Can Jesus Microwave a Burrito So Hot, That He Himself Cannot Eat It?

[dannno]

Discuss ;)

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Yum.

[torchbearer]

I sense a pattern here.

[Danke]

They didn't have microwaves 2000 years ago silly.

[torchbearer]

They didn't have microwaves 2000 years ago silly.

prove it!

[Danke]

prove it!

Wiki, one of god's works.


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

[Theocrat]

Are you talking about Jesus in His divine nature, or in His human nature?

[torchbearer]

Are you talking about Jesus in His divine nature, or in His human nature?

are you gnostic?

[torchbearer]

Wiki, one of god's works.


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

God's final message to Creation: Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Theocrat]

are you gnostic?

I'm just being Biblical. :)

[TortoiseDream]

They didn't have microwaves 2000 years ago silly.

there have been microwaves propagating through the universe since the big bang era that we call the cosmic microwave background. that's what this picture is:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/images/WMAP_skymap.jpg

[torchbearer]

I'm just being Biblical. :)

The gnostics were declared heretics by "god's representatives" on earth. The same people who gave you the bible declared any who saw Jesus' humanity as seperate from his spirit self was a blasphemer.
I guess the people who created the bible didn't really have a good grasp of what god wanted.

[torchbearer]

there have been microwaves propagating through the universe since the big bang era that we call the cosmic microwave background. that's what this picture is:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/images/WMAP_skymap.jpg

you and your cosmic background radiation.
Don't you know the universe is only 10,000 years old?

[TortoiseDream]

you and your cosmic background radiation.
Don't you know the universe is only 10,000 years old?

some experts believe that the CMB is the tomato sauce stain of the FSM after resting from his creation activities.

[sevin]

Are you talking about Jesus in His divine nature, or in His human nature?

lol.

So Theocrat, based on your username I'm wondering if you actually believe a theocracy is a good thing?

[TurtleBurger]

The gnostics were declared heretics by "god's representatives" on earth. The same people who gave you the bible declared any who saw Jesus' humanity as seperate from his spirit self was a blasphemer.
I guess the people who created the bible didn't really have a good grasp of what god wanted.

God's representatives have always believed in the two natures of Christ. The Gnostics didn't believe in a physical Jesus.

[torchbearer]

lol.

So Theocrat, based on your username I'm wondering if you actually believe a theocracy is a good thing?

let me answer that- yes.
and capital death for ******s.

[torchbearer]

God's representatives have always believed in the two natures of Christ. The Gnostics didn't believe in a physical Jesus.

The gnostics believed in a seperation of spirit body and physical body.
They believed that jesus had two seperate bodies. They believed that the physical body was corrupt and evil.
I suggest you go back a reread the literature on the gnostic movement.

[Theocrat]

The gnostics were declared heretics by "god's representatives" on earth. The same people who gave you the bible declared any who saw Jesus' humanity as seperate from his spirit self was a blasphemer.
I guess the people who created the bible didn't really have a good grasp of what god wanted.

The Gnostics were declared heretics by the Church because they were not true to the Bible's testimony about the union of the distinct natures of Christ. The Church should never suffer heresy, and they did the right thing in condemning the beliefs of the Gnostics.

[Theocrat]

lol.

So Theocrat, based on your username I'm wondering if you actually believe a theocracy is a good thing?

Yes, but I don't see how that is relevant to my post. :confused:

[sevin]

Yes, but I don't see how that is relevant to my post. :confused:

Nothing to do with your post. I was just wondering.

And really? REALLY? So I suppose you'd be happy with a government packed with Christians who write laws based on how they interpret the bible?

[TurtleBurger]

Gnostics believed that "Jesus" either possessed (in the same sense as demonic possession) a human body, or that he created the illusion of having a human body. Either way, the true "Jesus" was not a physical being.

[ClayTrainor]

lol.

So Theocrat, based on your username I'm wondering if you actually believe a theocracy is a good thing?

Yes, he does, and i've almost felt sick to my stomach from some of the violent arguments he's made on this forum.


I would not support punishing homosexuality on a federal level, but I would support it on a state and local level.


and when he refers to punishing them, he's referring to capital punishment. He wants them dead.

If this guy ever gets into public office, i recommend we all rise up, and take him down.

[Theocrat]

Nothing to do with your post. I was just wondering.

And really? REALLY? So I suppose you'd be happy with a government packed with Christians who write laws based on how they interpret the bible?

The rule of law necessitates the rule of God. God's rule is revealed in His word.

[sevin]

The rule of law necessitates the rule of God. God's rule is revealed in His word.

What if the Koran is his word?

[torchbearer]

Gnostics believed that "Jesus" either possessed (in the same sense as demonic possession) a human body, or that he created the illusion of having a human body. Either way, the true "Jesus" was not a physical being.

and if you look at how they viewed humanity, they believed our physical and spiritual bodies were completely separate.
You can say they originated the self-hating philosophy of all flesh being evil, thus we must have a separate untainted self.
In their mind- how could Jesus be both corrupt and holy? so they separated the two.
And when it came time to put the bible together, guess which books were excluded?

[Theocrat]

Yes, he does, and i've almost felt sick to my stomach from some of the violent arguments he's made on this forum.





and when he refers to punishing them, he's referring to capital punishment. He wants them dead.

If this guy ever gets into public office, i recommend we all rise up, and take him down.

You obviously do not understand how laws were formed and instituted in our early republic, especially sodomy laws. So before you judge my views incorrectly, I suggest you do some research on what it is you're criticizing as "violent."

Your calling people to rise up and take me down is an act of violence itself. However, capital justice is not violence. It is righteous, whether humanists like you agree with it or not.

[TurtleBurger]

and if you look at how they viewed humanity, they believed our physical and spiritual bodies were completely separate.
You can say they originated the self-hating philosophy of all flesh being evil, thus we must have a separate untainted self.
In their mind- how could Jesus be both corrupt and holy? so they separated the two.
And when it came time to put the bible together, guess which books were excluded?

99.999999% of books in existence at that time were excluded. The compilers were under no obligation to include any books that didn't agree with their theology, just because the books claimed to be about Jesus.

[torchbearer]

99.999999% of books in existence at that time were excluded. The compilers were under no obligation to include any books that didn't agree with their theology, just because the books claimed to be about Jesus.

the gnostics were kept out for political reasons, stop denying the facts that are there.
Their priest weren't invited, and their ideas branded heresy by another political religious group who won out.
There were a 1000 variations of what/who Jesus was- in the Bible you get the equivalent of the "neocon" version of the iraq war.
To dismiss the facts is just trying to keep your house of cards standing.

[Theocrat]

What if the Koran is his word?

It's not. What good has the Koran brought to this world? Look at the nations where the Koran has been the basis for constructing society. They are filled with terror, poverty, and tyranny.

[TurtleBurger]

the gnostics were kept out for political reasons, stop denying the facts that are there.
Their priest weren't invited, and their ideas branded heresy by another political religious group who won out.
There were a 1000 variations of what/who Jesus was- in the Bible you get the equivalent of the "neocon" version of the iraq war.
To dismiss the facts is just trying to keep your house of cards standing.

The Catholics chose Catholic books to put in the Bible, not Gnostic books. It would make no sense to put Gnostic books in a Catholic Bible. The Gnostics were free to put together their own canon if they felt it necessary to do so, but for whatever reason they chose not to.

[TortoiseDream]

It's not. What good has the Koran brought to this world? Look at the nations where the Koran has been the basis for constructing society. They are filled with terror, poverty, and tyranny.

Explain to me the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? Quite barbaric if you ask me.

[sevin]

Explain to me the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? Quite barbaric if you ask me.

what he said

[torchbearer]

The Catholics chose Catholic books to put in the Bible, not Gnostic books. It would make no sense to put Gnostic books in a Catholic Bible. The Gnostics were free to put together their own canon if they felt it necessary to do so, but for whatever reason they chose not to.

um, all these people were the christians of their time. Not one greater than the other- except for those who had political connection to the emperor.

[Theocrat]

Explain to me the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition? Quite barbaric if you ask me.

Yes, and they weren't based on the Bible, either.

[sevin]

So why are you a Ron Paul supporter, Theocrat? He certainly doesn't think a theocracy is the answer.

[JeNNiF00F00]

oh come on guys be nice! :)

[ClayTrainor]

You obviously do not understand how laws were formed and instituted in our early republic, especially sodomy laws. So before you judge my views incorrectly, I suggest you do some research on what it is you're criticizing as "violent."

you advocate the deaths of individuals, because they don't adhere to some book that was written by a man over 2000 years ago.


Your calling people to rise up and take me down is an act of violence itself.

Because you've already made clear your intent, to use state power to kill people for victim less behavior.



However, capital justice is not violence. It is righteous, whether humanists like you agree with it or not.

Im not a humanist, i actually stood up and clapped the day they hung Saddaam Huessein. I am against those who will kill others, who have done nothing wrong.

If you okay'd the killing of 1 single homosexual who did not commit any crimes other than being gay, than i would certainly advocate that people who believe in individual freedoms have no choice but to take you down, by whatever means necessary.

You are a truly evil fuck, i gotta say, and i don't care if i get banned for such an insult. You make me sick to my stomache, and you are the most illogical person i've ever talked to, on the internet and that's saying a lot.

[TurtleBurger]

um, all these people were the christians of their time. Not one greater than the other- except for those who had political connection to the emperor.

Catholics and Gnostics were never "one happy family". From my perspective, the gnostics tried to hijack Christianity and were rejected by the Catholics; no doubt the opposite is the case from the Gnostic perspective. Either way, they were never on the same team, and thus had no need to share a canon. The Catholics put their books in their own Bible, the Gnostics didn't make a Bible, so they got left behind by history.

[Theocrat]

So why are you a Ron Paul supporter, Theocrat? He certainly doesn't think a theocracy is the answer.

Congressman Paul believes in the rule of law. As I mentioned before, so do I. The rule of law comes from the rule of God as Creator over all governments. Therefore, no government can usurp His power, especially civil government. That's why I feel quite comfortable with supporting Congressman Paul in restoring just laws, limited government, and the preservation of God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which the civil government ought not to take away from nor assume upon its own citizens.

[sevin]

Congressman Paul believes in the rule of law. As I mentioned before, so do I. The rule of law comes from the rule of God as Creator over all governments. Therefore, no government can usurp His power, especially civil government. That's why I feel quite comfortable with supporting Congressman Paul in restoring just laws, limited government, and the preservation of God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which the civil government ought not to take away from nor assume upon its own citizens.

But how far do you take it? You think there should be freedom of religion? Do women have to keep their hair long? Should children be stoned for dishonoring their parents? Would you forbid businesses to operate on Sunday? The implications of what you suggest are very disturbing.

[TortoiseDream]

Yes, and they weren't based on the Bible, either.

They certainly thought so.

[ClayTrainor]

Congressman Paul believes in the rule of law.

For individuals, not collectivist christians, like yourself.
(Putting gays into a group that needs to be punished, is a collectivist vision)



As I mentioned before, so do I.

Not for individuals you don't.


The rule of law comes from the rule of God as Creator over all governments.
The rule of law is written by man, and so was the bible. The rule of law is based on inalienable rights for individuals.


Therefore, no government can usurp His power, especially civil government.
All you have to do is recognize that rights do not come from government, but your creator. We do not all need to read or adhere to the bible to understand that concept.

These concepts exist outside the bible.



That's why I feel quite comfortable with supporting Congressman Paul in restoring just laws, limited government, and the preservation of God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which the civil government ought not to take away from nor assume upon its own citizens.
You might feel comfortable supporting Paul, but he certainly would never support you. Ron Paul believes in individual liberty, not Religious Tyranny over homosexuals, and liberty for everyone else.

[Theocrat]

you advocate the deaths of individuals, because they don't adhere to some book that was written by a man over 2000 years ago.


Because you've already made clear your intent, to use state power to kill people for victim less behavior.



Im not a humanist, i actually stood up and clapped the day they hung Saddaam Huessein. I am against those who will kill others, who have done nothing wrong.

If you okay'd the killing of 1 single homosexual who did not commit any crimes other than being gay, than i would certainly advocate that people who believe in individual freedoms have no choice but to take you down, by whatever means necessary.

You are a truly evil fuck, i gotta say, and i don't care if i get banned for such an insult. You make me sick to my stomache, and you are the most illogical person i've ever talked to, on the internet and that's saying a lot.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but truth is truth. Morality is not some arbitrary convention of men which they can change just because they are uncomfortable with its precepts.

I've explained myself over and over and over again on these forums about the low probability that homosexuality has of being capitally punished in our current justice system. Many members like yourself continue to ignore that fact, and you persist in insults and attacking me all the more for my views. So be it.

I do not wish to get you upset about my views, but my conscience is bound to the Bible in all of its moral, judicial, and civil precepts. That is the nature of a theocrat. God rules supremely in all matters, and His say is the final word on the subject. I can do nothing more than submit to Him and trust in His wisdom. I do believe God has been more than merciful and patient with homosexuals in this age by not having them submit to capital punishment for their crime against nature. God is often gracious to His enemies.

But please do not hate me for believing what I consider to be true. I'd rather we be friends and walk side-by-side in restoring the principles which made our republic a success in its early days. If that will not suffice for you, then I'm sorry you feel that way. But I will not give up on what is true and moral, not for you, and not for anyone. Period.

[sevin]

hey what about my question?

[Theocrat]

But how far do you take it? You think there should be freedom of religion? Do women have to keep their hair long? Should children be stoned for dishonoring their parents? Would you forbid businesses to operate on Sunday? The implications of what you suggest are very disturbing.

Those are good questions, and all it takes is meditation, discussion, and wisdom to figure out how those issues can be dealt with in our republic. Admittedly, it will not be an easy task, and it wasn't easy for our Founders, either. I think the main point is determining the jurisdictional authority for legislating or implementing those items you've mentioned above. That is where it becomes critical in understanding the nature of family, church, and civil governments within a society.

[ClayTrainor]

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but truth is truth.

I agree, but you don't advocate truth.


Morality is not some arbitrary convention of men which they can change just because they are uncomfortable with its precepts.

And the bible does not represent my morality.



I've explained myself over and over and over again on these forums about the low probability that homosexuality has of being capitally punished in our current justice system. Many members like yourself continue to ignore that fact, and you persist in insults and attacking me all the more for my views. So be it.

What are you talking about? I'm speaking out against your advocation of using the state to kill people, who make personal choice. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, u have no right to use the state to Kill them!!!



I do not wish to get you upset about my views, but my conscience is bound to the Bible in all of its moral, judicial, and civil precepts.

You are not a free thinker, as you just admitted.


That is the nature of a theocrat. God rules supremely in all matters, and His say is the final word on the subject.
It's too bad you have to read words written by man, and can't prove that you've ever been in contact with this so-called "god" you speak of.


I can do nothing more than submit to Him and trust in His wisdom.
slave to a book...


I do believe God has been more than merciful and patient with homosexuals in this age by not having them submit to capital punishment for their crime against nature. God is often gracious to His enemies.

God created homosexuals too. He also creates homosexuality in other forms of nature. He also creates dirty sluts, who go around fucking every guy they meet.

These people aren't gods enemies, they are gods creation, whatever god may be.




But please do not hate me for believing what I consider to be true.

I hate you for advocating the death of individuals for making personal choices.



I'd rather we be friends and walk side-by-side in restoring the principles which made our republic a success in its early days. If that will not suffice for you, then I'm sorry you feel that way. But I will not give up on what is true and moral, not for you, and not for anyone. Period.

As you know, i am not an American and i have no real interest in your republic, although i do have admiration for it. I advocate individual freedom, and would prefer that the states just let us be. That includes homosexuals.

Until you retract and denounce your twisted views on murdering homosexuals, you are an enemy of mine, and a couple of my friends who happen to be gay. I wish to never get to know people like yourself, no matter how many things we have in common.

I do not make friends or alliances with evil.

[sevin]

Those are good questions, and all it takes is meditation, discussion, and wisdom to figure out how those issues can be dealt with in our republic. Admittedly, it will not be an easy task, and it wasn't easy for our Founders, either. I think the main point is determining the jurisdictional authority for legislating or implementing those items you've mentioned above. That is where it becomes critical in understanding the nature of family, church, and civil governments within a society.

I suppose we'll just have to trust that our leaders are men of god who will be so in tune with him that they will make the right decisions. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Catholics and Gnostics were never "one happy family". From my perspective, the gnostics tried to hijack Christianity and were rejected by the Catholics; no doubt the opposite is the case from the Gnostic perspective. Either way, they were never on the same team, and thus had no need to share a canon. The Catholics put their books in their own Bible, the Gnostics didn't make a Bible, so they got left behind by history.

there weren't only two groups.

[TortoiseDream]

You are not a free thinker, as you just admitted.

Right, this is probably the main disagreement I have with devout religious folk.


I do not make friends with evil.

I think you are being a little harsh. Theocrat has only said what he truly feels is right, and that is all you can ask of any man. You may not agree, you may find his views repulsive, but I think you should recognize that both you and he hold views that, in your own respective experiences, you believe are for the good of man (gosh this was an awkward sentence, sorry). Most of us here would find fascism to be a very repulsive political philosophy, but I do not doubt that a devout fascist would truly believe his views are for the good of man.

[Theocrat]

I agree, but you don't advocate truth.



And the bible does not represent my morality.



What are you talking about? I'm speaking out against your advocation of using the state to kill people, who make personal choice. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not, u have no right to use the state to Kill them!!!



You are not a free thinker, as you just admitted.


It's too bad you have to read words written by man, and can't prove that you've ever been in contact with this so-called "god" you speak of.

slave to a book...


God created homosexuals too. He also creates homosexuality in other forms of nature. He also creates dirty sluts, who go around fucking every guy they meet.

These people aren't gods enemies, they are gods creation, whatever god may be.



I hate you for advocating the death of individuals for making personal choices.



As you know, i am not an American and i have no real interest in your republic, although i do have admiration for it. I advocate individual freedom, and would prefer that the states just let us be. That includes homosexuals.

Until you retract and denounce your twisted views on murdering homosexuals, you are an enemy of mine, and a couple of my friends who happen to be gay. I wish to never get to know people like yourself, no matter how many things we have in common.

I do not make friends or alliances with evil.

Beat me up, if you must. I can take it. However, I hope we can come to a better understanding of what truth and morality are without the personal attacks and subjective insults towards my person. I don't think my beliefs warrant such behavior, even though you fail to objectively prove what evil is.

[TortoiseDream]

Beat me up, if you must. I can take it. However, I hope we can come to a better understanding of what truth and morality are without the personal attacks and subjective insults towards my person. I don't think my beliefs warrant such behavior, even though you fail to objectively prove what evil is.

Good and evil are the same thing!!!!!

[TER]

Gnosticism is a religious belief that predates Christianity and elements of it are found even now in various belief systems. It was considered heretical by the Church because it goes against the teachings of the Scriptures and the living witness of the Church. This was not a political phenomena, and attempts at describing it as such is ignoring history. It was an assault against Christ and His teachings as delivered and spread by His apostles, through word, letter, and martyr's blood.

Creation is not evil. God is not the source of evil. When God created the universe, He saw that it was good. Through pride and disobedience, sin entered into creation and the result is corruption, decay, death- all of which are unnatural. The human condition, nay, the entire cosmos, has been affected- down to the very quarks in our atoms. It is not the body that is evil, it is the sin and the effects of sin.

God, in His most greatest example of Divine Love, entered into this fallen state via the Incarnation of the Word of God in the God-man Jesus Christ. In His love, He condescended in order to heal our infirmities. He felt hunger to destroy hunger. He felt thirst to extinguish thirst. He felt pain, suffering, and death, so that He would destroy pain, suffering and death. He took upon Himself the sins of the world to do what no human could do- to bridge the gap that divided creation from its Creator. To heal humankind and re-establish loving communion between God and his most beloved children and offer those who believe to partake in the Divine Nature and find living springs of water- True Life, forever growing in the knowledge and love of the infinite God.

[torchbearer]

Gnosticism is a religious belief that predates Christianity

WTF? This statement in itself shows you are ignorant.
If Christianity is the belief that Christ in Lord, then how in the fuck did the Gnostics predate christ?
This has to be another "christian" fantasy I have yet heard.

[TortoiseDream]

I thought this was a thread about burritos? More eating, less talking, nom nom nom...

[TER]

WTF? This statement in itself shows you are ignorant.
If Christianity is the belief that Christ in Lord, then how in the fuck did the Gnostics predate christ?
This has to be another "christian" fantasy I have yet heard.

The Gnostic beliefs can be found in the ancient religions of Mandaeanism, Babylonian astrology, as well as in old Hellenistic, Syrian, and Indian religions.

[TER]

The idea that the material world is evil and is a burden upon the person is not something that arose out of Christianity. The Gnostic heresy of the first few centuries which developed and led many souls astray was a perversion of the teachings of Christ, completely disregarding His most awesome display of love- to enter into creation so that He might redeem it and heal it and all of us.

[sevin]

I thought this was a thread about burritos? More eating, less talking, nom nom nom...

Here you go...

http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/burrito_cr.jpg

[ClayTrainor]

Beat me up, if you must. I can take it. However, I hope we can come to a better understanding of what truth and morality are without the personal attacks and subjective insults towards my person. I don't think my beliefs warrant such behavior, even though you fail to objectively prove what evil is.

I'm not beating you up, i'm just not holding back on what i think of you...:)


Evil:
"that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" - Princeton University

It's not hard for anyone with a love for individual rights, to see how perverted your argument against homosexuality is. It is an evil, destructive argument.

[TortoiseDream]

Here you go...

http://blogs.menupages.com/sanfrancisco/burrito_cr.jpg

:eek: NOM NOM NOM NOM :D

[TortoiseDream]

Evil:
"that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" - Princeton University.

I think that is a pretty bad definition of evil, right there...

[Theocrat]

I'm not beating you up, i'm just not holding back on what i think of you...:)


Evil:
"that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" - Princeton University

It's not hard for anyone with a love for individual rights, to see how perverted your argument against homosexuality is.

Evil is that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune to whom? Humans? Animals? Insects? Plants? Bacteria? Also, why should the basis for what is evil in the entire universe come from Princeton University? Is evil objective or subjective?

[Oceania]

Theocrat, albeit your views are completely ass backwards, I greatly respect that you are willing to debate this stuff so often. For really it is pretty much an all against one battle here. And both of you theocrat and claytrainer....evil does not exist. Good and evil are based merely upon the perception of the individual.

[Oceania]

as far as stoning homosexuals in the bible it also says to stone liars. I guess for the first time in recent history we will have a shortage of lawyers....

[torchbearer]

as far as stoning homosexuals in the bible it also says to stone liars. I guess for the first time in recent history we will have a shortage of lawyers....

don't forget about stoning disobedient children too.

[Theocrat]

Theocrat, albeit your views are completely ass backwards, I greatly respect that you are willing to debate this stuff so often. For really it is pretty much an all against one battle here. And both of you theocrat and claytrainer....evil does not exist. Good and evil are based merely upon the perception of the individual.

Well, if morality is just relative, to you, then I guess you can't make any moral judgments against anyone nor anything. All you can do is state your opinion, but that is all it remains.

[Oceania]

Well, if morality is just relative, to you, then I guess you can't make any moral judgments against anyone nor anything. All you can do is state your opinion, but that is all it remains.

yes, that is all that anyone can do is state their opinion. You can defend your own moral position though and explain to others why you think theirs is incorrect.

[Oceania]

don't forget about stoning disobedient children too.

hmm no more lawyers or disobedient children....maybe this bible thing is on to something... ;)

[TortoiseDream]

Well, if morality is just relative, to you, then I guess you can't make any moral judgments against anyone nor anything. All you can do is state your opinion, but that is all it remains.

Your opinion is that the Bible is true.

[TER]

Evil has no existence in and of itself but rather is the separation of God, Who is the source of life. It is an emptiness and darkness. It is a lack of truth. Like being in a closed room with no windows and no light. The pitch darkness surrounds and the person lies in confusion and fear. The darkness exists because there is no light. If a candle was lit, the entire room can then be known, and the truth will be revealed, and no matter how much one may try, adding more darkness can not be achieved. This is why Christ said of Himself "I am the Light of the World". Through Him and Him alone will truth be revealed.

[Theocrat]

yes, that is all that anyone can do is state their opinion. You can defend your own moral position though and explain to others why you think theirs is incorrect.

To say that another person's opinion of morality is "incorrect" is to assume there is an objective standard of morality which can show that to be the case. You can't have it both ways.

[Theocrat]

Your opinion is that the Bible is true.

How do you know it's my opinion?

[Theocrat]

Evil has no existence in and of itself but rather is the separation of God, Who is the source of life. It is an emptiness and darkness. It is a lack of truth. Like being in a closed room with no windows and no light. The pitch darkness surrounds and the person lies in confusion and fear. The darkness exists because there is no light. If a candle was lit, the entire room can then be known, and the truth will be revealed, and no matter how much one may try, adding more darkness can not be achieved. This is why Christ said of Himself "I am the Light of the World". Through Him and Him alone will truth be revealed.

Amen!

[Oceania]

To say that another person's opinion of morality is "incorrect" is to assume there is an objective standard of morality which can show that to be the case. You can't have it both ways.

What if i say thing abortions are moral BECAUSE it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with a child as long as it is part of her. And then you say abortions are immoral BECAUSE you are destroying human life.

Both of us have different beliefs as to what we consider to be moral. There is no right or wrong here. The final answer to that question in terms of government action will depend on how many people hold each of those morals beliefs.

[TortoiseDream]

How do you know it's my opinion?

You're right, I don't know. Is it? I have only been reading your posts for the last few days...

[torchbearer]

I have only been reading your posts for the last few days...

consider yourself fortunate.

[Theocrat]

What if i say thing abortions are moral BECAUSE it is up to the woman to decide what she wants to do with a child as long as it is part of her. And then you say abortions are immoral BECAUSE you are destroying human life.

Both of us have different beliefs as to what we consider to be moral. There is no right or wrong here. The final answer to that question in terms of government action will depend on how many people hold each of those morals beliefs.

There is a right and wrong understanding of what is moral. It is based, not on either one of us, but on God's unchanging word. Morality, by nature, is not subjective. It is obligatory, not voluntary. There is right conduct, and there is evil conduct. That has to be determined by an ultimate authority, and that ultimate Authority is God, whether one believes in Him or not.

[Theocrat]

You're right, I don't know. Is it? I have only been reading your posts for the last few days...

The Bible is objectively true. It remains true, even if I don't believe it to be so. Were I to become an "atheist" tomorrow, the Bible would still be true. Its truth is not based on personal assent to its propositions and promises. It is based on the authority and verifiability of its own claims, both in immaterial realities as well as material phenomena.

[TortoiseDream]

There is a right and wrong understanding of what is moral. It is based, not on either one of us, but on God's unchanging word. Morality, by nature, is not subjective. It is obligatory, not voluntary. There is right conduct, and there is evil conduct. That has to be determined by an ultimate authority, and that ultimate Authority is God, whether one believes in Him or not.

Why should I believe God? "Because God said so" will not convince me.

[Oceania]

There is a right and wrong understanding of what is moral. It is based, not on either one of us, but on God's unchanging word. Morality, by nature, is not subjective. It is obligatory, not voluntary. There is right conduct, and there is evil conduct. That has to be determined by an ultimate authority, and that ultimate Authority is God, whether one believes in Him or not.

What is the purpose of having this divine authority telling us what is moral, when as individuals we are perfectly capable of figuring it out ourselves?

[TortoiseDream]

The Bible is objectively true. It remains true, even if I don't believe it to be so. Were I to become an "atheist" tomorrow, the Bible would still be true. Its truth is not based on personal assent to its propositions and promises. It is based on the authority and verifiability of its own claims, both in immaterial realities as well as material phenomena.

I knew you were going to say that.

Granted, one can have an opinion and that opinion can be correct. But nonetheless, you cannot deny that this is your opinion and others may not share that same opinion. Of course you believe your opinion is correct, otherwise it wouldn't be your opinion. We all understand that. But simply saying "I am right," or, "the Bible is right," in itself does not make you or the Bible right.

[torchbearer]

I knew you were going to say that.

People have scoffed at me for making such Behaviorist statements.

[Oceania]

The Bible is objectively true. It remains true, even if I don't believe it to be so. Were I to become an "atheist" tomorrow, the Bible would still be true. Its truth is not based on personal assent to its propositions and promises. It is based on the authority and verifiability of its own claims, both in immaterial realities as well as material phenomena.

do you take all of the bible as being literal? like the noahs ark and all that?

[tremendoustie]

Why should I believe God? "Because God said so" will not convince me.

Because it can be logically shown that the nonphysical exists, the most obvious example of this being our consciousnesses, or minds. Now, the question becomes, is the structure of the non-physical universe based on deterministic laws or randomness as we observe physically, another mind, or some combination thereof? I submit that thoughtful examination of the human experience, especially ones own, indicates the existence of a great mind, which may be called God.

[ClayTrainor]

Evil is that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune to whom? Humans? Animals? Insects? Plants? Bacteria? Also, why should the basis for what is evil in the entire universe come from Princeton University? Is evil objective or subjective?

I'm on team people, not team Christian or team bacteria.

Evil is objective and obvious. It's subjective in the sense that evil is only perceived to us, in the sense of evils against humans, since we are human, however that is our nature and i am on Team People, like i said. Your god and his rules are subjective.

I don't believe in Gods Rule, i believe in Individual liberty for all living humans, and those who impose on that are Evil. :)

[Oceania]

Because it can be logically shown that the nonphysical exists, the most obvious example of this being our consciousnesses, or minds. Now, the question becomes, is the structure of the non-physical universe based on deterministic laws or randomness as we observe physically, another mind, or some combination thereof? I submit that thoughtful examination of the human experience, especially ones own, indicates the existence of a great mind, which may be called God.

what about the human mind points to the existence of a divine being? I will admit there are aspects of the human mind that we do not fully understand, but filling in the gaps in knowledge with "God", is like filling them in with nothing at all. God is always the easy answer, but never the real one.

[TortoiseDream]

Because it can be logically shown that the nonphysical exists, the most obvious example of this being our consciousnesses, or minds. Now, the question becomes, is the structure of the non-physical universe based on deterministic laws or randomness as we observe physically, another mind, or some combination thereof? I submit that thoughtful examination of the human experience, especially ones own, indicates the existence of a great mind, which may be called God.

I'm still not convinced. It is not obvious to me that my mind is non-physical.

[anaconda]

Maybe Jesus is like Ron Paul: "I don't wanna be a savior who runs your lives. Or the economy! I wanna be a savior for the things I won't do..."

[tremendoustie]

what about the human mind points to the existence of a divine being? I will admit there are aspects of the human mind that we do not fully understand, but filling in the gaps in knowledge with "God", is like filling them in with nothing at all. God is always the easy answer, but never the real one.

Well, there really are two questions. Firstly, does the nonphysical exist at all? See this thread for some of my arguments on the matter -- I believe it logically must: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=179484

Secondly, assuming the nonphysical does exist, does its nature indicate a supreme mind? I believe it does, but I think this is a matter of evidence, and cannot be logically proven. If one accepts the existence of the nonphysical, with ones own mind as the first example, then there really are three types of causes in existence: minds, deterministic laws, and randomness (as in QM). I believe some fundamental longings of the human mind, as well as the near universality of morality are indications of the structure of the nonphysical, along with others.

This would require a fairly extensive discussion to cover, but for example, why would we have a fundamental desire for ultimate meaning or significance, if there is none? In a universe without light, no one wishes for it; in fact, the term "light" has no meaning at all. We don't have some irrepressable desire for a fifth dimension, nor can we even conceptualize it. It is not true that in order to concieve of something, it must exist. It is true, however, that in order to concieve of something it must either exist or be an extrapolation or conglomeration of things that do exist. This indicates that included in the nonphysical universe are ideas along the lines of right, wrong, purpose, perhaps beauty, etc. I think an organizing mind explains the existence of these concepts better than deterministic spiritual laws, and certainly better than randomness.

I also think familiarity with the spirtual, through prayer, introspection, etc, make it quite clear that it is not primarily deterministic, and the commonality of the human spiritual experience, in conjunction with its strong distinction from human character, indicates a single mind rather than a pantheism.

[anaconda]

I'm still not convinced. It is not obvious to me that my mind is non-physical.

Obviously the mind physical. It just doesn't feel that way to humans. As microprocessors evolve it will become more clear to people that our mind and conscience are physical manifestations.

This in no way undermines the profundity of life and the universe and spirituality in my opinion.

[tremendoustie]

Obviously the mind physical. It just doesn't feel that way to humans. As microprocessors evolve it will become more clear to people that our mind and conscience are physical manifestations.

Please examine the arguments I posted in the thread linked above. For starters:

Any physical object is completely explained by its physical characteristics. For example, if we suppose that a rock is purely physical, then I would be able to completely explain it by determining the nature and position (or velocity) of all its particles. There would be nothing further to say about the rock. Similarly, any physical attribute can be described in the same way. To be green is a physical attribute. It literally means that, in response to broadband light radiation, an object reflects mainly light of a green wavelength. All of this is, at least in theory, is scientifically measurable.

Yet, even in theory, I cannot use physical observations to prove whether or not you are self aware. Even were I able to determine the position and nature of every particle in your brain, I would not be able to determine your self awareness. I might conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but it would only be conjecture. The actual attribute of self awareness itself can literally only be determined by you -- only your self can know that it is aware of itself.

Since this is an attribute that cannot be determined even in theory, despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.

Yet, I know, by the unscientific observation of self examination, that I am indeed self aware. Thus, we have made an unscientific observation, to determine a non-physical, or, I would say, supernatural attribute (if one defines natural as it usually is defined -- the physical universe comprised of matter and energy).

[Optatron]

Are you talking about Jesus in His divine nature, or in His human nature?

he's not both at the same time?

[Oceania]

This would require a fairly extensive discussion to cover, but for example, why would we have a fundamental desire for ultimate meaning or significance, if there is none? In a universe without light, no one wishes for it; in fact, the term "light" has no meaning at all. We don't have some irrepressable desire for a fifth dimension, nor can we even conceptualize it. It is not true that in order to concieve of something, it must exist. It is true, however, that in order to concieve of something it must either exist or be an extrapolation or conglomeration of things that do exist. This indicates that included in the nonphysical universe are ideas along the lines of right, wrong, purpose, perhaps beauty, etc. I think an organizing mind explains the existence of these concepts better than deterministic spiritual laws, and certainly better than randomness.

I also think familiarity with the spirtual, through prayer, introspection, etc, make it quite clear that it is not primarily deterministic, and the commonality of the human spiritual experience, in conjunction with its strong distinction from human character, indicates a single mind rather than a pantheism.

Well as a species that can say "I am" we are always searching for meaning to our life, to answer "why am i?" That can be one answer as to why religion is a universal human element in all cultures. Also religion is a survival mechanism, so we evolved with it ingrained in our psyche.
God is kind of a last ditch effort, you are starving, you have no water, but you have something to live for....God. Just that little bit of hope can mean the difference between life and death.
Also, this "god gene" is not universally strong in everyone. Certain parts of our brains light up when we think about god or spirituality. We have even created a device to stimulate these areas of the brain called the "god helmet" strong believers will feel enlightenment or the illusion of "finding god" while atheists, who have a weaker spiritual section of the brain, will feel very little.
I see no purpose for a spirit since our brain can do everything our supposed spirit can do besides transcend mortality. I will read your previous post when i get a chance.

[Oceania]

Please examine the arguments I posted in the thread linked above. For starters:

Any physical object is completely explained by its physical characteristics. For example, if we suppose that a rock is purely physical, then I would be able to completely explain it by determining the nature and position (or velocity) of all its particles. There would be nothing further to say about the rock. Similarly, any physical attribute can be described in the same way. To be green is a physical attribute. It literally means that, in response to broadband light radiation, an object reflects mainly light of a green wavelength. All of this is, at least in theory, is scientifically measurable.

Yet, even in theory, I cannot use physical observations to prove whether or not you are self aware. Even were I able to determine the position and nature of every particle in your brain, I would not be able to determine your self awareness. I might conjecture that self awareness corresponds to a particular structure, but it would only be conjecture. The actual attribute of self awareness itself can literally only be determined by you -- only your self can know that it is aware of itself.

Since this is an attribute that cannot be determined even in theory, despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.

Yet, I know, by the unscientific observation of self examination, that I am indeed self aware. Thus, we have made an unscientific observation, to determine a non-physical, or, I would say, supernatural attribute (if one defines natural as it usually is defined -- the physical universe comprised of matter and energy).

As a human race we will never fully understand how the brain functions because the brain can not understand itself. The brain can understand the liver, the heart, the lungs, but not itself. I feel that writing off these unknown elements as "supernatural" is taking the easy way out. Cant you just say "I dont know". If something is unanswerable we tag it with supernatural, up until science figures out how it actually works. An example would be we used to think illness was caused by demon possession, we now know it is caused by microbes.
If by self awareness you mean free will. I have a hypothesis on that, once again, a hypothesis. I am not saying it is backed up by scientific fact so it is not as of yet proved true. But it seems to make sense. I dont believe that humans have free will. I believe that free will is just an illusion. If you think about it, everything you are doing at the moment, all thoughts going through your head, every movement, was caused by something that happened previously. We continually build upon past experience and stimuli. You do not have free will to decide something, your brain is deciding everything for you based upon what it already knows and the current stimuli. Now that is just an idea. I am not saying this is true, but to me it seems more reasonable than writing off free will to an invisible magical element in our brain.

[Objectivist]

They didn't have microwaves 2000 years ago silly.

Actually microwaves in small amounts come from the Sun, silly.

[pacelli]

Discuss ;)

I dunno, sweet Jesus is a nuclear physicist, so I'm guessing he can tolerate a little heat.

[TurtleBurger]

Those are good questions, and all it takes is meditation, discussion, and wisdom to figure out how those issues can be dealt with in our republic. Admittedly, it will not be an easy task, and it wasn't easy for our Founders, either. I think the main point is determining the jurisdictional authority for legislating or implementing those items you've mentioned above. That is where it becomes critical in understanding the nature of family, church, and civil governments within a society.

Meditation, discussion, and wisdom are not necessary in this case. You either accept the entire Law of Moses (kosher laws, animal sacrifices, and all) or you ignore the whole thing. If you cherry-pick the parts you like out of it, you become a slave to the whole Law (Gal 5:2-4). This is a strong thread through Paul's writings, especially his letter to the Galatians. As Christians, we are set free from the Law of Moses; there is no benefit in promoting the execution of homosexuals.

[Theocrat]

he's not both at the same time?

Of course He is. My point was to show that the answer to the OP's question will be different if we don't clarify which aspect of Jesus's nature we are referring to when asking if He can or cannot eat a very hot burrito. The correct answer, of course, is that neither microwaves nor burritos were invented during Christ's incarnation upon the earth, so it is an irrelevant question to begin with.

[Danke]

Actually microwaves in small amounts come from the Sun, silly.

I was referring to ovens.

[Theocrat]

Meditation, discussion, and wisdom are not necessary in this case. You either accept the entire Law of Moses (kosher laws, animal sacrifices, and all) or you ignore the whole thing. If you cherry-pick the parts you like out of it, you become a slave to the whole Law (Gal 5:2-4). This is a strong thread through Paul's writings, especially his letter to the Galatians. As Christians, we are set free from the Law of Moses; there is no benefit in promoting the execution of homosexuals.

Meditation, discussion, and wisdom are indeed necessary to determine the application of God's laws. That is what the kings in the Old Testament (such as Solomon) were called to do with the laws of Moses. Just read the Psalms or Proverbs, and you'll see that the writers in those two books often call upon God to grant them knowledge, wisdom, and understanding to live by and execute God's statutes.

I would have to disagree with you that Christians are set free from God's laws. We are delivered from the guilt and penalty of sin which the law brings (Romans 8:2), for no man is simply justified by keeping all of God's laws (Galatians 2:16). Without faith to God in keeping His commandments, possessing and doing the works of the law are nothing more than empty deeds. That is why no human can ever say that they are a good person because they do good works without believing in God. That, according to God, only condemns that person because the law shows that no man can keep it perfectly. In that case, it brings the knowledge of sin.

However, we are called to keep God's laws (both moral and civil) out of love towards God and our fellow man. If, as you suggest, the Christian is free from all laws in Christ, then it would make no sense for Jesus to instruct His disciples to love Him and keep His commandments (John 14). Also, nowhere in the New Testament are we told that the moral and civil laws of Moses were done away with. We are told that the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in Christ (the whole book of Hebrews), and accordingly, we no longer perform the sacrifices of animals as atonement for sin.

So, we are required to keep the whole of God's law in a more fulfilled and glorious way through Christ. The benefit of such things as the execution of murderers and sodomites is that it vindicates God's judgment of sin upon the earth, particularly those acts which He deems as abomination. He has given civil magistrates the authority to punish evildoers for the sake of praising the righteous. God's ways are higher than man's ways, after all (Isaiah 55:9).

[acptulsa]

I'm just being Biblical. :)

Oh, come on Theo. You're small-g gnostic as hell!

Um.... Sorry for the bad choice of words there... ;)

[tremendoustie]

As a human race we will never fully understand how the brain functions because the brain can not understand itself. The brain can understand the liver, the heart, the lungs, but not itself. I feel that writing off these unknown elements as "supernatural" is taking the easy way out. Cant you just say "I dont know". If something is unanswerable we tag it with supernatural, up until science figures out how it actually works. An example would be we used to think illness was caused by demon possession, we now know it is caused by microbes.
If by self awareness you mean free will. I have a hypothesis on that, once again, a hypothesis. I am not saying it is backed up by scientific fact so it is not as of yet proved true. But it seems to make sense. I dont believe that humans have free will. I believe that free will is just an illusion. If you think about it, everything you are doing at the moment, all thoughts going through your head, every movement, was caused by something that happened previously. We continually build upon past experience and stimuli. You do not have free will to decide something, your brain is deciding everything for you based upon what it already knows and the current stimuli. Now that is just an idea. I am not saying this is true, but to me it seems more reasonable than writing off free will to an invisible magical element in our brain.

I am not arguing based on the limitations of science, you are missing the point -- by its fundamental nature the attribute of self awareness is nonphysical. By self awareness I certainly do not mean free will -- I mean awareness of ones self.

Consider this for example: Suppose at some future date, you are lying in the ultimate medical imaging machine, which can completely determine the physical state of your brain at infinite detail, in real time. You may surmise that there would be a correlation between the physical state of your brain, and the internal state of your mind -- and you might be right.

But, you have just made a key admission. You have admitted that despite that perfect physical knowledge that the machine gives you, there are other attributes with which this perfect physical knowledge can be correlated -- namely, your internal observations. This is key -- according to a mechanical definition of the universe, there IS nothing other than the physical state. There should be nothing to correlate to -- once you know the complete physical state, you should know everything -- game over. The fact that you are now taking this perfect physical knowledge and trying to correlate it with something means you admit that there are attributes which are not physical.

Any attribute, in a mechanical universe, is literally defined by a physical observation or physical state. Yet, self awareness is not defined in this way, because quite simply, it is not a physical attribute. Any correlation between brain state and self-awareness which scientists "discover" would have to be based on taking a participant's word for it, which is baloney, since an automata could easily mimic these behaviors with no real self awareness at all.

[Theocrat]

Oh, come on Theo. You're small-g gnostic as hell!

Um.... Sorry for the bad choice of words there... ;)

I'm not gnostic at all, my friend. I believe in the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, as Jesus was called both "Son of God" and "Son of man" in Scripture. Gnostics, on the other hand, do not believe that such a union can exist between the divine and the material.

Besides, my question was stated tongue-in-cheek, anyway. The OP's question is obviously a spoof to mock previous threads.

[acptulsa]

I'm not gnostic at all, my friend. I believe in the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, as Jesus was called both "Son of God" and "Son of man" in Scripture. Gnostics, on the other hand, do not believe that such a union can exist between the divine and the material.

Besides, my question was stated tongue-in-cheek, anyway. The OP's question is obviously a spoof to mock previous threads.

That's big-G Gnostic, Theo. Small g-gnostic is the direct opposite of agnostic. The Gnostics may have tainted the meaning of gnostic by capitalizing it and using it as a name for themselves, but the meanings of gnostic and agnostic are still with us and still direct opposites.

And I'm keeping my tongue firmly in my cheek, too, on this one. O ha a ice ay, Eo.

[Kraig]

Theo what on earth do you do for a living? Are you a man or a woman?

[acptulsa]

What do you do for a living, Nosey Parker?

[Theocrat]

Theo what on earth do you do for a living? Are you a man or a woman?

:confused:

[TER]

Just to clarify for those who would mock Christ and His Church due to some statements in this thread which have been debated before ad nauseum, the execution of anyone, let alone because of homosexual acts, is anti-Christian and completely misses the Gospel message.

[Aratus]

Discuss ;)


J.C is said by sacred text to return. we are easily at the 2000+ year mark
concerning a calendar system. J.C if returning would be very much like the
way he was more than 2000 years ago when he walked, talked & preached.
if told that in our modern tyme, that you can cook frozen burritos in this
oven, and upon pushing a magical button combo, you eat a modern delicacy,
J.C would wisely tabulate this factoid and custom into the back of his mind.
yes... J.C upon being told the ground-rules, could zap a burrito, and if he be
kabbalistic, still... a zero or a point might be missed or added to if he's not exact.
he's more into WORD rather than the way we show numbers. a mistake could
have a 30 second zap becoming a 3 minute zap or vica versa! he EASILY then
could zap his burrito WAY TOO long, and if taking it out of the microwave by his
own hand, upon feeling its heat, he could drop the same on the floor, and as
we well know, his mommy often told him there is NO three second rule concerning
floors and ancient palestine. food gets dusty and grubby way faster than on our
overly hygenic modern floors. J.C then would sadly stare at the burrito on the
floor as his mother's wise words echo in his mind's eye. the cooling burrito is
now too dirty to eat, even though our floors are often spotless. he then has to
zap another burrito an' modify the time he imputs this time so it won't be so hot...

[heavenlyboy34]

Oh, come on Theo. You're small-g gnostic as hell!

Um.... Sorry for the bad choice of words there... ;)

I agree, but he'll never admit it. ;)

[PaulaGem]

The Bible is objectively true. It remains true, even if I don't believe it to be so. Were I to become an "atheist" tomorrow, the Bible would still be true. Its truth is not based on personal assent to its propositions and promises. It is based on the authority and verifiability of its own claims, both in immaterial realities as well as material phenomena.

In order to be "objectively true" the Bible must be proveable by physical means. Because the "truth" you claim is spiritually based it is illogical to even make the statement that the Bible is "objectively true".

In fact, the Bible proves itself untrue by internal evidence. The easiest way to understand this is a comparison of the biographical details of "Jesus" in the synoptic gospels. They contradict each other therefore the Bible can not be objectively true.

[acptulsa]

I agree, but he'll never admit it. ;)

How's about it, Theo? You willing to admit to being the polar opposite of an agnostic? Will you admit to knowing what you know?

Actually, with further research, I may have to retract. The only definitions of gnostic I can find are for other than people, or for adherents to Gnosticism. Theo isn't the latter, and is certainly a person. So, I humbly take back my earlier statement in light of official popular usage of the word in question.

[PaulaGem]

There is a right and wrong understanding of what is moral. It is based, not on either one of us, but on God's unchanging word. Morality, by nature, is not subjective. It is obligatory, not voluntary. There is right conduct, and there is evil conduct. That has to be determined by an ultimate authority, and that ultimate Authority is God, whether one believes in Him or not.

God is the ultimate Good or Truth. He does not hold humans to that standard, so morality is even subjective in God's eyes.

God expects each of us to try, to learn, to do the best we can. We are either drawing closer to him or pulling away. That is the standard that God applies to the conduct of each of us.

If God were to apply a hypothetical God given moral standard to our lives we would all be screwed.


Romans 3: 23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.


MATTHEW 7:1-5:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."

[PaulaGem]

How's about it, Theo? You willing to admit to being the polar opposite of an agnostic? Will you admit to knowing what you know?

Actually, with further research, I may have to retract. The only definitions of gnostic I can find are for other than people, or for adherents to Gnosticism. Theo isn't the latter, and is certainly a person. So, I humbly take back my earlier statement in light of official popular usage of the word in question.

I am a gnostic Christian. I understand gnosticism to be a philosophy of religion and gnostic sects occur in all of the major religions.

A gnostic believes that there is a part of us that Knows or naturally interfaces with the One. The path to "salvation" is as simple as giving over to the Knowing and following the path that God would show you.

If you read the teachings of Yeshua (called Jesus by the religion that usurped his teachings and combined them with pagan Roman tradition) concerning the Kingdom you should note that he is speaking of something in the present tense and accessible in this life. He is not speaking of Heaven in the Judeo-Zoroastrian sense. He is speaking of gnostic recognition of God in the mind, heart, and life of the believer.

[PaulaGem]

I'm not gnostic at all, my friend. I believe in the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, as Jesus was called both "Son of God" and "Son of man" in Scripture. Gnostics, on the other hand, do not believe that such a union can exist between the divine and the material.

Besides, my question was stated tongue-in-cheek, anyway. The OP's question is obviously a spoof to mock previous threads.

The doctrine of the Trinity is Roman in origin and not part of the beliefs of the original Christian church. There is strong evidence that the original church, the church of "James", the brother of "Jesus", was a community of Jewish gnostics who rallied around the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. No more and no less.

Scholars find no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the original teachings of Yeshua.

[acptulsa]

Scholars find no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the original teachings of Yeshua.

He was pretty humble, all in all. Not one to give himself parity with God, to be sure.

[TER]

The doctrine of the Trinity is Roman in origin and not part of the beliefs of the original Christian church. There is strong evidence that the original church, the church of "James", the brother of "Jesus", was a community of Jewish gnostics who rallied around the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. No more and no less.

Scholars find no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the original teachings of Yeshua.

This is heretical in so many way...

[acptulsa]

This heretical in so many way...

Two thousand years later, more people have been ruined by outrage over 'heresy' than have been saved. Parents can relate to individual children each on his or her own terms. It's heretical in my mind to think that God can't do as much.

I don't care about offending your pastor, or mine, or the Pope either. I care about underestimating God, though.

[TER]

Two thousand years later, more people have been ruined by outrage over 'heresy' than have been saved. Parents can relate to individual children each on his or her own terms. It's heretical in my mind to think that God can't do as much.

I don't care about offending your pastor, or mine, or the Pope either. I care about underestimating God, though.

It is heretical to call oneself a Christian and deny the Holy Trinity. If Paulagem wants to believe and espouse such things, it doesn't make her heretical unless she also confesses to be a Christian.

And I would disagree with you that more people have been ruined by outrage over heresy than have been saved. It is the fight against heresy which has strengthened and maintained the truths of Christ through His Church, otherwise we might all be Arian, gnostic, or any other of the myriad heresies which have gone the way of the dodo bird. Heretical distorted teachings of Christ have been around since the day He walked on the earth, but it is in His Church that these truths are maintained through the Holy Spirit and 'the gates of hell have not prevailed'.

[Todd]

Congressman Paul believes in the rule of law. As I mentioned before, so do I. The rule of law comes from the rule of God as Creator over all governments. Therefore, no government can usurp His power, especially civil government. That's why I feel quite comfortable with supporting Congressman Paul in restoring just laws, limited government, and the preservation of God-given rights to life, liberty, and property which the civil government ought not to take away from nor assume upon its own citizens.


Christianity and Western Civilization are unimaginable apart from one another. All culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief. - Russell Kirk


I find it interesting that so many who defend the constitution and western ideals here forget that point above. I understand why some condemn all religion and mock people of faith. There are some pretty lame wrongheaded men that represent faith poorly.

But we seem to forget that we have all stood on the shoulder of giants in order to get here, Christianity being one of those giants. Whether you believe in God or not, who cares; but to deny one of the very foundation's as to why we believe as we do is the eipitomy of ignorance, and another reason why our country is in decline headed toward tyranny.

[acptulsa]

TER, you may be right. But as I recall, the Romans had a political problem in Israel--they couldn't crucify Jesus until they got the Rabbis to label him a heretic...

[satchelmcqueen]

They didn't have microwaves 2000 years ago silly.

i bet jesus did.

[PaulaGem]

This is heretical in so many way...

Heresey is simply not agreeing with the orthodox position. I refuse to participate in a 2000 year old fraud. If that makes me heretic, fine. It also makes me intellectually honest and not a slave of religion.

[Sandman33]

Good and evil most certainly does exist. And you know it inside. You cant PROVE it just like you cant PROVE God exists. But you know damn well it's there. And it's more important than anything that is tangible here.

You KNOW when you see someone get murdered that it's NOT good. You know when someone is getting raped and tears are rolling down their face that its NOT good...and watching the rapist actually enjoy someone elses misery is just plain evil and should be dealt with swiftly by good men.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

You all know this. Yet you sit here pondering the existance of God? Thats the ultimate in hypocritical futility.

[TER]

Heresey is simply not agreeing with the orthodox position. I refuse to participate in a 2000 year old fraud. If that makes me heretic, fine. It also makes me intellectually honest and not a slave of religion.

Rather, you make yourself a slave to your own mind.

[Sandman33]

Rather, you make yourself a slave to your own mind.

Like Matisyahu said:


Stripin' away the layers and reveal your soul
Ya gotta to give yourself up and then you become whole
You're a slave to yourself and you don't even know (You) Want to live the fast life but your brain moves slow
If you're trying to stay high, you're bound to stay low
You want God but you (can't/couldn't} deflate your ego
You're already there, then there's nowhere to go
You're cup's already full then it's bound to overflow
If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat
Ask Hasheem for mercy {and} he'll throw you a rope
(You're) lookin' for help from God; you say he couldn't be found
Searching up to the sky and looking beneath the ground
Like a King without his Crown
You keep fallin' down
You really want to live but can't get rid of your frown

[sevin]

Good and evil most certainly does exist. And you know it inside. You cant PROVE it just like you cant PROVE God exists. But you know damn well it's there. And it's more important than anything that is tangible here...

You all know this. Yet you sit here pondering the existance of God? Thats the ultimate in hypocritical futility.

This is very simplistic. Yes, I know damn well that good and evil exists, but proving it depends on one's definitions. Good and evil as I define them exist.

As far as the question of god, you think we're just supposed to "know it inside" that god exists? You're definition of knowledge is clearly not the same as mine. There is a difference between faith and knowledge, my friend.

And how can you call us hypocrites for not assuming something which is unprovable? Aren't you a hypocrite for requiring proof of everything except those things you "know inside."

You're just angry because we don't all believe what you believe. Get over it.

[Objectivist]

I talked to Jesus today up at the Mexican Restaurant and he said that if I put the leftover burrito in the microwave for more than 3 minutes it would be too hot to eat right away. Pedro agreed with him and told me to be careful with the microwave. Yummy burrito.

[Theocrat]

In order to be "objectively true" the Bible must be proveable by physical means. Because the "truth" you claim is spiritually based it is illogical to even make the statement that the Bible is "objectively true".

In fact, the Bible proves itself untrue by internal evidence. The easiest way to understand this is a comparison of the biographical details of "Jesus" in the synoptic gospels. They contradict each other therefore the Bible can not be objectively true.

You've missed the whole point. The Bible is a physical means by which God makes Himself known to mankind in a personal way.

Objective truth is not dependent on physical things, for objective truth is itself a non-physical entity. If there were no physical things in the universe, objective truth would still exist. You also need to recognize that your appeal to physical means as the basis for objective truth is not physical. I'd like to see you pour me a cup of objective truth. Or perhaps you can put objective truth on a scale and weigh it. No, objective truth does not operate in that fashion, so you're dead wrong to imply that objective truth is contingent on physical means.

For someone who calls herself a Christian, I find it difficult that you can be so while asserting that the Bible is itself untrue and internally inconsistent. To say that the "Synoptic Gospels" prove that because they each give different accounts of Jesus's life shows a lack of Biblical hermeneutics and study on your part. Each of the writers of the Gospels are illustrating for the reader a different characteristic of Jesus Christ, so they emphasize certain details of His ministry and life. Matthew's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a priest. Mark's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a prophet. Luke's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a king. There is no contradiction amongst those gospels, and all it takes it a Spirit-led and prayerful reading of the texts to see that.

[Theocrat]

God is the ultimate Good or Truth. He does not hold humans to that standard, so morality is even subjective in God's eyes.

God expects each of us to try, to learn, to do the best we can. We are either drawing closer to him or pulling away. That is the standard that God applies to the conduct of each of us.

If God were to apply a hypothetical God given moral standard to our lives we would all be screwed.

Spoken like a person who does not feed upon God's word. I wonder if you've ever heard of the Ten Commandments, because your sentiments above are crushed by the weight of such evidence to the contrary.

[Theocrat]

The doctrine of the Trinity is Roman in origin and not part of the beliefs of the original Christian church. There is strong evidence that the original church, the church of "James", the brother of "Jesus", was a community of Jewish gnostics who rallied around the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua. No more and no less.

Scholars find no evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity in the original teachings of Yeshua.

There is no proof of the Trinity in Scripture? Are you kidding me?

Genesis 1:26, 27
Matthew 3:16, 17
Luke 1:35
2 Corinthians 13:13
Psalm 45:8
Isaiah 61:1
Ecclesiastes 12:3
Malachi 2:10
1 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:7
Titus 3:5
Romans 8:9

How about the Nicene Creed? The Apostle's Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

I'm going to have to concur with TodaysEpistleReading by concluding you are a heretic. How dare you dirty the name of Christ with your lies by calling yourself "Christian."

[Sandman33]

This is very simplistic. Yes, I know damn well that good and evil exists, but proving it depends on one's definitions. Good and evil as I define them exist.

As far as the question of god, you think we're just supposed to "know it inside" that god exists? You're definition of knowledge is clearly not the same as mine. There is a difference between faith and knowledge, my friend.

And how can you call us hypocrites for not assuming something which is unprovable? Aren't you a hypocrite for requiring proof of everything except those things you "know inside."

You're just angry because we don't all believe what you believe. Get over it.


Im not angry at the ignorant. I can't show you tangible love or tangible fear. But I know they exist and I see how they effect people. I cant touch them or physically prove their existance but I certainly believe in them.

[PaulaGem]

There is no proof of the Trinity in Scripture? Are you kidding me?

Genesis 1:26, 27
Matthew 3:16, 17
Luke 1:35
2 Corinthians 13:13
Psalm 45:8
Isaiah 61:1
Ecclesiastes 12:3
Malachi 2:10
1 Peter 1:2
1 John 5:7
Titus 3:5
Romans 8:9

How about the Nicene Creed? The Apostle's Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

I'm going to have to concur with TodaysEpistleReading by concluding you are a heretic. How dare you dirty the name of Christ with your lies by calling yourself "Christian."


You're kidding, you gotta be...

I said the theachings of Yeshua, not the Bible the Romans edited 300 years later.

NICENE CREED? APOSTLE'S CREED? Roman dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of Yeshua.

Athanasian Creed - that' freekin' Episcopalian. You mean to tell me you believe there was an Episcopalian sittn' there taking notes while Yeshua was giving the Sermon on the Mount?


"Christ" isn't a name it's a title. Greek used to translate the Hebrew "mosiach". "Jesus Christ", is not a first name and a last name. It is the Greek version of "Yeshua" tacked on to the Greek version of "Mosiach", which means annointed of God.

Yeshua was a cool rabbi who taught Jews about universal teachings like the "golden rule". His teachings were similar to those of the rabbi Hillel who came a hundred years before.

These are historical facts, but I'm sure you're not ready to face them so continue on in your fantasy. Unfortunately, that fantasy is a device that "they" have used to enslave the masses for the last 2000 years. It is totally iconsistent with libertarian ideals of any sort.

Think of it as Illuminati pablum, or the "opiate of the masses".

[torchbearer]

You're kidding, you gotta be...

I said the theachings of Yeshua, not the Bible the Romans edited 300 years later.

NICENE CREED? APOSTLE'S CREED? Roman dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of Yeshua.

Athanasian Creed - that' freekin' Episcopalian. You mean to tell me you believe there was an Episcopalian sittn' there taking notes while Yeshua was giving the Sermon on the Mount?

shhhhhhhhh, don't disturb the Roman Catholic bible christians... and please don't remind them that the collection was furthur redacted later on.

[Theocrat]

You're kidding, you gotta be...

I said the theachings of Yeshua, not the Bible the Romans edited 300 years later.

NICENE CREED? APOSTLE'S CREED? Roman dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of Yeshua.

Athanasian Creed - that' freekin' Episcopalian. You mean to tell me you believe there was an Episcopalian sittn' there taking notes while Yeshua was giving the Sermon on the Mount?


"Christ" isn't a name it's a title. Greek used to translate the Hebrew "mosiach". "Jesus Christ", is not a first name and a last name. It is the Greek version of "Yeshua" tacked on to the Greek version of "Mosiach", which means annointed of God.

Yeshua was a cool rabbi who taught Jews about universal teachings like the "golden rule". His teachings were similar to those of the rabbi Hillel who came a hundred years before.

These are historical facts, but I'm sure you're not ready to face them so continue on in your fantasy. Unfortunately, that fantasy is a device that "they" have used to enslave the masses for the last 2000 years. It is totally iconsistent with libertarian ideals of any sort.

Think of it as Illuminati pablum, or the "opiate of the masses".

Like I've said, you're not a Christian if you don't submit to the inspired text of Scripture. Those who are Jesus's sheep hear His voice, and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. You seek to get your ideas and beliefs from the theories of men above the testimony of God's word, so I can't force you to be orthodox about the teachings of Jesus. The Bible is the standard for truth about Jesus, not you.

[PaulaGem]

You've missed the whole point. The Bible is a physical means by which God makes Himself known to mankind in a personal way.

Objective truth is not dependent on physical things, for objective truth is itself a non-physical entity. If there were no physical things in the universe, objective truth would still exist. You also need to recognize that your appeal to physical means as the basis for objective truth is not physical. I'd like to see you pour me a cup of objective truth. Or perhaps you can put objective truth on a scale and weigh it. No, objective truth does not operate in that fashion, so you're dead wrong to imply that objective truth is contingent on physical means.

For someone who calls herself a Christian, I find it difficult that you can be so while asserting that the Bible is itself untrue and internally inconsistent. To say that the "Synoptic Gospels" prove that because they each give different accounts of Jesus's life shows a lack of Biblical hermeneutics and study on your part. Each of the writers of the Gospels are illustrating for the reader a different characteristic of Jesus Christ, so they emphasize certain details of His ministry and life. Matthew's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a priest. Mark's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a prophet. Luke's Gospel focuses on Jesus as a king. There is no contradiction amongst those gospels, and all it takes it a Spirit-led and prayerful reading of the texts to see that.

Jewish tradition speaks of the "WORD" as that which eminates from God. It is also the force behind creation. When Paul referred to the "scriptures" he meant the Jewish scriptures, not the pseudo gospels that were edited a century or two afterward and added to the Bible created under the direction of the pagan emperor Constantine.

The synoptics contradict each other, they are not just "different". How can they agree on the teachings almost to the letter and then go in three different directions in the biographical details? Answer - the biography was overlaid on an authentic oral tradition or an actual "sayings gospel" similar in form to the Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi.

As far as "Spirit-led and prayerful"... I have been studying the Bible since before I could read (Sunday School). I have never renounced Christianity. My gnostic understanding came solely from reading the canonical scriptures, studying, and praying for understanding.

If I have somehow been misled by that evil "Satan" you believe in then Jesus is a liar and God is a fraud. Yeshua taught of a loving father that would not give his children a rock when they asked for bread. I have always sought after the Bread of Life, or Spiritual Truth. If God played a trick on me then Jesus was a liar. If Satan was able to get between me and God as I prayed and studied the Bible then God is a fraud and Bible Study is useless anyhow.

Five Gospel comparison link (http://www.utoronto.ca/religion/synopsis/) You will see that the sayings Gospel of Thomas has a great deal in common with the synoptics. That is supportive of my belief that there was a real Yeshua (Jesus). You will also see that somehow the Gospel of John is different. It is in the Gospel of John that I found the basis for my gnostic understanding of the ministry of Yeshua.

[torchbearer]

Jewish tradition speaks of the "WORD" as that which eminates from God. It is also the force behind creation. When Paul referred to the "scriptures" he meant the Jewish scriptures, not the pseudo gospels that were edited a century or two afterward and added to the Bible created under the direction of the pagan emperor Constantine.

The synoptics contradict each other, they are not just "different". How can they agree on the teachings almost to the letter and then go in three different directions in the biographical details? Answer - the biography was overlaid on an authentic oral tradition or an actual "sayings gospel" similar in form to the Gospel of Thomas from Nag Hammadi.

As far as "Spirit-led and prayerful"... I have been studying the Bible since before I could read (Sunday School). I have never renounced Christianity. My gnostic understanding came solely from reading the canonical scriptures, studying, and praying for understanding.

If I have somehow been misled by that evil "Satan" you believe in then Jesus is a liar and God is a fraud. Yeshua taught of a loving father that would not give his children a rock when they asked for bread. I have always sought after the Bread of Life, or Spiritual Truth. If God played a trick on me then Jesus was a liar. If Satan was able to get between me and God as I prayed and studied the Bible then God is a fraud and Bible Study is useless anyhow.

If you and Theo are both devout followers of the "word", and God wants both of you to know Him... then why is it that neither of you agree on who he is?

[PaulaGem]

If you and Theo are both devout followers of the "word", and God wants both of you to know Him... then why is it that neither of you agree on who he is?

Because I believe the O.T. scripture "Thy Word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee" describes a "Word" or emination from God that goes direct from THE ONE to ..... me... No stops in between, no book, no priest, no church.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're kidding, you gotta be...

I said the theachings of Yeshua, not the Bible the Romans edited 300 years later.

NICENE CREED? APOSTLE'S CREED? Roman dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of Yeshua.

Athanasian Creed - that' freekin' Episcopalian. You mean to tell me you believe there was an Episcopalian sittn' there taking notes while Yeshua was giving the Sermon on the Mount?


"Christ" isn't a name it's a title. Greek used to translate the Hebrew "mosiach". "Jesus Christ", is not a first name and a last name. It is the Greek version of "Yeshua" tacked on to the Greek version of "Mosiach", which means annointed of God.

Yeshua was a cool rabbi who taught Jews about universal teachings like the "golden rule". His teachings were similar to those of the rabbi Hillel who came a hundred years before.

These are historical facts, but I'm sure you're not ready to face them so continue on in your fantasy. Unfortunately, that fantasy is a device that "they" have used to enslave the masses for the last 2000 years. It is totally iconsistent with libertarian ideals of any sort.

Think of it as Illuminati pablum, or the "opiate of the masses".

I agree 100%, Paula. :cool::D

[TER]

You're kidding, you gotta be...

I said the theachings of Yeshua, not the Bible the Romans edited 300 years later.

NICENE CREED? APOSTLE'S CREED? Roman dogma that has nothing to do with the teachings of Yeshua.

Athanasian Creed - that' freekin' Episcopalian. You mean to tell me you believe there was an Episcopalian sittn' there taking notes while Yeshua was giving the Sermon on the Mount?


"Christ" isn't a name it's a title. Greek used to translate the Hebrew "mosiach". "Jesus Christ", is not a first name and a last name. It is the Greek version of "Yeshua" tacked on to the Greek version of "Mosiach", which means annointed of God.

Yeshua was a cool rabbi who taught Jews about universal teachings like the "golden rule". His teachings were similar to those of the rabbi Hillel who came a hundred years before.

These are historical facts, but I'm sure you're not ready to face them so continue on in your fantasy. Unfortunately, that fantasy is a device that "they" have used to enslave the masses for the last 2000 years. It is totally iconsistent with libertarian ideals of any sort.

Think of it as Illuminati pablum, or the "opiate of the masses".

You show yourself to be ignorant with your posts. It would be wise for you to stop posting nonsense and beginning learning the truth of Who Christ is. He is not a 'cool rabbi', He is the Son of God of which He said so Himself. If you do not accept this, then fine, best of luck with you. But do not claim to be a Christian and deny this, otherwise you are a fool and a liar.

First off, the name Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek word Ἰησοῦς which is itself a transliteration of the Hebrew-Aramaic word ישוע (Yeshua ). There is no confusion and no decieving going on other than you trying to invent some early Church conspiracy in name calling. Laughable attempt.

Secondly, the Nicene Creed, which is the Symbol of Faith for all Christendom did not spring up from nowhere or from some political movement. It was the teachings of Christ which were spread by the blood of the martyrs who testified that Jesus is the Son of God, risen from the dead. Or do you not believe Christ rose from the dead?

I'll stop here to see if you believe Jesus rose from the dead. I await patiently for your so called Christian response.

[PaulaGem]

like i've said, you're not a christian if you don't submit to the inspired text of scripture. Those who are jesus's sheep hear his voice, and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. You seek to get your ideas and beliefs from the theories of men above the testimony of god's word, so i can't force you to be orthodox about the teachings of jesus. The bible is the standard for truth about jesus, not you.

jesus is a fictional character. A Hebrew rabbi with a Greek name. This makes as much sense as saying "those who are Harry Potter's sheep hear his voice". There can be no TRUTH about a fictional character.

[PaulaGem]

He is the Son of God of which He said so Himself. If you do not accept this, then fine, best of luck with you. But do not claim to be a Christian and deny this, otherwise you are a fool and a liar.

Um, the diety thing is a Roman convention. Yeshua didn't really teach about it. There is a mention or two in the N.T., but legitimate (non church paid) scholars believe it was a later addition.




First off, the name Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek word Ἰησοῦς which is itself a transliteration of the Hebrew-Aramaic word ישוע (Yeshua ). There is no confusion and no decieving going on other than you trying to invent some early Church conspiracy in name calling. Laughable attempt.

There still was never a guy named "JESUS CHRIST".



Secondly, the Nicene Creed, which is the Symbol of Faith for all Christendom did not spring up from nowhere or from some political movement. It was the teachings of Christ which were spread by the blood of the martyrs who testified that Jesus is the Son of God, risen from the dead. Or do you not believe Christ rose from the dead?

Did you know that most of those martyred by the Romans were Christians who died for believing differently than the Roman Christians?



I'll stop here to see if you believe Jesus rose from the dead. I await patiently for your so called Christian response.

The mythology of resurrection is part of pagan myth that has been repeated againand again... The Greco-Roman "Jesus" was just given the traditional pagan hero's treatment.

Do you really believe a JUST AND LOVING GOD would change the rules and make salvation contingent on religious myth? Sorry, that makes Yeshua a liar. I can't go for it.

[PaulaGem]

First off, the name Jesus is a transliteration of the Greek word Ἰησοῦς which is itself a transliteration of There is no confusion and no decieving going on other than you trying to invent some early Church conspiracy in name calling. Laughable attempt.

Um - do you even know what a transliteration is? It is subsituting the letters of one language for the letters of another but trying to come up with the same sounds.

Ἰησοῦς = "Iesous" or "Jesus" currently in English that is a transliteration.

"the Hebrew-Aramaic word שוע (Yeshua )" = Joshua in English, that is a transliteration.

שוע (Yeshua ) is not a transliteration for Ἰησοῦς = "Iesous". It is the substitution of a familiar Greco-Roman form for an alien Hebrew one.

[TER]

Thank you for answering my question. You are obviously not a Christian, so please stop labelling yourself as such and/or speaking on behalf of Christianity.

[PaulaGem]

Thank you for answering my question. You are obviously not a Christian, so please stop labelling yourself as such and/or speaking on behalf of Christianity.

I am a Christian. Christianity is the cultural context of my Spiritual understanding. I have never renounced it, I have just gone more deeply into the history and the cultural context of Christianity and feel that I understand what it means to "follow Christ" better now than I ever have.

I will label myself as I wish to and continue to speak on behalf of Truth as revealed to me through the study of the Bible and history. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

[TurtleBurger]

Um, the diety thing is a Roman convention. Yeshua didn't really teach about it. There is a mention or two in the N.T., but legitimate (non church paid) scholars believe it was a later addition.

There still was never a guy named "JESUS CHRIST".

Did you know that most of those martyred by the Romans were Christians who died for believing differently than the Roman Christians?

The mythology of resurrection is part of pagan myth that has been repeated againand again... The Greco-Roman "Jesus" was just given the traditional pagan hero's treatment.

Do you really believe a JUST AND LOVING GOD would change the rules and make salvation contingent on religious myth? Sorry, that makes Yeshua a liar. I can't go for it.

You've repeated these conspiracy theories a lot of times, but never provided a shred of evidence. If you've had a personal revelation, great for you but don't expect anyone else to buy it just because the voices in your head revealed it to you.

[PaulaGem]

You've repeated these conspiracy theories a lot of times, but never provided a shred of evidence. If you've had a personal revelation, great for you but don't expect anyone else to buy it just because the voices in your head revealed it to you.

The language itself is evidence. The fact that we celebarate the birth of the "divine" on December 25 is evidence. The comparison link I gave about the Synoptics is evidence.

I'm not going to replay the whole thing because it's an obvious and well documented part of history and literature. The fact that you DON'T see it is because you've been working very hard at ignoring all of the evidence as it piles up around you. I can't change that and I'm not going to try.

[Working Poor]

I wish threads like this one would end....I don't think they contribute to our cause one bit. They always cause argument.

People looking for information coming here for the first time might not take us very seriously. I just don't see how it helps anything that we stand for.

[TurtleBurger]

The language itself is evidence. The fact that we celebarate the birth of the "divine" on December 25 is evidence. The comparison link I gave about the Synoptics is evidence.

I'm not going to replay the whole thing because it's an obvious and well documented part of history and literature. The fact that you DON'T see it is because you've been working very hard at ignoring all of the evidence as it piles up around you. I can't change that and I'm not going to try.

If it's well documented, why haven't I seen it anywhere except in Gnostic conspiracy theories? The weight of evidence points to the Catholic church being founded by the apostles, and the Gnostics (who long predated Christ) tried to hijack Christianity. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a book debunking the Gnostics in the 2nd century, people agreed with Irenaeus, and the Gnostics went away in shame, although they popped up in various other guises such as the Manichaeans, which were again debunked by St. Augustine. Eventually Muhammed started Islam, and a lot of Gnostics found Islam to be more open to their wild ideas than Christianity was.

[tremendoustie]

Well as a species that can say "I am" we are always searching for meaning to our life, to answer "why am i?" That can be one answer as to why religion is a universal human element in all cultures. Also religion is a survival mechanism, so we evolved with it ingrained in our psyche.
God is kind of a last ditch effort, you are starving, you have no water, but you have something to live for....God. Just that little bit of hope can mean the difference between life and death.
Also, this "god gene" is not universally strong in everyone. Certain parts of our brains light up when we think about god or spirituality. We have even created a device to stimulate these areas of the brain called the "god helmet" strong believers will feel enlightenment or the illusion of "finding god" while atheists, who have a weaker spiritual section of the brain, will feel very little.
I see no purpose for a spirit since our brain can do everything our supposed spirit can do besides transcend mortality. I will read your previous post when i get a chance.

Of course there are correlations between mental and brain activity, there is no wall between them. It no more makes it an illusion than the fact that your brain reacts in a certain way when it eats makes food an illusion.

The former arguments show that the mind is non physical. Given that, examining the nature of the mind can give us a good indication of the nature of the non physical. For example, suppose that a student had percieved absolutely nothing other than mathematics, ever. There had been no input to his brain at any time of any nature other than math -- that was it. In that case, he would only be able to form mathematical statements -- there would be no way for him to conceptualize about a green bird, because in his universe both "green" and "bird" would have no meaning. If I had thought that a student had had absolutely no input to his brain other than mathematics, and he suddenly came out with a statement about green birds, I would immediately suspect that he had percieved something other than mathematics at some time.

1. In a purely deterministic universe, even if we could conceptualize and imagine, the things we could conceptualize and imagine about would be limited to the domain of our perceptions, and derivations from them. Thus, I could imagine or concieve of wild and crazy things, but they must all be derived from past observations, like the Cthulhu for example.

If you disagree with this premise, I challenge you to conceptualize something that does not exist in our universe, without basing it on something you have percieved. Please explain it to me, so that I can understand it, without basing your explanation on anything I already understand.

2. We observe that we are things we concieve of, and indeed desire that are not derivable from the physical, but would instead be gibberish in a deterministic universe, such as "purpose", "meaning", and "relevance".

3. Since there is no basis for these ideas in a purely deterministic universe, yet we have conceptualized them and can understand them, the deterministic must not be all there is.

So, not only does the non-physical exist, the non-deterministic does as well. The most fitting description of a non-deterministic and non-random organizing cause would be a mind. I really think this most accurately fits the human spiritual (or nonphysical) experience.

If you reject the idea of the nonphysical entirely, however, you should address the arguments in the link I posted, not those above. The arguments above are more relevant to a discussion of the nature of the nonphysical, once one agrees it exists, although I would say they represent a strong piece of evidence against materialism as well.

[Oceania]

Im not angry at the ignorant. I can't show you tangible love or tangible fear. But I know they exist and I see how they effect people. I cant touch them or physically prove their existance but I certainly believe in them.

belief is subjective, believing in something does not make it true. I believe all sorts of things just for the fun of it, but i dont go around touting it as truth. Truth is what is scientifically proven, nothing more. Everything else is merely possibility

[Oceania]

Just to clarify for those who would mock Christ and His Church due to some statements in this thread which have been debated before ad nauseum, the execution of anyone, let alone because of homosexual acts, is anti-Christian and completely misses the Gospel message.

I like you, thank god there is at least one moderately sane christian on here. Seem to be a shitload of fanatics.

[Oceania]

I wish threads like this one would end....I don't think they contribute to our cause one bit. They always cause argument.

People looking for information coming here for the first time might not take us very seriously. I just don't see how it helps anything that we stand for.

debate breeds thought

[Oceania]

holy shit, that thread had a lot of writing lol. I dont have time to read ALL of it but I did read a lot of it. I dont think you understand my view. I think that a nonphysical element to our brains is POSSIBLE. But because it is not prove I can not say it is truth. i will answer the questions in your previous post.




1. In a purely deterministic universe, even if we could conceptualize and imagine, the things we could conceptualize and imagine about would be limited to the domain of our perceptions, and derivations from them. Thus, I could imagine or concieve of wild and crazy things, but they must all be derived from past observations, like the Cthulhu for example.

If you disagree with this premise, I challenge you to conceptualize something that does not exist in our universe, without basing it on something you have percieved. Please explain it to me, so that I can understand it, without basing your explanation on anything I already understand.


I agree with you 100% and I am not sure why you would think that I would disagree.




2. We observe that we are things we concieve of, and indeed desire that are not derivable from the physical, but would instead be gibberish in a deterministic universe, such as "purpose", "meaning", and "relevance".

3. Since there is no basis for these ideas in a purely deterministic universe, yet we have conceptualized them and can understand them, the deterministic must not be all there is.



So i guess what you are trying to say is that abstract human concepts such as purpose, meaning, and relevance prove the existence of a nonphysical part of our brain. Purpose, meaning, and relevance are just linguistic tools for us to obtain information. But even beyond that, as I said before the non-physical is possible. But it is not proven, and is there for can not fall under the current definition of "fact".

[tremendoustie]

holy shit, that thread had a lot of writing lol. I dont have time to read ALL of it but I did read a lot of it. I dont think you understand my view. I think that a nonphysical element to our brains is POSSIBLE. But because it is not prove I can not say it is truth. i will answer the questions in your previous post.




I agree with you 100% and I am not sure why you would think that I would disagree.



So i guess what you are trying to say is that abstract human concepts such as purpose, meaning, and relevance prove the existence of a nonphysical part of our brain. Purpose, meaning, and relevance are just linguistic tools for us to obtain information. But even beyond that, as I said before the non-physical is possible. But it is not proven, and is there for can not fall under the current definition of "fact".

I don't think they're linguistic tools at all -- I think they describe a very important part of the human experience, perhaps the most important part. However, you can disregard this for the moment, and consider my argument regarding self awareness. Is this not the proof you refer to? This attribute is by definition non physical, therefore, the nonphysical exists.

[Oceania]

just because the product seems non physical does not mean that cause of it is. For example "happiness" is merely a collection of chemicals that create the illusion of this emotion. There is really no such thing as happiness, happiness is an illusion. Same with pain, anger, love, they are all illusions none of them actually "exist" they are just products of chemical and electrical interaction. The ability to say "I am" is not definitly caused by a non physical element, it is possible it is. But it is also possible it is caused by a series of electrical pulses, chemicals, and internal communication within our complex brains. I do not know, i am not a neurologist. And even if i was, i probably still would not know. We seem to be exiting the realm of science and theology and entering the realm of philosophy.

[tremendoustie]

just because the product seems non physical does not mean that cause of it is. For example "happiness" is merely a collection of chemicals that create the illusion of this emotion. There is really no such thing as happiness, happiness is an illusion. Same with pain, anger, love, they are all illusions none of them actually "exist" they are just products of chemical and electrical interaction. The ability to say "I am" is not definitly caused by a non physical element, it is possible it is. But it is also possible it is caused by a series of electrical pulses, chemicals, and internal communication within our complex brains. I do not know, i am not a neurologist. And even if i was, i probably still would not know. We seem to be exiting the realm of science and theology and entering the realm of philosophy.

Yes, of course, that's where this discussion must take place. Theology assumes you already believe in God, and science, by its definition, can't prove or disprove God's existence, or even provide evidence for or against it.

I think you still missed the point of the logic. In order for an attribute to be physical, it must be definable in terms of the position and nature of physical particles. A diamond, for example, is defined by a particular arrangement of physical particles of a certain nature. If one were to show that an object were comprised of that configuration of particles, one would have identically shown that it is a diamond -- because that's what the word "diamond" means.

According to a naturalistic view, the physical configuration should be the complete description in all cases -- that is, if all that exists is matter, a full knowledge of the material configuration of a system would be a complete knowledge -- there should be nothing left to know.

Yet, there is no such definition for self awareness, because self awareness describes the experience of the being in question, not its physical make up. Again, this should not exist in the materialistic view -- any attribute should be literally defined in terms of a physical make up. Self-awareness is not definable in these terms, therefore it is a nonphysical attribute.

Yet, it certainly is a real attribute. If we assume, as most of us do, that rocks are not self aware, then if we throw a rock there is no being experiencing being thrown. If rocks were somehow self aware like people, there would be. Again, science cannot differentiate between these two cases, because it concerns only the physical.

One might conjecture that the attribute of self awareness corresponds to a particular arrangement or behavior of neurons, but this would be only conjecture. Even if the ultimate goal of science were achieved, and perfect knowledge of the complete physical state of the brain were possible, it would not be possible to verify that the being is self aware -- one would have to be that being to do so. This attribute demonstrates that the physical is not all there is.

[Oceania]

I think the best thing to do here would be to agree to disagree haha. I am not sure how to debate this any further.

[tremendoustie]

I think the best thing to do here would be to agree to disagree haha. I am not sure how to debate this any further.

You could always admit that the premise that all that exists is matter is obviously bunk given the existence of a real attribute which does not describe the arrangement of matter ;).

C'mon, say it with me, "Self awareness is not a physical attribute, rather, it describes the experience of a mind". It's easy once you get used to it :)

Then, one can examine the nature of the mind for an idea as to the nature of the nonphysical. It's very freeing not having to jam the huge peg of all of existence into the narrow deterministic material hole.

[tremendoustie]

I do want to make it clear I am claiming a logical proof here, not stating an opinion.

I am not assuming that self-awareness is not caused by particles. I am saying that even if it were 100% caused by particles and perfectly correlated to certain brain structures, it would be a case of the physical causing a non-physical phenomena. The reason self-awareness is a non-physical phenomena, no matter its cause, is simply that literally its definition is not an arrangement of physical matter, it is an experience or perception. In the naturalistic view, there should be no such thing as an attribute describing anything other than the formation and behavior of matter -- there should be nothing to correlate to. Put another way, if all that exists is matter, a perfect theory describing the behavior of all matter should be a perfect theory of everything. Yet, even if such a theory existed, and all particle behavior in the universe could be perfectly observed and predicted, it would still require an additional theory (I use this term loosely here, as any such "theory" would be unprovable) to conjecture regarding the correlation between brain states and the experience of awareness, because the term "awareness" does not describe an arrangement of particles, but the experience of a mind.

[acptulsa]

I am a Christian. Christianity is the cultural context of my Spiritual understanding. I have never renounced it, I have just gone more deeply into the history and the cultural context of Christianity and feel that I understand what it means to "follow Christ" better now than I ever have.

I will label myself as I wish to and continue to speak on behalf of Truth as revealed to me through the study of the Bible and history. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

Christ is fictional yet you're a Christian? Bit too much of a disconnect for me.

If the people who wrote the gospels made Jesus up, where did they come up with all that wisdom? Nothing in any of their writing styles indicates to me that the writers themselves have anything like that depth...

If I were to work solely on hard evidence, I would be more likely to argue strongly for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than of God Himself.

[acptulsa]

I guess I'm playing DesCartes, here. He thought, therefore he was.

[PaulaGem]

If it's well documented, why haven't I seen it anywhere except in Gnostic conspiracy theories? The weight of evidence points to the Catholic church being founded by the apostles, and the Gnostics (who long predated Christ) tried to hijack Christianity. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote a book debunking the Gnostics in the 2nd century, people agreed with Irenaeus, and the Gnostics went away in shame, although they popped up in various other guises such as the Manichaeans, which were again debunked by St. Augustine. Eventually Muhammed started Islam, and a lot of Gnostics found Islam to be more open to their wild ideas than Christianity was.

Try reading Elaine Pagels. The Gnostics (note upper case "g") did not "go away in shame". They and many other Christian sects were martyred by the Romans and their gospels were destroyed.

People with a gnostic religious philosophy exist in all religions. They believe in a personal God who does not have to have a religion to make his presence known.

[PaulaGem]

Christ is fictional yet you're a Christian? Bit too much of a disconnect for me.

If the people who wrote the gospels made Jesus up, where did they come up with all that wisdom? Nothing in any of their writing styles indicates to me that the writers themselves have anything like that depth...

If I were to work solely on hard evidence, I would be more likely to argue strongly for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth than of God Himself.

I believe there was a real Hebrew rabbi named Yeshua. He was very charismatic and he taught about Spirit from a Jewish perspective. Many of his teachings echo the rabbi Hillel who came about a hundred years before.

He was probably executed for sedition by the Romans. They were pretty touchy at this time about Jews who taught that there was anything more powerful or more important than Rome. After he died, his followers carried his teachings on in oral tradition, they were largely illiterate and this was how it was done. They met in houses to share his teachings and remember the rabbi. They shared a communal meal and were an identifiable sub-group of Judaism, but they were still Jews.

The teachings of Yeshua became popular. They spread throughout the middle east and began to merge with other religious beliefs and as the "gospels" were written down they contained elements of other religions and biographical details were added to the gospels. These gospels were often attributed to one of the original disciples, but that was a common literary convention at that time.

The Gospel of Thomas from the Nag Hammadi is a book that the Romans would have destroyed if they got their hands on it. Competing versions of Christianity were not permitted and possession of other gospels was punishable by death.

The Gospel of Thomas closely parallels the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The synoptics themselves are believed to be based on a lost gospel named "Quelle" or "source" by the Germans in the 1800's. This is the only reasonable explanation for identical and nearly identical passages in the teachings and divergent and conflicting biographical details. Most Biblical scholars who are not dependent on a church for financing believe that this is historical fact.

Around 300 A.D. the pagan Roman emperor Constantine was losing his grip on the empire. Christianity was the most powerful religion in the Empire so he got together some bishops and told them they had to come up with a version of Christianity that would unite the Empire politically. That's why "Jesus" has to be a god just like Caesar and Hercules became gods, that's how Romans treated heroes. That's also why Christians celebrate the birth of "Jesus" on the traditional pagan date for the rebirth of the sun god and share many other myths and holidays with pagan Roman religions. The resurrection of the sun god is a common pagan myth. The gospels and religions that supported older, less Romanized versions of Christianity were outlawed.

So, I am a Christian who was brought up in the religion, has never renounced the teachings of Yeshua, but now understands the historic and cultural evolution of the religion and the Bible.

Try reading some Elaine Pagels or google "Historic Jesus" for more information.

[acptulsa]

I believe there was a real Hebrew rabbi named Yeshua.

Ah. Well, now, that's different. You threw me off for a second there.

So do the Muslims, by the way (but I'm betting you knew that). Of the three major religions of Allah/Jahweh/God, only Judaism rejects him out of hand.

[georgiaboy]

PG,

So you just pick and choose what you like from the Bible and other historical and religious writings, mash it together into your own philosophy, and then call yourself a Christian.

Thanks for the explain.


And btw, it isn't your own philosophy. It's a tired refrain that goes something like "Jesus was historical, was a great teacher and had much to share, but was not the single incarnation of Deity and 'only way to heaven' that 'fundamentalists' and 'zealots' would like us to believe".

No matter how you parse it, the writings in the gospels and the entirety of the Bible don't give wiggle room for that interpretation, so you're taking your life into your own hands by doing that. To quote another tired refrain, the Jesus of the Bible forces one to either call him a liar, a lunatic, or God incarnate. You've chosen liar I guess.

next.

[PaulaGem]

Ah. Well, now, that's different. You threw me off for a second there.

So do the Muslims, by the way (but I'm betting you knew that). Of the three major religions of Allah/Jahweh/God, only Judaism rejects him out of hand.

Not really. They reject the Roman doctrine that Jesus was God. Most educated Jews and Rabbis see the obvious parallels between the teachings of Yeshua and Hillel.

[PaulaGem]

PG,

So you just pick and choose what you like from the Bible and other historical and religious writings, mash it together into your own philosophy, and then call yourself a Christian.

Thanks for the explain.


And btw, it isn't your own philosophy. It's a tired refrain that goes something like "Jesus was historical, was a great teacher and had much to share, but was not the single incarnation of Deity and 'only way to heaven' that 'fundamentalists' and 'zealots' would like us to believe".

next.

Actually it's the refrain of Christians and others who have actually studied history and the Bible and come up with a rational understanding of both. It started by studying the teachings of Yeshua, much like Thomas Jefferson did, and it was confirmed by a study of history.

[georgiaboy]

Actually it's the refrain of Christians and others who have actually studied history and the Bible and come up with a rational understanding of both. It started by studying the teachings of Yeshua, much like Thomas Jefferson did, and it was confirmed by a study of history.

So do you believe in Satan, Hell, eternal salvation/damnation? Do you believe in an afterlife?

By what you've stated thus far, I can predict your answers, but just want to know where you stand without assuming too much.

[acptulsa]

And btw, it isn't your own philosophy. It's a tired refrain that goes something like "Jesus was historical, was a great teacher and had much to share, but was not the single incarnation of Deity and 'only way to heaven' that 'fundamentalists' and 'zealots' would like us to believe".

next.

I'll step up to that 'next'.

Jesus said, 'I am the Way and the Light. He who believeth in Me shall find Eternal Life.' He said this to twelve people who called him Teacher. What did he teach them? Among other things, that there would be two groups on Judgement Day--those who fed and clothed the destitute and those who didn't. No mention of 'those who hollered my name in every third sentence they spoke in life' or any other group or criteria. The Teacher illuminated the Way with His Light, and through this gift of His heart we know how to get Eternal Life. Through two millenia, the Official Churches have done all manner of things to make this simple fact complicated. But it's all there in black and white.

Any dogma that states that someone who was never taught about Jesus (and there are and have been billions) hasn't got a snowball's chance is pretty ridiculous in conjunction with a God of Love. Black and white thinking is awfully limited; look at those shades of gray in a newspaper wirephoto and you'll see millions of little black dots and white spaces. Life is like that--full of a billion variables--and none of us are Godly enough to keep track of them all. That, to my mind, is an excellent reason to obey God and leave the judgement to Him.

A hermit who had never lived within a hundred miles of a church died and went to heaven. St. Peter said, 'We want to make you comfortable, but I'm not sure where you'll fit in. Let's try Area One.'

So, the man went to Area One, which is where they put the Jews and their offshoots the Christians and Muslims. After a while, he came back to St. Peter and said, 'This is comfortable and wonderful, and I have no complaints. But I don't feel like I really fit in.'

St. Peter said, 'Well, let's try Area Two. This is reserved for mainly Eastern types, Buddists and Hindus and such. Might as well see if you like it better.'

After a while the man came back to St. Peter and said, 'Well, I'm sure it's my own fault, I was such a hermit. But I still don't feel like I fit in. I don't want to cause trouble.'

And St. Peter replied, 'Well, we can try Area Three if you like, but We really, really need you to try hard to fit in. See, Three is where we put the Baptists, and they think they're the only ones up here...'

Remember the Good Samaritan? He wasn't a Christian. Is he in Heaven? Jesus taught tolerance. I prefer to take that lesson to heart, myself...

[georgiaboy]

PG,

What do you do with the historicity of all the apostles, these Jewish citizens, voluntarily and peacefully submitting themselves to public ridicule, brutal torture, and execution, all for a rabbi who had some good teachings, yet they were executed because they would not simply renounce that this mere rabbi, with whom they had spent much of their adult lives, was in their eyes, God in the flesh?

Guess they were all crazy, too. /sarcasm

[acptulsa]

PG,

What do you do with the historicity of all the apostles, these Jewish citizens, voluntarily and peacefully submitting themselves to public ridicule, brutal torture, and execution, all for a rabbi who had some good teachings, yet they were executed because they would not simply renounce that this mere rabbi, with whom they had spent much of their adult lives, was in their eyes, God in the flesh?

Guess they were all crazy, too. /sarcasm

Maybe because, in those days, they'd have had to renounce God with him and pledge fealty to Zeus/Jupiter? No thanks.

[torchbearer]

Maybe because, in those days, they'd have had to renounce God with him and pledge fealty to Zeus/Jupiter? No thanks.

I thought Zeus was also a god?

[acptulsa]

I thought Zeus was also a god?

Zeus was the Greek name; Jupiter the Roman name for the same dude. He was the head of the motley crew on Olympus.

[torchbearer]

Zeus was the Greek name; Jupiter the Roman name for the same dude. He was the head of the motley crew on Olympus.

Could God and Allah be the names of the same god or a different group of deities?

[acptulsa]

Could God and Allah be the names of the same god or a different group of deities?

The prevailing Muslim dogma says they are the same; the prevailing Christian dogma says Allah is false. But both religions talk about Abraham; the Judeo/Christian texts then follow Isaac and the Quran follows Ishmael, iirc.

I say one and the same. But I've demonstrated above how much I respect the dogma of other mortals--as it makes sense to me, and no farther.

Budda here, Confucius there, Jesus in this neighborhood and Mohammad yonder. In an age when we had no clue how to pull off mass communications, what else is a God to do? And who are we to question His methods? I'm not saying all four are legit and divinely backed, though. I don't speak for God. I leave that to more foolish 'wise men'.

[georgiaboy]

Could God and Allah be the names of the same god or a different group of deities?

Names are irrelevant. It's the attributes of the deit(ies) and the accompanying teachings that's important, and therein lies the rub, because the competing worldviews are just that.

From the Happy Hunting Ground to Nirvana to Heaven to Hell to Nothingness -- there is an answer to all the questions.

[georgiaboy]

I'll step up to that 'next'.

Jesus said, 'I am the Way and the Light. He who believeth in Me shall find Eternal Life.' He said this to twelve people who called him Teacher. What did he teach them? Among other things, that there would be two groups on Judgement Day--those who fed and clothed the destitute and those who didn't. No mention of 'those who hollered my name in every third sentence they spoke in life' or any other group or criteria. The Teacher illuminated the Way with His Light, and through this gift of His heart we know how to get Eternal Life. Through two millenia, the Official Churches have done all manner of things to make this simple fact complicated. But it's all there in black and white.

Any dogma that states that someone who was never taught about Jesus (and there are and have been billions) hasn't got a snowball's chance is pretty ridiculous in conjunction with a God of Love. Black and white thinking is awfully limited; look at those shades of gray in a newspaper wirephoto and you'll see millions of little black dots and white spaces. Life is like that--full of a billion variables--and none of us are Godly enough to keep track of them all. That, to my mind, is an excellent reason to obey God and leave the judgement to Him.

A hermit who had never lived within a hundred miles of a church died and went to heaven. St. Peter said, 'We want to make you comfortable, but I'm not sure where you'll fit in. Let's try Area One.'

So, the man went to Area One, which is where they put the Jews and their offshoots the Christians and Muslims. After a while, he came back to St. Peter and said, 'This is comfortable and wonderful, and I have no complaints. But I don't feel like I really fit in.'

St. Peter said, 'Well, let's try Area Two. This is reserved for mainly Eastern types, Buddists and Hindus and such. Might as well see if you like it better.'

After a while the man came back to St. Peter and said, 'Well, I'm sure it's my own fault, I was such a hermit. But I still don't feel like I fit in. I don't want to cause trouble.'

And St. Peter replied, 'Well, we can try Area Three if you like, but We really, really need you to try hard to fit in. See, Three is where we put the Baptists, and they think they're the only ones up here...'

Remember the Good Samaritan? He wasn't a Christian. Is he in Heaven? Jesus taught tolerance. I prefer to take that lesson to heart, myself...

So are you saying that in your view, regardless of cultural or religious context, good people go to heaven, and bad people don't?

[acptulsa]

So are you saying that in your view, regardless of cultural or religious context, good people go to heaven, and bad people don't?

I have taken to heart Matthew 25:17. Read it yourself.

[georgiaboy]

I have taken to heart Matthew 25:17. Read it yourself.

Matt. 25:17 - So also, the one with the two talents gained two more.

http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&reference=mt%2025:17&translation=niv


??

[acptulsa]

Matt. 25:17 - So also, the one with the two talents gained two more.

http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=bible&reference=mt%2025:17&translation=niv


??

Sorry, I often do that. :o Stand by...

Make that Matthew 25:31-46. Guess I'm not too God-like...

[acptulsa]

Life is like that--full of a billion variables...

...and it's my personal theory that this is why the Bible is so light on absolutes and so heavy on parables. Everything has a context.

[TER]

Try reading Elaine Pagels. The Gnostics (note upper case "g") did not "go away in shame". They and many other Christian sects were martyred by the Romans and their gospels were destroyed.

People with a gnostic religious philosophy exist in all religions. They believe in a personal God who does not have to have a religion to make his presence known.

As spoken by St. Iraneaus, student of St. John the Beloved of Christ, in regards to the gnostics of his day:

"By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous opinions....

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."

These words apply to the Elaine Pagels of today as much as they did to the heretics of the first century AD.

[acptulsa]

"Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."

These words apply to the Elaine Pagels of today as much as they did to the heretics of the first century AD.

He could as (or more) easily be talking about the modern day proponents of socialism...

[PaulaGem]

PG,

What do you do with the historicity of all the apostles, these Jewish citizens, voluntarily and peacefully submitting themselves to public ridicule, brutal torture, and execution, all for a rabbi who had some good teachings, yet they were executed because they would not simply renounce that this mere rabbi, with whom they had spent much of their adult lives, was in their eyes, God in the flesh?

Guess they were all crazy, too. /sarcasm


Give me your historic source - but it must be outside of the control of Roman Orthodox tradition. I don't know of any. I also don't know of any texts that claim that "Jesus" was god in the flesh outside of the proto-orthodox tradition.


" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."

http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

The link above seems to concur with most of the reading that I have done. Of course, I do not do my research with scholars who are controlled by the church.

[PaulaGem]

As spoken by St. Iraneaus, student of St. John the Beloved of Christ, in regards to the gnostics of his day:

"By means of specious and plausible words, they cunningly allure the simple-minded to inquire into their system; but they nevertheless clumsily destroy them, while they initiate them into their blasphemous opinions....

Error, indeed, is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."

These words apply to the Elaine Pagels of today as much as they did to the heretics of the first century AD.

I believe that Ms. Pagels would respond as I do - "heretic" means someone who doesn't buy into the Roman con job - I'm proud to be a "heretic" in the eyes of those who can not see Truth.

[PaulaGem]

Maybe because, in those days, they'd have had to renounce God with him and pledge fealty to Zeus/Jupiter? No thanks.

The doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of "Jesus" was a Roman doctrine that came along hundreds of years after the teachings of Yeshua began to spread throughout the Empire and most of his followers thought of him as a Mossiach - anointed of God, but not equal to God. Many followers of Yeshua were martyred by Roman "Christians" because they refused to renounce the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua and place him equal to God, which was to them blasphemy.

[TER]

Give me your historic source - but it must be outside of the control of Roman Orthodox tradition. I don't know of any. I also don't know of any texts that claim that "Jesus" was god in the flesh outside of the proto-orthodox tradition.



http://www.christadelphia.org/trinityhistory.htm

The link above seems to concur with most of the reading that I have done. Of course, I do not do my research with scholars who are controlled by the church.

You reject what the Church has always believed but maintain the imaginations of the heretics. You trade the truth for the fashionable and are insulted that God would be incarnate as a male. The saints of the Church testify against you, the Scriptures testify against you, and the living witness of the ancient Church testifies against you. But than again, you call yourself a Christian, though you deny the Risen Christ. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Continue to spew your lies, you who makes your mind your God and the spurious and dubious writings (which were condemned by the whole of the Church centuries ago) as the source of your gnostic 'hidden' learning. You are a fool and liar to call yourself a Christian.

[acptulsa]

The doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of "Jesus" was a Roman doctrine that came along hundreds of years after the teachings of Yeshua began to spread throughout the Empire and most of his followers thought of him as a Mossiach - anointed of God, but not equal to God. Many followers of Yeshua were martyred by Roman "Christians" because they refused to renounce the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua and place him equal to God, which was to them blasphemy.

Ah, but the question was about the Apostles who knew him personally. The events you describe would have come later; during their lifetimes the Roman Empire was still clinging to the motley crew on Olympus.

[TER]

I believe that Ms. Pagels would respond as I do - "heretic" means someone who doesn't buy into the Roman con job - I'm proud to be a "heretic" in the eyes of those who can not see Truth.

And therein lies your weakness. Pride. The gnostics are well known for their arrogance and vanity of mind. The same way that satan fell, and Adam fell, likewise those who subscribe to vainglory will fall.

[PaulaGem]

As spoken by St. Iraneaus, student of St. John the Beloved of Christ, in regards to the gnostics of his day:




Today’s saint St Polycarp (ca. 69 – ca. 155) is a direct link between the Apostles and what we now regard as Catholic Theology.

Polycarp’s most famous pupil was St Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 202), who saw Polycarp as a direct link to the Apostles. Irenaeus sets great store by the fact that Polycarp had conversed with St John the Evangelist and with others who had seen Jesus, and that he had been converted by the Apostles before being consecrated as a Bishop and finally martyred.



http://joeversusthevolcano.blogspot.com/2009/02/polycarp-irenaeus-and-hermeneutic-of.html

[TER]

The doctrine of the Trinity and the deification of "Jesus" was a Roman doctrine that came along hundreds of years after the teachings of Yeshua began to spread throughout the Empire and most of his followers thought of him as a Mossiach - anointed of God, but not equal to God. Many followers of Yeshua were martyred by Roman "Christians" because they refused to renounce the teachings of the rabbi Yeshua and place him equal to God, which was to them blasphemy.

Lies! The epistle of St. Paul (or do you doubt his existence as well) was written at a time when confessing the Lord has risen from the dead would cost you your life. And in it, he writes very plainly, "If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain and we are the most pitiable of men" (1 Cor 15: 14).

The Christians, from the first martyr Stephen, to those who still risk their lives to confess this, are Christians. Learn the difference.

[acptulsa]

And in it, he writes very plainly, "If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain and we are the most pitiable of men" (1 Cor 15: 14).

And yet, even an athiest can benefit very materially from Jesus' teachings...

[PaulaGem]

Lies! The epistle of St. Paul (or do you doubt his existence as well) was written at a time when confessing the Lord has risen from the dead would cost you your life. And in it, he writes very plainly, "If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain and we are the most pitiable of men" (1 Cor 15: 14).

The Christians, from the first martyr Stephen, to those who still risk their lives to confess this, are Christians. Learn the difference.

And those documents were in the custody of the Roman Church. We do not have the original letters of Paul.

Here is an author with one theory about the "Apostle Paul":


The Falsified Paul: Early Christianity in the Twilight

Hermann Detering (Darrell Doughty, translator)

1995 (German), 2003 (English)

This book shows that all the Pauline letters are all 2nd-Century fabrications, Catholically redacted from Marcionite gnostic dualist-god original versions.

Available online as a 1.6 MB .pdf file at http://www.radikalkritik.de. Includes active Table of Contents in the Bookmarks tab.

This English translation of the book was an entire issue of the Journal of Higher Criticism: Volume 10, No. 2 - Fall 2003



The English version of this book can be found here. (http://www.radikalkritik.de/in_engl.htm)


If we apply the same standards to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient literary work we come up with way too much evidence of Roman tampering with the "good news" of the rabbi Yeshua.

[georgiaboy]

If we apply the same standards to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient literary work we come up with way too much evidence of Roman tampering with the "good news" of the rabbi Yeshua.

More lies. If we apply the same standards to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient literary work we come up with the most accurate, amazingly internally consistent, miraculously passed down and copied set of manuscripts in the entire world, in history, period. Sources abound.

It's amazing to me how tolerance is a word that applies to all faiths but the those who practice the Christian faith. Our doctrines are shredded, our histories re-stated, our documents poo-poo'd. Why? If tolerance is to be the norm, why not just say you don't believe it and move on, instead of having to try and mold it into something it is not, never has been, and never will be?

[Theocrat]

I believe that Ms. Pagels would respond as I do - "heretic" means someone who doesn't buy into the Roman con job - I'm proud to be a "heretic" in the eyes of those who can not see Truth.

You may be proud of your heresy, but you still are an enemy of Christ and His Church. You are not a Christian. The reason why God gave us a Bible is to distinguish His true sheep (those who follow His word) from the goats (those who do not follow His word). People like you were dealt with back in the first century by the apostles, and they, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, instructed God's people to flee from false doctrine (1 John 4).

Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the very manifestation of God (1 John 4:3; Hebrews 1:2), is not of God. That person is an anti-christ. They are preaching a different Christ, and therefore, a different Gospel. The apostle Paul even goes so far as to tell Christ's Church that if any person preaches a different Christ than that which was given by God through His apostles, let that person be accursed--damned to hell (Galatians 1:8, 9).

Paula, you are an anti-christ, and you are accursed. There is no other way to say it. You are of your father the devil because you lie about the true nature of God, in order to draw disciples after yourself. Other Christians on this forum see that in you clearly. Therefore, unless you repent and turn towards the true Gospel of Christ, you do not belong to Him. To put it in political terms, you are no more a Christian than Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian.

[PaulaGem]

More lies. If we apply the same standards to the Bible that we apply to any other ancient literary work we come up with the most accurate, amazingly internally consistent, miraculously passed down and copied set of manuscripts in the entire world, in history, period. Sources abound.

It's amazing to me how tolerance is a word that applies to all faiths but the those who practice the Christian faith. Our doctrines are shredded, our histories re-stated, our documents poo-poo'd. Why? If tolerance is to be the norm, why not just say you don't believe it and move on, instead of having to try and mold it into something it is not, never has been, and never will be?

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Have you compared the supposed biographical details of the synoptic gospels? They do contradict each other.


Papyri. We have one last category of N.T. manuscripts: the papyri. The papyri are so called because they were written on papyrus, and have been preserved for archaeologists in the dry sands of Egypt. Three of the earliest are P66, P46, and P52 (these are their code-numbers assigned to them by scholars for easy reference). P66 has 104 pages, and originally contained all of the gospel of John; now only John 1:1-6:11 and 6:35-14:15 remain. It was written about 200 A.D., within a hundred years of the death of its author. P46 is a very early manuscript that originally had ten of Paul's letters (Romans, Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians, all in that order), and it also dates from about the year 200. P52 is the oldest copy of any book of the N.T. that we possess. It is a manuscript of the gospel of John, written on pages only 2 1/2 inches by 3 1/2 inches wide, and only John 18:31-33, 37-38 survive. It was found in Egypt, over a thousand miles away from where this gospel was originally written, and it is dated to about the year 125 A.D. In other words, somehow a copy of John's gospel was made and brought to Egypt (or copied there) within a quarter century of St. John's death. Perhaps this was one of the very first copies ever made of that blessed gospel. P52 is also very good evidence for the traditional dating of the gospel of John at around the year 90 A.D. (Prior to this discovery many liberal scholars had doubted that St. John actually wrote this gospel, and thought that it had been written by someone else in the early church as late as l75-195 A.D. We can see that the discovery of P52 makes this impossible. Furthermore, the original gospel must have been written some years before P52 was copied in Egypt).

http://campus.houghton.edu/webs/employees/tpaige/TEXT.html

The above is from a pro-Christian source so it is the most favorable comment possible on the age of the "Bible". We have a gospel of John from approx. 125 AD but we only have John 18:31-33, 37-38 . The only other N.T. books or fragments we have date from 200 AD.

[PaulaGem]

You may be proud of your heresy, but you still are an enemy of Christ and His Church. You are not a Christian. The reason why God gave us a Bible is to distinguish His true sheep (those who follow His word) from the goats (those who do not follow His word). People like you were dealt with back in the first century by the apostles, and they, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, instructed God's people to flee from false doctrine (1 John 4).

Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, the very manifestation of God (1 John 4:3; Hebrews 1:2), is not of God. That person is an anti-christ. They are preaching a different Christ, and therefore, a different Gospel. The apostle Paul even goes so far as to tell Christ's Church that if any person preaches a different Christ than that which was given by God through His apostles, let that person be accursed--damned to hell (Galatians 1:8, 9).

Paula, you are an anti-christ, and you are accursed. There is no other way to say it. You are of your father the devil because you lie about the true nature of God, in order to draw disciples after yourself. Other Christians on this forum see that in you clearly. Therefore, unless you repent and turn towards the true Gospel of Christ, you do not belong to Him. To put it in political terms, you are no more a Christian than Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian.

I believe the Roman Church is the anti-Christ. They have replaced the good news that Yeshua taught about God's love and replaced it with a cult of death and demon (Satan) worship. Fearing the "devil" as much as many Christians do is a form of worship. It is wrong.

[Oceania]

I do want to make it clear I am claiming a logical proof here, not stating an opinion.

I am not assuming that self-awareness is not caused by particles. I am saying that even if it were 100% caused by particles and perfectly correlated to certain brain structures, it would be a case of the physical causing a non-physical phenomena. The reason self-awareness is a non-physical phenomena, no matter its cause, is simply that literally its definition is not an arrangement of physical matter, it is an experience or perception. In the naturalistic view, there should be no such thing as an attribute describing anything other than the formation and behavior of matter -- there should be nothing to correlate to. Put another way, if all that exists is matter, a perfect theory describing the behavior of all matter should be a perfect theory of everything. Yet, even if such a theory existed, and all particle behavior in the universe could be perfectly observed and predicted, it would still require an additional theory (I use this term loosely here, as any such "theory" would be unprovable) to conjecture regarding the correlation between brain states and the experience of awareness, because the term "awareness" does not describe an arrangement of particles, but the experience of a mind.

I am still not 100% grasping what you are trying to say here haha. If I see I am wrong I will definitely admit that I am wrong. Wait...I may have gotten some of it haha. So, you are saying that even if it was proven that something physical in our minds created "awareness" awareness itself is still a nonphysical concept. That is basically what you are getting at here yeah? You are also saying that awareness is not based upon things we have experienced on earth, the nonphysical god is based off our image of a human etc. Awareness is its own abstract entity separate from anything physical. Let me know if this is right, because I am just trying to understand what you are saying here.

[TER]

I believe the Roman Church is the anti-Christ. They have replaced the good news that Yeshua taught about God's love and replaced it with a cult of death and demon (Satan) worship. Fearing the "devil" as much as many Christians do is a form of worship. It is wrong.

What secret, gnostic chikanery! Now there is no devil! And somehow you know Christ taught there was no devil? Tell, what else Christ taught that somehow you know so well but millions of Christians through 2,000 years of unbroken tradition dont? do you seriously not see the error in your thinking? You put yourself above the saints of Christ? Those who lived virtuous lives and were martyred? The arrogance!

[acptulsa]

I am still not 100% grasping what you are trying to say here haha. If I see I am wrong I will definitely admit that I am wrong. Wait...I may have gotten some of it haha. So, you are saying that even if it was proven that something physical in our minds created "awareness" awareness itself is still a nonphysical concept. That is basically what you are getting at here yeah? You are also saying that awareness is not based upon things we have experienced on earth, the nonphysical god is based off our image of a human etc. Awareness is its own abstract entity separate from anything physical. Let me know if this is right, because I am just trying to understand what you are saying here.

I'd say you're getting a good handle on it. We're not billiard balls, acting only on Newton's Three Laws of Physics. Little more complex...

[Oceania]

I believe the Roman Church is the anti-Christ. They have replaced the good news that Yeshua taught about God's love and replaced it with a cult of death and demon (Satan) worship. Fearing the "devil" as much as many Christians do is a form of worship. It is wrong.

How about the fact you are all fighting vehemently over an invisible man in the sky. Calm down, you are both equally wrong and right in your views. This "I am so much better than you because" "my religion is the real truth because" is exactly why there are so many religious wars.

[Theocrat]

How about the fact you are all fighting vehemently over an invisible man in the sky. Calm down, you are both equally wrong and right in your views. This "I am so much better than you because" "my religion is the real truth because" is exactly why there are so many religious wars.

How can a person be "equally right and equally wrong" at the same time? Have you taken a course in logic?

[PaulaGem]

What secret, gnostic chikanery! Now there is no devil! And somehow you know Christ taught there was no devil? Tell, what else Christ taught that somehow you know so well but millions of Christians through 2,000 years of unbroken tradition dont? do you seriously not see the error in your thinking? You put yourself above the saints of Christ? Those who lived virtuous lives and were martyred? The arrogance!

You do know that the "devil" is a Zoroastrian concept, not a Jewish one, don't you? The character of the Jewish "Satan" was merged with the dark angel of Zoroastrianism to create the "devil". Most modern ideas concerning the devil and hell can be traced directly to Dante's Inferno, not the Bible.

[acptulsa]

What secret, gnostic chikanery! Now there is no devil! And somehow you know Christ taught there was no devil? Tell, what else Christ taught that somehow you know so well but millions of Christians through 2,000 years of unbroken tradition dont? do you seriously not see the error in your thinking? You put yourself above the saints of Christ? Those who lived virtuous lives and were martyred? The arrogance!

Easy, now. There are some awfully questionable activities in the two millenia of Catholic Church history. You seem to forget that humans are fallible sinners with Free Will. Mistakes have certainly been made. The tradition may be unbroken, but I don't see how you could claim it's completely untainted. Perguatory and the sale of time off? Come on now. And when did Torquemada ever turn the other cheek?

And she didn't say there's no devil (edit: Or is she? Well, yes, Dante has had a disproportionate influence, and little of his spiel is truly grounded in the Bible). She said sometimes people focus on the devil way, way too much. And I'd say she has a point--sometimes there's a kind of lurid fascination there that serves as a distraction from the pursuit of what is good...

Take it easy and don't let your buttons get pushed. Read what she says, and do her and God the service of trying to understand her before offering her councel, please. Not allowing an individual to ask questions along the road of his or her faith is behavior that only a Pharisee could be proud of.

[TER]

How about the fact you are all fighting vehemently over an invisible man in the sky. Calm down, you are both equally wrong and right in your views. This "I am so much better than you because" "my religion is the real truth because" is exactly why there are so many religious wars.

If PaulaGem wants to believe the things she does, than best of luck with her. I have no problems with her calling herself a Gnostic or anything else. She is free to believe the things she does.

BUT if she claims to be a Christian and yet denies the principle Christian witness, then she is a fraud and a liar and will be pointed out as such so as not to lead others into damnation.

[Theocrat]

You do know that the "devil" is a Zoroastrian concept, not a Jewish one, don't you? The character of the Jewish "Satan" was merged with the dark angel of Zoroastrianism to create the "devil". Most modern ideas concerning the devil and hell can be traced directly to Dante's Inferno, not the Bible.

Those who deny Satan's existence are the ones who have already been fooled by Satan.

[TER]

You do know that the "devil" is a Zoroastrian concept, not a Jewish one, don't you? The character of the Jewish "Satan" was merged with the dark angel of Zoroastrianism to create the "devil". Most modern ideas concerning the devil and hell can be traced directly to Dante's Inferno, not the Bible.

Wrong again. Have you read the Old Testament?

[Theocrat]

If PaulaGem wants to believe the things she does, than best of luck with her. I have no problems with her calling herself a Gnostic or anything else. She is free to believe the things she does.

BUT if she claims to be a Christian and yet denies the principle Christian witness, then she is a fraud and a liar and will be pointed out as such so as not to lead others into damnation.

PaulaGem is not a Christian, especially if she denies the testimony of the Scriptures about Jesus Christ in its totality.

[acptulsa]

Those who deny Satan's existence are the ones who have already been fooled by Satan.

I still don't think she really did that, Theo. Look, if I say to you, yes the Red Sea was parted as it says in the Bible, but it was just a tide going out and not a pair of raging walls of water as portrayed in the movie The Ten Commandments, would that be heretical? Well, Dante is as much backed up by the bible in the picture he paints as Hollywood was.

Please, people. Can we seperate what the Bible actually says from the assumptions that have been attached to it over the intervening millenia?


Wrong again. Have you read the Old Testament?

That was an opinion, TER. Can you cite me a chapter and verse that confirms Dante's Seven Circles? Dante has had his influence; thus far she's right. And I, for one, don't believe Dante had any divine insight.

It's a weak faith indeed that cannot survive the idea that this went down, yes, but didn't happen exactly the way one's Sunday School teacher made it sound like it did.

[Theocrat]

I still don't think she really did that, Theo. Look, if I say to you, yes the Red Sea was parted as it says in the Bible, but it was just a tide going out and not a pair of raging walls of water as portrayed in the movie The Ten Commandments, would that be heretical? Well, Dante is as much backed up by the bible in the picture he paints as Hollywood was.

Please, people. Can we seperate what the Bible actually says from the assumptions that have been attached to it over the intervening millenia?


Repeatedly, PaulaGem puts the words "devil" and "Satan" in quotation marks to signify that they don't truly exist. I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say PaulaGem denies the existence of Satan. She may correct me, if she likes, but until then, I believe she denies the real existence of the devil. And if she does, then she is in his very clutches of deception.

[PaulaGem]

If PaulaGem wants to believe the things she does, than best of luck with her. I have no problems with her calling herself a Gnostic or anything else. She is free to believe the things she does.

BUT if she claims to be a Christian and yet denies the principle Christian witness, then she is a fraud and a liar and will be pointed out as such so as not to lead others into damnation.

I am a Christian. I was born into the Christian faith and studied the Bible all my life. My theology is 100% derived from the Bible and the teachings of Yeshua as represented in the N.T. I had to ignore the stuff that didn't make sense and was self contradictory, though.

In 2000 I was conversing with some pagan folk on line and they said "Your're a gnostic." I hadn't even heard of the term, but when I investigated it, I had to agree.

So my gnostics belefs are 100% Bible and Spirit inspired. My study of the history of the Roman Church and how the Bible came together explains the "stuff" I had to ignore to get to the Truth.

I really don't see why I should call myself anything other than a gnostic Christian. Note the small "g" gnosticism as I understand it is not a sect or a religion.

[PaulaGem]

Repeatedly, PaulaGem puts the words "devil" and "Satan" in quotation marks to signify that they don't truly exist. I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say PaulaGem denies the existence of Satan. She may correct me, if she likes, but until then, I believe she denies the real existence of the devil. And if she does, then she is in his very clutches of deception.

I put those terms in quotes because they mean nothing without their cultural and literary context. The "Satan" of Job is not the "Satan" that has assumed the Zorastrian characteristics of the dark angel.

[Dr.3D]

Repeatedly, PaulaGem puts the words "devil" and "Satan" in quotation marks to signify that they don't truly exist. I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say PaulaGem denies the existence of Satan. She may correct me, if she likes, but until then, I believe she denies the real existence of the devil. And if she does, then she is in his very clutches of deception.

Just ask PaulaGem about the book of Job and who she thinks Satan is. She will claim Satan was acting as a servant of God in that book.

[acptulsa]

Just ask PaulaGem about the book of Job and who she thinks Satan is. She will claim Satan was acting as a servant of God in that book.

And for forty days in the desert, too. Furthermore, in both places he bears little resemblance to Dante's version. Yet many Christians do embrace the latter to no small degree. People are capable of being misguided. That's why we are warned against false prophets.

[Sandman33]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman33
Im not angry at the ignorant. I can't show you tangible love or tangible fear. But I know they exist and I see how they effect people. I cant touch them or physically prove their existance but I certainly believe in them.



belief is subjective, believing in something does not make it true. I believe all sorts of things just for the fun of it, but i dont go around touting it as truth. Truth is what is scientifically proven, nothing more. Everything else is merely possibility

So then you're going to sit here and say that love and fear don't exist because you cant phsyically touch them and arent tangible??:confused: This is exactly the core of Atheism right here.

I can't prove love to you but I can tell you that I became violently ill the last time I lost a relationship. I felt a pain worse than oral surgery and for 50 thousand times the duration as well.

Of course I cant PROVE that to you people that only view physical reality....but I can guarantee you it was there.

[TER]

That was an opinion, TER. Can you cite me a chapter and verse that confirms Dante's Seven Circles? Dante has had his influence; thus far she's right. And I, for one, don't believe Dante had any divine insight.

It's a weak faith indeed that cannot survive the idea that this went down, yes, but didn't happen exactly the way one's Sunday School teacher made it sound like it did.

Dante's Seven Circles is a great literary work of fiction but is NOT considered theological or doctrinal or anything else other than a person's personal description of hell. This has never been considered Scripture by any stretch of the imagination.

As for satan, the Book of Job mentions satan by name several times.

[PaulaGem]

How about the fact you are all fighting vehemently over an invisible man in the sky. Calm down, you are both equally wrong and right in your views. This "I am so much better than you because" "my religion is the real truth because" is exactly why there are so many religious wars.

No religion is Truth. Truth is of God, religion belongs to man. The Roman lies are the source of the "opiate of the masses".


John 8:32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

I believe in the corollary of that statement - If it doesn't make me free, it can't be God's Truth.

The Christian religion as taught by the Roman Church through the centuries was more often than not a tool to enslave. The Truth was in the teaching of Yeshua, not the doctrine of the church that was added on later.

[PaulaGem]

Dante's Seven Circles is a great literary work of fiction but is NOT considered theological or doctrinal or anything else other than a person's personal description of hell. This has never been considered Scripture by any stretch of the imagination.

As for satan, the Book of Job mentions satan by name several times.

Yes and if you talk to a rabbi about the book of Job he will explain to you that Satan was God's prosecuting attorney. He worked for God to test the faith of man. The book of Job was also a dramatic work, it is not historical in any sense.

[acptulsa]

The Christian religion as taught by the Roman Church through the centuries was more often than not a tool to enslave. The Truth was in the teaching of Yeshua, not the doctrine of the church that was added on later.

In this I am in complete agreement with you. I am Protestant through and through. God's word can stand protection from translation errors, granted. But to deny people access to it on that pretext is criminal. Yet the Catholic Church once did just that. The pope is a fallible human being. His every fart does not qualify as The Truth.

And you're right, TER, but I still maintain that Dante has had and still has quite an influence.

I also cannot for the life of me believe that one of the best religious discussions this board has ever seen was triggered by a damned frozen burrito!


The book of Job was also a dramatic work, it is not historical in any sense.

I certainly don't know how you can be so sure that it's parable, and not based in reality, myself. Yes the Bible is full of parables, but to blanketly say this or that didn't happen is a stretch. I will, however, concede that in the Year of our Lord 2009, the lesson is more important than the historical accuracy. Honestly; the Bible is there to help us whose salvation is yet up in the air, is it not?

[TER]

Yes and if you talk to a rabbi about the book of Job he will explain to you that Satan was God's prosecuting attorney. He worked for God to test the faith of man. The book of Job was also a dramatic work, it is not historical in any sense.

Interesting Christian you are. You deny the existence of Christ and get your information from a rabbi. Tell me, are you the only person in your church?

[Theocrat]

No religion is Truth. Truth is of God, religion belongs to man. The Roman lies are the source of the "opiate of the masses".



I believe in the corollary of that statement - If it doesn't make me free, it can't be God's Truth.

The Christian religion as taught by the Roman Church through the centuries was more often than not a tool to enslave. The Truth was in the teaching of Yeshua, not the doctrine of the church that was added on later.

Here is where you err again. The Christian religion did not originate from the Roman Catholic church. It originated from the testimony of the apostles, which came from the prophets and priests of the Old Testament, all of which points to Christ. The Roman Catholic church strayed far away from God's word and began teaching traditions of men. That is one of the reasons why the Protestant Reformation took place. It got Christendom back to the authority of God's word, not the Pope's decrees.

You keep making the false assumption that God's word is somehow tainted by man's efforts, but that simply undermines God's power to inspire and preserve His own writings. God is surely powerful and wise enough to do that in the providence of history, just as God is able to create and preserve His creation without man's interference. As I've said many times, you can't impose human frailties upon God's testimonies of Himself.

[PaulaGem]

.

Nonetheless, it seems reasonably clear that Zoroastrianism, not Christianity, originated not only the idea of paradise in the sense of heavenly reward but also hell in the sense of punishment. (The word paradise derives from a Persian term meaning hunting park.) What's more, Zoroastrianism seems to be the source, in outline anyway, of most Christian eschatology, or thinking about the last days. When you die, Zoroaster tells us, you're judged on the basis of your life conduct and either admitted to paradise or cast into the pit. At the end of the world the dead will be resurrected and the last judgment will separate the sheep from the goats, after which the chosen will enjoy eternal bliss. I should probably mention that while Zoroastrianism is not, strictly speaking, a monotheistic religion, a supreme deity named Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord") runs the show.

OK, so I gave Christianity too much credit. Still, it brought a new ingredient to the table, namely the element of faith as a prerequisite to salvation. Although Zoroastrianism offered a credo of sorts, I see nothing to suggest that one had to believe to be saved. Salvation was simply a matter of leading a virtuous life. Christianity, on the other hand, demanded faith first and foremost, typically professed in a public baptism, which marked your admission to the community of believers. Virtue alone couldn't get you into paradise--witness the virtuous pagans in Dante's Inferno, condemned to the upper reaches of hell.



http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2338/who-invented-paradise


"The prologue of 'Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Underworld' may contain the predecessor to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree not only contains a crafty serpent, but also Lilith, the legendary first wife of Adam. The huluppu tree is transplanted by Inanna from the banks of the Euphrates to her garden in Uruk, where she finds that:

...a serpent who could not be charmed
made its nest in the roots of the tree,
The Anzu bird set his young in the branches of the tree,
And the dark maid Lilith built her home in the trunk.

- Christopher Siren, "Sumerian Mythology FAQ" (Version 1.5html)

The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash. The root of the word are the Hebrew letters Nun, Het and Shin - "to guess". These letters are translated as "satan," which is often given the meaning of "enemy."

"The Aramaic satana (Satan) is derived from sta, which means to slide, to slip, or to miss the mark; and applies to one who causes these results."
- George M. Lamsa (translator), The Four Gospels : According to the Eastern Version (1933) p. 192

"As the arch-enemy of God and man who strives to thwart the purpose of God in the noblest of His works, we are familiar with Satan, the devil of the New Testament, Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno and Goethe's Faust , or Beelzebul ('prince Ba'al'), parodied as Beelzebub ('Lord of Flies') of Jewish apocalypic. As the fallen angel Lucifer of Paradise Lost , which is derived from 'the Bright One, Son of the Dawn', he is cast down from the zenith to the underworld."
- John Gray, Near Eastern Mythology

"Satan gained an established place in late Jewish and Christian thought to explain the sinister reality of sin and suffering in a world which faith believed to be under the wise and beneficent guidance of Almighty God. The conception of him in his dual aspect of the enemy of God and man and fallen angel may be traced back to origins in mythology."

"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I Yahweh do all these things."
- Isaiah 45:5

"Satan, in this character, is a late development in Judaism, not appearing until the Books of Chronicles in the third century B.C."

"Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."
- 1 Chronicles 21:1





"In the Book of Job God in His celestial assembly reviews mankind."

"One day the angels [Hebrew - 'the sons of God'] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan [Satan means accuser] also came with them.The LORD said to Satan, 'Where have you come from?' Satan answered the LORD, 'From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.'
"Then the LORD said to Satan, 'Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.'
"'Does Job fear God for nothing?' Satan replied. 'Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.'
"The LORD said to Satan, 'Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.' Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD."
- Job 1:6-12

"One of this assembly is 'the satan', who questions the disinterested character of Job's righteousness and is given leave to put it to the test. Here, in spite of English translations, the figure is not yet Satan the inveterate enemy of God and man. He is an executive of God, one of the 'sons of God', who combines the office of an intelligence agent, with a suggestion of agent provocateur and public prosecutor, as in the vision of the prophet Zechariah where the only suggestion of a sinister role is his excess of zeal."

"Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The LORD said to Satan, 'The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?' Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel."
- Zechariah 3:1-3

"This contrasts with the more positive role of executives of God in His purpose with man, which is played by personal angels who intercede for men in what we regard as a secondary elaboration of the Book of Job"
- John Gray, Near Eastern Mythology

Last two quotes from this source:

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/satan.html


I learned this from a rabbi who taught a course in the Old Testament as Literature in Translation at a public university in the early '70s. I have seen this argument repeated by every lucid Bible scholar I have ever read. It is history, it is not really up for argument.

[PaulaGem]

Here is where you err again. The Christian religion did not originate from the Roman Catholic church. It originated from the testimony of the apostles, which came from the prophets and priests of the Old Testament, all of which points to Christ. The Roman Catholic church strayed far away from God's word and began teaching traditions of men. That is one of the reasons why the Protestant Reformation took place. It got Christendom back to the authority of God's word, not the Pope's decrees.

You keep making the false assumption that God's word is somehow tainted by man's efforts, but that simply undermines God's power to inspire and preserve His own writings. God is surely powerful and wise enough to do that in the providence of history, just as God is able to create and preserve His creation without man's interference. As I've said many times, you can't impose human frailties upon God's testimonies of Himself.

And this is your error - the Bible was created on the orders of a Pagan Roman Emperor named Constantine by a council of Roman bishops at Nicea. They had to paganize the thing in order to get more of the mainstream Romans to buy into it.

The purpose of the book was not to be spiritually enlightening. It was devised to control the masses of the Roman Empire and used for the same purpose ever since.

[Freedom 4 all]

This is a really stupid question. It's actually been around for nearly 1000 years (although at the time it was "can God create a stone so heavy that He himself can not lift it.") Mathematically and logically this is impossible given the premise that God's creative and physical power are both infinite. Infinity equals infinity the same way 9=9, so it is equally absurd to say that God either could or could not create/lift the stone as to say 9 is somehow greater or less than 9.

[acptulsa]

Interesting Christian you are. You deny the existence of Christ and get your information from a rabbi. Tell me, are you the only person in your church?

Jesus was a rabbi. Where do you get your information? ;)

Jesus was not a Christian. As a man, He did not worship himself. Wouldn't have set a very good example if he did...


Here is where you err again. The Christian religion did not originate from the Roman Catholic church. It originated from the testimony of the apostles, which came from the prophets and priests of the Old Testament, all of which points to Christ. The Roman Catholic church strayed far away from God's word and began teaching traditions of men. That is one of the reasons why the Protestant Reformation took place. It got Christendom back to the authority of God's word, not the Pope's decrees.

And the Protestant movement, like the Reformation, is carried on by the fallible. And challenges and protests are an essential part of that continual reaching to better understand. Let's not repeat the mistake of burning at the stake anyone who makes us uncomfortable, not in our faith, but in our assumptions...

...especially unless and until you have it on Very Good Authority (i.e. burning bush type authority) that the person in question is not serving a Greater Plan in causing us to think more deeply!

[TER]

Jesus was a rabbi. Where do you get your information? ;)

He is more than that. ;)

[acptulsa]

He is more than that. ;)

Absolutely. But if God sends me true wisdom, I still refuse to turn up my nose at it because of my preconceived notions about the source. I don't expect great revelations from children, but if 'from the mouth of a babe comes a gem,' I do appreciate that gem.

[TER]

Absolutely. But if God sends me true wisdom, I still refuse to turn up my nose at it because of my preconceived notions about the source. I don't expect great revelations from children, but if 'from the mouth of a babe comes a gem,' I do appreciate that gem.

I would agree. There are shades of Truth in many places, in many religious beliefs throughout all of history. These fundamental truths should not be ignored or belittled. The Christian belief, however, is that the Truth is fully revealed in the Person of Jesus Christ. All the truth of the world is consummated in the God-Man.

Truth is not some abstract thing, a 'what' as it were, but rather a Who, and that Who is Jesus Christ Who states "I am the Truth, the Way and the Life".

[Sandman33]

Interesting Christian you are. You deny the existence of Christ and get your information from a rabbi. Tell me, are you the only person in your church?

SURE, It's easy to pick and choose what you like and dont like! Didn't you know that religion is like a pot luck? You don't have to eat everything...just pick and choose what suits you.

Murder? Well...its ok if someone insults your God but other than that you're going straight to hell.'

Adultery - Well....its never YOUR fault, always someone elses or you were seduced or drunk so Adultery is just MOOT I guess...I mean EVERONE does it so whatever.

Fornication? - AHAHAAAA...whats marriage anyway? Society tells me that I'm a freak if I don't seek fornication so your rule must be wrong.

Greed? - FUCK THAT! Get as MUCH as you can while you can and step on ANYONE in your way because they are going to step on you first if you dont.....RIGHT?

Lust? - Yeah...thats the best thing IN life right? Isn't that why we're here? To collect junk and fuck? Thank GOD for Viagra.

Gluttony? - Well...its fine if you're rich, otherwise being a glutton might hinder you in your quest for lust and fornication....so watch that one unless you're RICH.

Envy? - Well YEAH...thats just natural! Someone has MORE SHIT than you do and YOU deserve their shit! So GO GET IT!

Homosexuality? - Well only a twisted God would EVER make someone gay when sodomy is a sin! Lets just tell our kids its cool and teach them to experiment however they want with whomever. Maybe they will find they like it better! Who gives a shit about procreation and passing the families genes on for the future anyway?

Ok now that we've got most of the issues covered I think It's safe to say that anyone NOT following the exact opposite of Gods Law is EVIL, WRONG, and OPRESSIVE and should be dealt with accordingly...right? And SURE, you can still call yourself a Christian:D Its GREAT! In fact it's exactly the same philosophy of the Church of Satan if you look into it. So it doesent even matter! NOTHING MATTERS! YAAAY!

Thats pretty much the religion of today.

[acptulsa]

Thats pretty much the religion of today.

I've seen more than a little of that. This is the other reason I like to call people's attention to Matthew 25:31 (when I can remember the correct citation). Jesus is many things, but imo He is not a loophole.

[Oceania]

How can a person be "equally right and equally wrong" at the same time? Have you taken a course in logic?

A person can be equally right and wrong in something when there is no obtainable answer.

[Oceania]

Why do you guys give satan such a bad wrap lol. God has killed many more people than satan ever has. If i was to believe in this nonsense I would probably end up worshiping satan. ;P

[georgiaboy]

...especially unless and until you have it on Very Good Authority (i.e. burning bush type authority) that the person in question is not serving a Greater Plan in causing us to think more deeply!

(exerpt, emphasis mine)

PaulaGem is not asking us to think more deeply. She's openly and forcefully trying to undermine that which she claims to support, namely Christianity. It's the most forthright display of heresy I've ever witnessed.

So far, PaulaGem is systematically removing every pillar that forms the foundation of the Christian faith, yet continuing to say that she is a Christian, adjectives notwithstanding.

1. She denies the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
2. She denies the deity of Christ.

In addition,

3. She appears to be denying the existence of Satan and Hell.
4. She likely denies the atoning work of Christ and faith in this alone for salvation.

Why would a person claim to be something and then systematically try and redefine what the thing is? It's scary. Why can't PaulaGem just call herself a new age universalist, Gnostic Zoroastrianist, etc., and be done with it? Why insist on calling herself Christian when by any definition she denies what it represents?

It's exactly why I couldn't stand John McCain calling himself a Republican.

/over and out of this thread.

[Sandman33]

Why do you guys give satan such a bad wrap lol. God has killed many more people than satan ever has. If i was to believe in this nonsense I would probably end up worshiping satan. ;P

LOL:D

You already do.

[acptulsa]

It's exactly why I couldn't stand John McCain calling himself a Republican.

:D:D

Well, you have a point. But, one, if she wants to give Jesus credit where due for influencing her life philosophy with His teachings, well, who can blame her? And, two, I'll just bet your faith can withstand it...

[PaulaGem]

(exerpt, emphasis mine)

PaulaGem is not asking us to think more deeply. She's openly and forcefully trying to undermine that which she claims to support, namely Christianity. It's the most forthright display of heresy I've ever witnessed.

So far, PaulaGem is systematically removing every pillar that forms the foundation of the Christian faith, yet continuing to say that she is a Christian, adjectives notwithstanding.

1. She denies the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible.
2. She denies the deity of Christ.

In addition,

3. She appears to be denying the existence of Satan and Hell.
4. She likely denies the atoning work of Christ and faith in this alone for salvation.

Why would a person claim to be something and then systematically try and redefine what the thing is? It's scary. Why can't PaulaGem just call herself a new age universalist, Gnostic Zoroastrianist, etc., and be done with it? Why insist on calling herself Christian when by any definition she denies what it represents?

It's exactly why I couldn't stand John McCain calling himself a Republican.

/over and out of this thread.

Um - I specifically said I do not accept the Zoroastrian version of the dark angel that was grafted onto the Jewish concept of Satan. You really didn't read or think about what I said, did you?

I do believe in the good news of the Loving Father type of God that Yeshua taught about. I don't believe THAT God would restrict his favors to any particular religious group or change the "rules" about "salvation" in the middle of the game.

Roman Christianity introduced a false gospel - that we need "salvation" or "redemption" in the form of a blood sacrifice to come into God's favor. This is a pagan concept that is as old as the hills. It is also NOT a Jewish concept of the Mosiach. If the Roman "gospel" were true then it makes a liar out of Yeshua because it directly contradicts his good news - that God loves us all and all we have to do is "knock and the door will be openend".

It is this revelation about two conflicting "gospels" in the N.T. that started me on my road to gnosticism. I got there through Bible Study and prayer.

[Oceania]

I'd say you're getting a good handle on it. We're not billiard balls, acting only on Newton's Three Laws of Physics. Little more complex...

I agree that things are much more complex than either you, me, or anyone will be able to understand. If anything is to be revealed to us, it will be revealed at death. At death we will either learn everything or nothing. All current concepts regarding the "complexity" of human life are merely hypothesis. And all should be treated as such, equally probable outcomes, none of them solid. As far as awareness, and it being a non-physical element created by a physical element. What if this "non-physical element" is merely an illusion created by the physical element. If self awareness is such a non-physical element why are we able to alter it with physical chemicals?
Also, while i am thinking of it, for all you intelligent designers out there who think our brain is a perfect device. Albeit it is very complex, it is less efficient than most modern electronics. Our neurons transmit signals inaccurately more often than accurately.
I am just going to keep drifting off topic here lol, but on to another topic in this thread. The bible is merely a compilation of previous human beliefs. The flood story was ripped directly from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Jesus was taken from Egyptian mythology, the 10 commandments are a distilled version of Hammurabi's Code, it is too bad the authors of the bible didn't cite their references... Historically, the events in the bible are most likely accurate, but any "magic" is just recycled mythos from previous cultures. The Bible should be treated just like The Epic of Gilgamesh, or The Odyssey, or Beowulf, an epic with great enjoyable lessons. Worshiping the bible is equally idiotic as worshiping one of Hubbard's books. It is just a story.

[Oceania]

LOL:D

You already do.

lol me and satan. We go waayyy back! XD

[Sandman33]

it is too bad the authors of the bible didn't cite their references...

They did. You just choose to call them liars.

[Oceania]

They did. You just choose to call them liars.

oh yea...suppose they cited god....i give up lol you guys are like try to teach a lead pipe calculus

[tremendoustie]

oh yea...suppose they cited god....i give up lol you guys are like try to teach a lead pipe calculus

I would be much obliged if you would substantively address my arguments in the thread I linked to before calling me a lead pipe.

[dannno]

This thread made me think of this thread.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=222656

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

all this over a burrito?

[torchbearer]

all this over a burrito?

exercise of the circular argument.
someone must have gotten out of philosophy class and came to post this thread-

the original question i heard posed was - if god can do everything, can he create something so big he can't carry it?
the only answer to the question is- he can't do everything.
so you can shape a question in such a way that the only answer is the one you want. this is how you win debate like the Sophist. It does not mean you have revealed a truth.

[dannno]

someone must have gotten out of philosophy class and came to post this thread-



Nah, this thread was a joke thread based on another thread.. someone else will have to dig that one up..

The burrito joke comes from this very entertaining episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets a prescription for medical marijuana:

(Edit: Can't find a youtube, but it's called "Weekend at Burnsie's" if you want to download it)


We'll also provide you with a prescription bong. You want the wizard or the skull?

Ahh hehhh hehehehehhe..

http://www.newmediamedicine.com/forum/customavatars/avatar23917_1.gif

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

actually i was hoping for a burrito. poor and hungry here. anyone have the divine power to turn one burrito into 5000?

[torchbearer]

actually i was hoping for a burrito. poor and hungry here. anyone have the divine power to turn one burrito into 5000?

God provides. Just have faith.

[Bruno]

Nah, this thread was a joke thread based on another thread.. someone else will have to dig that one up..

The burrito joke comes from this very entertaining episode of The Simpsons where Homer gets a prescription for medical marijuana:

(Edit: Can't find a youtube, but it's called "Weekend at Burnsie's" if you want to download it)

I just might have to do that!

[Matt Collins]

http://3.media.bustedtees.com/bustedtees/mf/0/2/bustedtees.c9be0970b358f34c9e7aaa526a5d8b77.gif (http://www.bustedtees.com/jesusdf)