mayank, on Apr 21 2006, 07:22 PM, said:
I dont know why everyone over here is so much concerned about these religion things. I think religion's are there to help people in finding what is right and what is wrong and if I am correct every religion teaches one thing and that is PEACE and if everyone is teaching that then JOSHUA your point of mutually exclusive thingy is wrong because teachings of PEACE is not bad at all.
Secondly, why cant people just follow one religion and that is the religion of Humanity. I am Hindu but I have no problems in visiting a church or a mosque, I find same peace over there as I find in a temple.
So, why dont you guyz leave this topic of which religion is superior and which is not and rather think on these terms...Brotherhood and humanity and I am sure a person who will follow these will be loved by GOD.
Actually, any one religion is going to teach more then just peace. Ultimately however, we can't say what God will or will not find acceptable, we must rely on that info from somewhere else. If we try to figure it out through human concensus, we will all disagree, therefore, we must determine a different source since humans will disagree and thus truth can't come from us, and then determine the reputability of said source.
==================================
Quote
It's funny how Jesus supposedly in the book of man-made alterations and corruption, the New Testament, instantaneously ABROGATED his views and decision about the non-Jewish woman and people in general being equivalent to dogs when compared to the Jews. It is important to note that the woman, in this corrupted book, from the very start showed that she is a "believer" (what ever that meant back then). So it wasn't a matter of a "disbeliever" or pagan seeking Jesus' help.
The woman's wisdom defeated Jesus, the so-called "Creator of the Universe"! Jesus, within a second, changed his racist and trash-mouthed views against her from being a "dog" to a human being who deserves to be helped.
"I was sent ONLY to..." clearly and irrefutably means that Jesus initially claimed that he wasn't sent to other than the Jews!
So what if the woman failed with Jesus??
It seems that Jesus in the corrupted book of the new testament changed his racist and filthy views only because the woman begged him. I wonder if the woman never did this and instead answered him inappropriately after he called her and all gentiles as "dogs", would the gentiles today still be considered as the Jews' dogs? Most probably yes. It doesn't take much for a racist to go back to his old habits and generalizing evil beliefs.
Again, don't forget that the woman initially showed that she was a believer! Jesus rejected her only because she was a Gentile!
end of quote
That is why Jesus cannot be god.
You should've read the rest of the passage, God must've known you'd say this 2 thousand years ago because it's set up perfectly to beat your argument before it even got started! For one thing, Jesus said this before even speaking that to her!
Matthew 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Just that right there destroys your racism theory instantly.
loyal said:
a) Jesus was consecrated (anointed) by God before he was born and so was prophet Jeremiah. The Bible records, God came to prophet Jeremiah and said to him; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jer. 1:5.
God "loved" his chosen prophets before they were born. The Bible confirms; God "loved" Jesus before the foundation of the world. (Jn. 17:24). This act of loving by an entity called God, undoubtedly proves that Jesus was not God "Himself", before he was born or after he was born. Jesus was a distinctly separate entity that was "being loved" by God, records this verse for the people who are upright and open minded.
King Melchizedek of Salem was an eternal priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Heb. 7:1-3). No Christian would admit, based upon this stated of "eternal life span", that the King of Salem was God, so how can Jesus be who claimed his existence before Abraham?
The entire concept is based upon a simple conjecture. In the foot notes of Exodus 3:14 the editors of K.J.V. write;
"Jesus probably alluded to this name of God in John 8:58, 'Before Abraham was, I AM." The use of phrase "probably alluded" indicates; this does not happen to be an established truth or certainty.
The Greek words "ego eimi" are here translated as "I Am". However, the literal translation mentioned in the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible reads; "I have been". Study Supportive Passage:
Repeating the same phrase "I am", Jesus said; "I am (he), and that I do nothing on my own; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28). God of Moses had no instructor. If he had one, then that entity would be the God's mentor or boss!
A question for you:
Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". When Jesus was asked: "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength." A TRUE DISCIPLE WOULD NOT DIVIDE HIS LOVE BETWEEN "LORD GOD" AND MESSIAH THAT WAS SANCTIFIED BY GOD. Jn.10:36.
Sorry Loyal, but you missed out on this verse:
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Here, Jesus doesn't just say the Father loved Him before the beginning of the world... it says He EXISTED WITH THE FATHER "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS."
Furthermore, your idea of proof is backwards. Just because it's possible for God to love someone before they were born in no way means that Jesus wasn't God. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is plausible and certainly not that it is proven, especially when the text specifically states a different alternative like the one I just gave.
The King of Salem is considered a theophany, i.e. incarnation-like appearance by Jesus in flesh/angelic form before His time here when we know Him as Jesus. Some consider it to be simply a person used as a symbol of Him because the King of Salem had no known recorded DOB. Either view would be a possibility.
Finally, your last question assumes that Jesus is separate from God. But of course you have yet to prove that, and that is contrary to what the Bible says:
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
loyal said:
Peace is the solution. Peace of the soul. Peace of the mind. Peace of our society.
If the peace is not eternal, how much does it really matter?
================================
adriantc said:
I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?".
Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.
So basicly what I want to say: There is no superior religion; and if you think deeply you'll realise that the difference between them is not that great. They have the same objective: give people hope and enforce some rules (and as a personal opinion... the sum of that two ultimately leads to control of the people; fact seen in the dark ages)
I would agree with you that there isn't a very big difference between Catholocism and Islam. I find it a common misconception for people to confuse Catholocism with Christianity for some reason. However, Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur were all Biblical Christians, but ones the RCC disapproved of. I believe it was the anabaptists, hutterites, donatists, montanists, and others who were slaughtered for 1200 years by Catholocism who were the true continuers of Christianity. Catholocism as we know it did not even begin until hundreds of years after the crucifixion, and was started by the very Roman government which killed Jesus and whose Nero so brutally slaughtered the first Christians! The Babylon spoken of in Revelation as a great city/institution/government/church is I believe the Catholic Church, or at least includes it, and continues the institution of the New Testament Pharisees. This statement then, about it, is quite apt:
Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Whether it is truly as evil as presented
here I don't know, but I certainly think it possible. Anyway, if you look back to the dark ages, you will learn of groups called the anabaptists among the others I mentioned, and how they refused to fight back and were slaughtered by the thousands! They died loving and forgiving their enemies even as many do today in foreign countries!
There is an interesting dissertation called "The Anabaptist Vision" with numerous quotes to be found
here, here is a section of it:
Quote
In the same year Bullinger wrote that "the people were running after them as though they were living saints." [6] Another contemporary writer asserts that " Anabaptism spread with such speed that there was reason to fear that the majority of the common people would unite with this sect." [7] Zwingli was so frightened by the power of the movement that he complained that the struggle with the Catholic party was "tub child's play" compared to the conflict with the Anabaptists. [8]
The dreadful severity of the persecution of the Anabaptist movement in the years 1527-60 not only in Switzerland, South Germany, and Thuringia, but in all the Austrian lands as well as in the Low Countries, testifies to the power of the movement and the desperate haste with which Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian authorities alike strove to throttle it before it should be too late. The notorious decree issued in 1529 by the Diet of Spires (the same diet which protested the restriction of evangelical liberties) summarily passed the sentence of death upon all Anabaptists, ordering that "every Anabaptist and rebaptized person of either sex should be put to death by fire, sword, or some other way." [9] Repeatedly in subsequent sessions of the imperial diet this decree was reinvoked and intensified; and as late as 1551 the Diet of Augsburg issued a decree ordering that judges and jurors who had scruples against pronouncing the death sentence on Anabaptists be removed from office and punished by heavy fines and imprisonment.
The authorities had great difficulty in executing their program of suppression, for they soon discovered that the Anabaptists feared neither torture nor death, and gladly sealed their faith with their blood. In fact the joyful testimony of the Anabaptist martyrs was a great stimulus to new recruits, for it stirred the imagination of the populace as nothing else could have done.
Finding, therefore, that the customary method of individual trials and sentences was proving totally inadequate to stem the tide, the authorities resorted to the desperate expedient of sending out through the land companies of armed executioners and mounted soldiers to hunt down the Anabaptists and kill them on the spot singly or en masse without trial or sentence. The most atrocious application of this policy was made in Swabia where the original 400 special police of 1528 sent against the Anabaptists proved too small a force and had to be increased to 1,000. An imperial provost marshal, Berthold Aichele, served as chief administrator of this bloody program in Swabia and other regions until he finally broke down in terror and dismay, and after an execution at Brixen lifted his hands to heaven and swore a solemn oath never again to put to death an Anabaptist, which vow he kept. [10] The Count of Alzey in the Palatinate, after 350 Anabaptists had been executed there, was heard to exclaim, "What shall I do, the more I kill, the greater becomes their number!"
The extensive persecution and martyrdom of the Anabaptists testify not only of the great extent of the movement but also of the power of the vision that burned within them. This is most effectively presented in a moving account written in 1542 and taken from the ancient Hutterian chronicle where it is found at the close of a report of 2,173 brethren and sisters who gave their lives for their faith. [11]
No human being was able to take away out of their hearts what they had experienced, such zealous lovers of God were they. The fire of God burned within them. They would die the bitterest death, yea, they would die ten deaths rather than forsake the divine truth which they had espoused....
They had drunk of the waters which had flowed from God's sanctuary, yea, the water of life. They realized that God helped them to bear the cross and to overcome the bitterness of death. The fire of God burned within them. Their tent they had pitched not here upon earth, but in eternity, and of their faith they had a foundation and assurance. Their faith blossomed as a lily, their loyalty as a rose, their piety and sincerity as the flower of the garden of God. The angel of the Lord battled for them that they could not be deprived of the helmet of salvation. Therefore they bore all torture and agony without fear. The things of this world they counted in their holy mind only as shadows, having the assurance of greater things. They were so drawn unto God that they knew nothing, sought nothing, desired nothing, loved nothing but God alone. Therefore they had more patience in their suffering than their enemies in tormenting them.
. . . The persecutors thought they could dampen and extinguish the fire of God. But the prisoners sang in their prisons and rejoiced so that the enemies outside became much more fearful than the prisoners and did not know what to do with them....
Many were talked to in wonderful ways, often day and night. They were argued with, with great cunning and cleverness, with many sweet and smooth words, by monks and priests, by doctors of theology, with much false testimony, with threats and scolding and mockery, yea, with lies and grievous slander against the brotherhood, but none of these things moved them or made them falter.
From the shedding of such innocent blood arose Christians everywhere, brothers all, for all this persecution did not take place without fruit.
no9t9 said:
I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.
Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.
Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.
The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?
If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!
Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.
You raise an interesting point concerning the origin and validity of common morality. Have you ever studied natural law? It's a philosophical term basically referring to the study of how there are basic essentials to human beings and their civilizations worldwide regardless of culture, location, nationality, language, etc... For example, we all hold common beliefs that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, there should be sanctions on marriage, etc... In other words, murder being wrong isn't just something we're taught, but something inherent within our very natures! Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:19 when he says that God has clearly put that which needs to be known of Him in creation and even in our very natures! Within us is what is needed to realize that God exists.
However, let me show you where an "all is relative" view must inevitably lead. You are dead right, morality cannot exist by humans alone or human concensus. It must originate from God to exist at all. Otherwise all indeed is relative as you suggest, for then morality is dependent on us, and we will change it to suit our whims that we may appear justified before others. But if so, and God does not exist to have instituted a moral Law to the universe then morality does not exist. And if morality does not exist, then as you pointed out, how can we consider murder wrong? If all is relative why should we place inherent worth or value on other people? You can say we should do it for the good of society. And I know there's that stupid (and I do think it so) theory that if we act in our own self-interests we will serve society. However, if there is no morality and no ultimate purpose to our existence, we are reduced to the level of merely advanced computers with faulty programming in that we value others so that we let foolish emotion hinder our chances of survival in some circumstances. If we are merely globs of protoplasm, "dancing DNA" as Richard Dawkins of Oxford would say, then all is indeed relative and what reason is there to value other people? Why should we act on the behalf of others when we can for ourselves? Why act for the good of society rather then our own good if there's no meaning to it anyway? To deny the existence of God is to deny morality, to say all is relative, and to say that genocide, rape, murder, theft, and basically all-out chaos should be permissible and expected in our society. However, the Bible says God instituted governments to prevent that very thing. You do bring up a highly interesting topic however.
Edited by Joshua, 24 April 2006 - 11:13 AM.
, Please 
2
