilder. Like blaming the gun rather then the shooter.

Am I just blaming the wielder? These are some excerpts taken directly from the Bible:

Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."

Leviticus 20:27
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Chronicles 15:12-13:
And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul, but that whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.

It doesn't seem like people who do malevolent things in the name of the Bible misunderstand its meaning. If anything, it seems that people are embolden to do those malevolent things because the Bible gives them the platitude to do so. So how do you begin to reconcile stuff like this?

newyorknewyork wrote:And for some reason only Religion is under trial while all other tools are let be.Should all scientific theory be ruled out because man can use it incorrectly to practically end man kind and has caused wars and fear between countries? Since all history and tools are capable of being corrupted then under your views you shouldn't believe anything and should have any stances on any issues. Sams coming out could be a lie and he isn't really gay and has been a made up media creation and until I see him actually have sexual intercourse with a man I don't believe it.

That's a strawman's argument. In two separate posts I have explicitly labelled all "tools" as being flawed; religion being among them. Of these "tools" though, only religion presents itself as being infallible or like jrodmc portrays it "the final authority".

newyorknewyork wrote:Man didn't create Religion, Science, Technology, Government, etc.. Man is imitating the order that was already established in heaven. Before man ever had the technology to do so we were able to build pyramids that today we still don't understand how they were capable of doing so given there resources. In the bible it talks about heavens and universe yet man didn't have the technology or the education to know about these things until the 1700s. Homo sapiens were supposed to have evolved 250k-400k years ago according to scientific theory. So it took around 250-400k years to discover fire, but after we discovered fire it only took 4,000 yrs to advance to the level we are at today with no literary documentation of life before hand.

Men were looking at stars before Christianity was even conceived of. For example, the Greeks built entire stories centered around the arrangement and movement of stars (see the Greek Constellations). It really doesn't take much to look up at the stars and conceptualize the "heavens" to create clever stories. Every major culture did it.

And yes, scientific advancements have been increasing at an exponential rate. As societies become more centralized, grow and interact with other societies, you get that kind of trend. I took a "History of Science" class and could forward you a couple articles about it (not being condescending; it really is fascinating). This trend would've happened with or without Christianity.

newyorknewyork wrote:There is more likely hood of God creating the earth making all things possible then all things happening by chance. To a lesser extent would be like if people decided to randomly build houses without any blueprints on how to even build houses yet ended up building New York city. If man made up God then then there should be a documented civilization that was established before God was ever mentioned. And we should know of a civilization governing body who first started to establish God.

Yet there is 0 documentation of this and tons of documentation claiming the opposite. But yet because the documentation can be corrupted or misused it shouldn't be accepted. Then nothing should ever be accepted.

That doesn't make the Bible/Christianity inherently true. Besides the point, I think we've strayed too far from the topic of the thread. As I've said before, you're welcome to worship as you see fit. My only contention in all of this is that it is faulty to try to build an argument, public policy, or anything of this ilk on the basis of religious convictions. The Bible is not too big on facts and facts are what we need when making these types of decisions.

At that point in societies time it must have been necessary to do so. Just like at one point in society it was necessary for man to sleep with its relatives to fill the earth and then later on it became unlawful. Or sacrifice burnt offerings to God until Jesus came then he became the sacrifice so man no longer had to sacrifice burnt offerings. God must have had to be stricter as at this time man may have not been able to handle life without these rules. Like I stated earlier Gods eternal law is Love. All laws underneath Gods law of Love are dependent on where man was at in its development. Why would man alone decide that these doings were wrong? What would influence man to even know or understand what right or wrong even was when it comes to sex?

Straw man argument no, looking to expose some hypocrisy yes. Your whole knowledge base(mine as well), viewpoints, beliefs are all based on the teachings from men/women that were made through theories, viewpoints, beliefs of other men/women. From your parents, teachers, professors, authors of books you read. Your viewpoint of man creating God and using God in order to keep simple minded people in check was a theory created by a man and taught to you by another man which has manipulated or influenced how you perceive the bible and life. The Big bang theory with man evolving from monkeys even though is simply a theory created by man to give scientific reasoning behind its creation. Though doesn't hold enough facts to call it more then theory. This theory is basically considered a fact by I bet many in this thread, is basically taught as facts in school and has eliminated many's belief in God through *faith* in science to one day give us all the answers. Now that's manipulation. But even though it was written by man, doesn't hold enough facts to consider it more then theory, and has been used to manipulate how man views its creation its okay because its science and not religion. Your political views, what ever they are have been taught to you by man/women based on political theories on how Government should run. I bet what ever your political views are you believe them to be the correct way for government to run due to how you were educated/molded/manipulated into believing so.

The same reasoning used to denounce religion do you apply to your own beliefs? Is it possible that you and others in this thread could be just as manipulated as you claim believers to have been and be? Or is that not possible because your so more *enlighten* then us simple minded folk? I could go on theorizing how man so desperately wanted to eliminate God from existence thus allowing them to go after there desires without the guilt of sinning.

Also earlier you stated something like the enlightened during these biblical days didn't need God. Does that mean that they didn't partake in wars? Commit any crimes like murder, rape, theft etc? Had the same social and economic standing? Didn't oppressed anyone else? Use political &/or financial power to benefit themselves over mankind? I don't think there was ever a Godless utopia like that. Probably more like some super wealthy men who didn't think they needed God because they had the money to buy what they wanted or had the political power to do things to there liking.

At that point in societies time it must have been necessary to do so. Just like at one point in society it was necessary for man to sleep with its relatives to fill the earth and then later on it became unlawful. Or sacrifice burnt offerings to God until Jesus came then he became the sacrifice so man no longer had to sacrifice burnt offerings. God must have had to be stricter as at this time man may have not been able to handle life without these rules. Like I stated earlier Gods eternal law is Love. All laws underneath Gods law of Love are dependent on where man was at in its development. Why would man alone decide that these doings were wrong? What would influence man to even know or understand what right or wrong even was when it comes to sex?

So now the rules in the Bible are fluid? And if they are fluid, who gets to decide its evolution to adapt to the standards of the day? God? Because I (and religious fundamentalists) never got the link to the webnair updating us.

Straw man argument no, looking to expose some hypocrisy yes. Your whole knowledge base(mine as well), viewpoints, beliefs are all based on the teachings from men/women that were made through theories, viewpoints, beliefs of other men/women. From your parents, teachers, professors, authors of books you read. Your viewpoint of man creating God and using God in order to keep simple minded people in check was a theory created by a man and taught to you by another man which has manipulated or influenced how you perceive the bible and life. The Big bang theory with man evolving from monkeys even though is simply a theory created by man to give scientific reasoning behind its creation. Though doesn't hold enough facts to call it more then theory. This theory is basically considered a fact by I bet many in this thread, is basically taught as facts in school and has eliminated many's belief in God through *faith* in science to one day give us all the answers. Now that's manipulation. But even though it was written by man, doesn't hold enough facts to consider it more then theory, and has been used to manipulate how man views its creation its okay because its science and not religion. Your political views, what ever they are have been taught to you by man/women based on political theories on how Government should run. I bet what ever your political views are you believe them to be the correct way for government to run due to how you were educated/molded/manipulated into believing so.

But there was no hypocrisy to expose. My thinkings have been consistent with my original point. More importantly, I never suggested that science is infallible. Instead, you have been the one suggesting that of me and my viewpoint, which is incorrect. If you want to disagree, then I challenge you to find the specific quote where I said or even intimated this. I just think that science is a much more effective method in understanding the world around me and all of its mysteries because of reasons that I think should be obvious by now.

I think this point is best demonstrated by the "Big Bang Theory" vs your creationists viewpoint. Contrary to how you portray it, this theory is not the product of fanciful storytelling by scientists that are looking to counter stories presented in your Bible. There is actual centuries worth of study that went into forming this understanding and it is pretty compelling. We know that stars are constantly moving further away from each other, which suggests that there is still a residual effect from the initial explosion. And the most central piece of evidence is that there is still a consistent and constant "cosmic noise" that was uncovered about 40 years ago using a "horn antenna" in NJ. So on one side, we have a position that orients its understanding around evidence and established laws of the universe; on the other, we have one that orients its understanding first and then expect people to take them on their word about it i.e. "faith".

The same reasoning used to denounce religion do you apply to your own beliefs? Is it possible that you and others in this thread could be just as manipulated as you claim believers to have been and be? Or is that not possible because your so more *enlighten* then us simple minded folk? I could go on theorizing how man so desperately wanted to eliminate God from existence thus allowing them to go after there desires without the guilt of sinning.

All the time. As I said before, I once considered myself Catholic and using this reasoning is how I managed to transition into an agnostic/deist. And no, I do not think that I am currently being manipulated as a believer in science. The fact is, there is no manipulation when it comes to science since the entire field is based on deductive reasoning. There needs to be a body of observable evidence and that evidence must consistently produce a certain effect or result to be considered legitimate. Religion has no such burden. That is the difference between my position and yours.

Also earlier you stated something like the enlightened during these biblical days didn't need God. Does that mean that they didn't partake in wars? Commit any crimes like murder, rape, theft etc? Had the same social and economic standing? Didn't oppressed anyone else? Use political &/or financial power to benefit themselves over mankind? I don't think there was ever a Godless utopia like that. Probably more like some super wealthy men who didn't think they needed God because they had the money to buy what they wanted or had the political power to do things to there liking.

I never suggested anything close to that. And since even the religious partook in these evils, doesn't that kind of defeat its purpose? If people are going to be the same ****ty people with religion as they are with it, what's the point?

They must be fluid and I gave specific examples of them being so. I was more looking to challenge reasoning then science to be clear. I do understand where your coming from and I respect the way that you presented that. At the same time to claim that these fanciful stories are most likely made up is a powerful accusation(to strong a word?). Its hard to find the reasoning behind man making up a God that just was, not why they would do it, but how they would come to this conclusion? Or that man was created through the dust in the ground. Or that women were created by mans ribs. The last sentence you wrote is the exact conclusion that God came to when he sent Jesus thus allowing everyone going forward the opportunity to be saved from Jews to Romans which is also what pretty much got Jesus killed.

From the Sun, to the moon, to the stars, to gravitational pull, to seas and oceans, to plants releasing oxygen, to fruits and vegetables, to the human antonym, to reproductive organs, to fire, to the chemical compounds that create fire, to the molecules that create the chemical compounds, to the atoms in the molecules, to the protons, electrons, and neutrons that partake in the atom, to everything else I have missed. Everything is perfectly in place for mankind to exist, all constantly and consistently doing there specific task in perfect harmony. And its crazy to me to believe that all these steps are perfectly in place for mankind to exist without someone to have created and organized this process. None of the proven scientific logic and reasoning has disproved God's existence. But yet for some reason the evidence and established laws of the universe leads to theory that there is no God. If your evidence based then there should not be a final conclusion if there is a God or not. Is there any scientific evidence the eliminates the possibility of there being a God?

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Historical facts are defined by the amount of documentation backing them up. The bible as the most documentation backing it up then any other piece of history in mankind's existence. Under these definitions if the Bible isn't considered a historical fact then nothing in mans history that you didn't visually witness could be deemed as such.

And recorded human history dates back as far as 3100 BC. The Old Testament wasn't assembled until 3 BC and existed as "word of mouth" for some time before that. Anyone whose played "telephone" in first grade can realize the issues that something like that could present, not to mention the presumptions that were made in translations since.

I'm not sure what you're basing your facts around but the idea of the Bible being a source of historical reference is ridiculous, especially when considering how limited in geographical scope it is. Also, the validity of any document that speaks of men parting seas and building sea vessels large enough to store every animal in the world, is shaky at best. The real facts here are that several well-recognized and more pervasive peoples existed before Christians or the Bible was ever conceived.

I'm not going to go into deep discussion.

The bible is based off hundreds of books, of men documenting there experiences. Using your own critic every single piece of history ever written that wasn't visibly seen cannot be deemed as facts due to the same telephone principal. The multitude of documentation by different authors backing up similar events is what makes it authentic. The bible is the most read, research, and studied book in mans history yet not one word in it has ever been *proven* wrong. How can that be for a fictional book.

because most of what it says is untestable.
You need to have a specific scientific hypothesis, if you want to see whether it will be proven right or wrong.

Do you have a mind? Is your mind in your brain or is your brain your mind? Is that testable?

Most of what the bible says is untestable; really?
1) It says man is depraved? How many test results would you like to see? Hey Nard, did anyone have to teach you to want what's not yours?
2) It speaks in infintesminal detail about the restoration of the country of Israel. The people, the restoration of Hebrew, etc. Testable?
3) It speaks to what is and isn't moral, and the results of immoral behaviour. Do you like laws against theft, perjury, murder? Testable?
4) It says Jesus existed. Testable?
5) The gospel of Luke has more geographical facts in it that haven never been disproven than any other ancient document we have. Testable?

Yes, the mind is generated by your brain through a series of electrical impulses. An fMRI can clearly show how brain activity changes to perform a certain task....you know, science.And no, no one had to teach me to want what is not mine. I also never wanted what is not mine because I'm what you'd call "a decent human being". And unlike you, I don't need a boogey-man for me to be a decent, benevolent, and empathetic human being.

You are seriously equating the mind with mapping of electrical impulses on an MRI? That's science? No, what that is an 18th century materialist outlook validated using 20th century technology. Welcome to the Information age. So can your MRI show you which impulse is your personality, your thoughts on Melo's ISO penchants, your memory of Saved by the Bell? Your MRI can be mapped to show which impulses are "you"? Maybe they have, but I haven't seen any ****sure materialists pointing out that the human mind has been mapped by MRI's.

Ever hear of Wilder Penfield? Saying the brain is a computer made of meat sounds trite, but it certainly doesn't answer all the questions of consciousness.

Try again.

NardDogNation wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:I studied the bible heavily a couple of yrs ago. And while i'm not close to knowing everything or being an expert. There are some conclusions that I have come to.

First and foremost God is real. If God wasn't real then he was made up by man. Meaning there would be a time period in mans history where there was no God in existence. There is no documented time period in mans history that God wasn't in existence.

Second, Gods law that is eternal and unchanging is LOVE. God created a lot of rules, regulations, ordinances, instructions, guidlines to follow throughout the bible. Everything from what to eat Whatever divides the hoof and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud (Leviticus 11:3), whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, those you shall eat. (verse 9), sex, taxes etc etc etc. Every single guidline has its purpose to keep the order in society. More proof of his existence in my eyes as why would man(without Gods influence) create laws on what was good to eat or not eat during this time frame? How would they know the affects of any food to call it good or bad? Or laws of marriage, as Jrodmc stated kept the order of society for centuries. There is no way for them during this time period to know the negative affects of these actions on society to put these laws into place.

Now again the law that is eternal and unchanging is LOVE. But the rules, regulations, ordinances, instructions are changeable based on where man kind was at in there development. Notice how God at first in the bible stated to be fruitful and multiple allowing siblings to have sex with each other to fill the earth. Then later on put out the law that siblings were no longer allowed to have sex with each other. As in the beginning this was necessary for the earth to be filled but after the earth was filled it was no longer necessary so in order to keep society in order God decided to update his instructions. This was heavily taught by Jesus as the Scribes and Pharisees would often follow the laws as well as create there own laws to benefit themselves. But wouldn't follow Gods eternal law of LOVE.

Mark 3:1-6
3 Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3 Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

5 He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6 Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

Clearly Jesus was stating that allowing a man to die just to follow Gods law of not doing any work on the Sabbath wasn't Gods will. Which clarifies that Gods law of LOVE overrides everything.

Third, I don't know what causes an individual to be gay. But I don't think we are at the part of mans development that passes judgement. If being Gay is wrong, I don't believe that it will lead to individuals burning in hell for eternity. There will be a time period where God lifts the curse from the earth and heaven will come down to earth and we will live under Jesus rule to be shown the proper way to live. If being homosexual is against Gods will then most likely the thought processes that goes with being homosexual will be removed. If homosexuality is a natural part of life then the thought process of being against homosexuals will be removed. The last 2 sentences were just my opinion though not biblical fact.

So in other words, every other religion is wrong but yours is right....because it says that it is. And somehow, there was no order before it....and yet many of the greatest empires came before anyone ever even conceived of it. Awesome bro.

I stated the conclusions that I came to that is all. I didn't write this to claim that I was right and everyone else was wrong, just sharing my thoughts.

With that said the earliest known civilization documented in mans history is Mesopotamia which was created after the flood of Noah. If I am wrong I would like to be educated.

You can believe what you want to believe but the Bible is no real historical account. If it was, the book would be continually expanding and updating itself; while focusing on more than the accounts of a random nomadic tribe.

You know what's interesting about Christianity though? Every other present day religion maintains it's highest concentration of followers in the areas/regions they originated: the Buddhist/Daoist still dominants East Asia, the Muslim still dominants the Middle East, the Hindu in India. Christianity is the only religion whose message was so compelling that hardly anyone in the region where it began, still follows it. The highest concentration of Christians today, exist in conquered lands. The conquerors came with their Bibles and took the land and all the resources therein of the indigenous peoples'. Today, all that the progeny of these indigenous people have are their Bibles, while the descendants of the conquerors have no need for theirs'. I think that's all I needed to know about Christianity, when I stopped being a Catholic. Perhaps that's something you should consider as "a strong Black man".

Yea but we took their land and raped their women and children in the name of The Lord so it's ok!

Through science weapons of mass destruction have been created killing millions of people. Through technology weapons have been created killing millions of people. Through sex people have been sold for profit & raped. Through Government & Politics people have suppressed others for there own personal gain.

Maybe mankind is just flawed, and have continually tainted there(Religion, Science, Technology, Sex, Government) purpose for personal gain. Or should we do away with Religion, Science, Technology, Sex, & Government? Would the world then be a better place?

So at best, religion is flawed because like government, it was created and is safeguarded by man. So why should we be pretending that it is the "final authority" for anyone or anything? Why do you wield it as some kind of infallible tool. "It says God exists.....so God must exist". "It says homosexuality is a sin.... so it MUST be sin".

I'm really not trying to continue this argument because clearly you have your views set in stone and I have mine. Neither of us are going to bend. So all that's going to happen is us arguing for days only to realize what we already know. Which is that we don't know everything.

But you are missing the point and have been since your first reply to me. Religion isn't flawed because its only a tool, same as science, government, technology etc etc.. All these tools can be manipulated by man for good or evil. Same as money, money can't be flawed because its only a tool. Its man kind that is flawed. If mankind was perfect then all these would automatically become perfect. I can use water to drown and kill a man or I could use water to replenish a man who's thirsty.

I also didn't say religion was the final authority for anyone or anything. If you actually read the original post which you replied to me its actually the opposite view. Religion isn't the final authority, Gods law of Love is the final authority for anyone or anything. If you use Gods law of love as dominion over any tool then you would only use these tools for good. If everyone followed Gods law of Love then there would be no wars saving billions upon billions of dollars to give back to the people. Farmers wouldn't need to destroy food in order to keep prices at a specific rate while people starve to death throughout the world. Taxes would be 100% used for its intended purpose without man dipping his hand in the cookie jar for there own personal gain. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

I understand why you feel the way you feel. Religion has been so corrupted by man that its easy to see why people denounce it.Again I don't have the answers to why a man is gay or not gay. If a man is gay or not we are all flawed sinners regardless. Under the New testament of the bible it is believed that heaven will come down on earth and we will be shown the proper way to live under Jesus rule for 1,000 years. Everyone will get a chance to live under this rule no matter what your beliefs were on earth as your heart is what will be judged not our beliefs. All the tools at our exposure will be used in there correct manner. Satan will be locked away for these 1,000 yrs freeing us from negative influence. This is the fear many believers have toward getting accustomed to a certain life style on earth as under Jesus rule you may not live the life style you grew accustomed to on earth. After the 1,000 yrs Satan will be released and there will be a final battle of Armageddon in which people that preferred the life style they had on earth will join Satan to fight for there right to live the life style they want and be wiped out from existence. And when I say life style I am not specifically talking about homosexuals but everything from being super wealthy to swingers etc.

In closing, I am not trying to tell you what to believe or claim I am right and you are wrong. The only point I care to make throughout any of this is that God's law is Love. No matter that our beliefs are different, i'm sure that at the end of the day we both desire peace and love for everyone.

All tools are flawed. An X-Ray gives us the opportunity to inexpensively examine internal injuries but can also cast shadows that lead to false-positives. Injuries also don't happen 2-dimensionally so there is that obvious limitation as well.

Whatever tool you can think of, there are inherent flaws and in that sense, religion is no different. You say that men corrupt religion but man also wrote/created religion e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, etc. Why then is it so unreasonable to presume then that religion is inherently corrupt? And if it is inherently corrupt, to what extent is it inherently corrupt? When the bulk of it consists of these fantastic stories that defy my reality and that of any peer-reviewed historical account, how can I not presume that all of it is corrupt?

That being said, I didn't mean to attack you specifically. As much as it isn't my cup of tea, I recognize that religion could serve a positive end for some; it seems to be the case for you. All too often though, religion is used as "home base" to spew bigotry and eccentric views without having to answer for them. That has consistently been the case for jrodmc and others. As I said before, I meant no ill will towards you but at the same time, those guys are very much in your camp. Since you were the first to officially begin to introduce biblical quotes, you became a target for response. That was all.

As opposed to the home base of "the catalyst" for up and coming genius rationalists like Nard.

It would be good to have something trancendent to base your worldview on. Your morality is based on what? Your reason, your experience and your view of what "reason" will bring you. Check.

I have no problem with having my viewpoint questioned. I welcome the opportunity to learn and grow through this process. Unfortunately, I have a low tolerance for bull****, which is why you and I are constantly at odds.

As for my morality, I don't need a boogeyman to be a generous and empathetic person. I think we all understand what is considered proper and improper behavior. It is why there is such a great deal of overlap in moral codes for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. It's how Muslims understand the importance of charity (the Qu'ran encourages them to give 10% of their salary). It's why Atheists don't go around killing people despite acknowledging that there is no divine intervention. The list goes on and on. This shouldn't be rocket science.

You really didn't actually say that, did you? Did Hitler hand out copies of Nietzche, and quote Darwin word for word in his speeches? What faith did Mao and Stalin and Pol Pot follow, I forget...

You are now approaching the adorability level of a toddler with a pamper full of sheet. Yeah, and you don't even try for mildy amusing or slightly clever.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Cartman718 wrote:playa2...is it a perfect example of your prejudice? then i agree, but whatever else you said in your post....
christianity is 2014 years old. there are at least a few organized and well established religions that outdate christianity by a lot, so if you are going to take the religious route, maybe you should study those first before quoting scripture. who made you executioner and decide whether it was shame whether it was this or that... that's not for you to decide. all you should do is love your fellow man unless they have exhibited violent behavior.

#1 God did not make or tell people to be christians and make christanity, he wanted followers of Christ.

They were called of "the way",the term christian came from unbelievers who were mocking and making fun of them.

Calling someone a christian back in the 1st century was like using the N-word, it didn't become noble until the 3 or 4th century

God in his word, called followers of Christ "sons" "Royal Priesthood" "believers" Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 1 peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people.

Men who didn't believe in God called them christians 1st, because they reminded them of Jesus.

Religion is man made , being a follower of Christ is based on a spiritual relationship with the creator and his son Jesus.

God never called his followers christians or religious. Men did. They might didn't teach you this in religion.

I am speaking what the word of God says , I'm not making this up as what i say.

Take it up with God if you disapprove with what he says in his word.

Anybody can say they are christians because it's a man made religion, but anybody can't say they are a follower of Christ.

I agree, religion is man-made, being a follower of Christ is based on information from a book that was written by God through men according to you. Who eventually accepted the term "Christian" as you say, followed a religion we called Christianity to differentiate it from "believers" of other messiahs and gods.

"Christian" was a dirty word? I guess you are getting that information from extra-Biblical sources, because to say that it was the equivalent of "nigger" is really really hard to get solely out of the context of Acts. At most, it is a term non-Christian, non-Jewish Greeks & Romans called Christians. It being a slur is conjecture. Other Jews probably wouldn't use the word because they didn't accept Jesus as the Christ (Greek for Messiah). Χριστιανός is Greek for "follower of Christ"... they may not have used that word for themselves because maybe they were mostly Aramaic speakers and/or used more symbolic language like "Kingdom of God" like you prefer... admittedly my semi-educated conjecture. If you prefer "followers of Christ" or "disciples" or "sons of God" to "Christian" I guess that's your prerogative, but that is just preferring a euphemism, or ignoring that these passages are descriptive, speaking of the quality of this alleged relationship with God's son. To simply call you a "disciple" or "son of God" seems pretty vague terms in a multi-religious context whether it the Roman empire or modern-day USA – a disciple and son of which god? And like you said, "followers of Christ" embraced the term "Christian" (again, which simply means "followers of Christ" for Christ's sake!) by the 3rd or 4th century (I'll take your word for that, could have even been in the 2nd century and probably related to it breaking off from Judaism and its popularity with Gentiles), the time your beloved book was still being wrapped up as a whole package.

You want to tell us stuff you believe from your particular reading of this book that you say is the word of God, while you are the same person who will put up some ****amamy YouTube video and say that is evidence for whatever other nonsense you believe.

jrod, you wanna vouch for your boy, still? Haha.

DrA, I'm not (and have not) vouching for anyone, but thanks for that. playa is the conspiracy theorist, not me, but this is the first I've heard he's a bible thumper.

I may just have to look more closely at what all you sheeple are mindlessly following in those youtube vids...

Anyway, I think playa's point is you can call "Christian" everything from Pope followers to Mormons to Jehovah's Witnesses to 'Christian' Scientists.

You don't judge a faith by it's abuse.

And I could be wrong about playa's point.

Christian meant "little Christs". I believe (and this is conjecture) that the Romans/other enemies of the faith actually used it in jest, just like naming Israel "Palestine" was a reference to the Philistines.

jrodmc wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:Sorry to feed the troll, y'all, but I had the peace of my morning commute disrupted by a preacher talking about sin and homosexuality and adultery and repentance and blah, blah, blah... had to take out my frustration somewhere.

Did you pick up a hitchhiking evangelist? Do you know the state considers that a "sin"?

So, why would ignorant blathering about sin and repentance actually get you frustrated? It's all blah blah blah, right? Interesting...

Ha. Yea, met a pastor via the old "bathroom stall shake-a-leg" at a rest stop and couldn't shake him after...

Subway train. Very loud, very annoying voice who insisted on giving definitions of "fornication" and "adultary" like we were all idiots for like 4 stops. It's 9 am for cripes' sake.