The practical side of religious beliefs

[The Eagle]

To limit God would be to claim He is not all powerful. I am only limiting false ideas of God. There is a difference. To limit ideas of God is to promote only one idea of God. Is that not what you yourself are doing? You claim God is not what Christians or other religions believe, but is what you believe. This constant hypocrisy you reveal in your posts should help you realise that you are being tricked. You call The Church a cult of evil, indicating that all those who practice unconditional love and forgiveness, benevolence and virtue, are evil. Do you not see the faulty logic behind your ideas?

sorry what? - my hypocrisy means that my belief in god is wrong??....... interesting - how about applying your logic to the catholic church then - you have 2000 years of hypocrisy to deal with. calling the catholic church an evil cult does not mean all that involed are evil. as ever you assume too much. do you see the falty logic behind YOUR ideas??

anyway - you limit god becasue you are saying god can't be behind the other religions. think about it - can god be behind the other religions?? - if you answer no - then you are saying god can't do something and is not all powerful. if then you say by gods words - the bible says so etc - then how do you know god wasn't talking to a set people when he said those words?

To enjoy people killing each other, I consider that evil. Are you claiming that our judgement of violence being wrong is wrong? If so, you again contradict your own posts on practicality. I hope that with enough of these mistakes being pointed out, you will soon begin to believe me when I tell you that you are being tricked.

our judgement of violence is gained from living in our society - where we make the rules. we judge killing as wrong as it is not good for society - and also the emotions involed with the loss of someone. its only evil because we judge it as evil - killing in war is not judged as evil by society as it is judged a necessity for society. that ofcourse is changing now - after the world wars and modern day war reporting.

thou shall not kill was in place long long before the 10 commandments came about. try reasearching a bit - you will soon realise that the church has tricked you into believing what they tell you .......... (seriously you want to go down this route of contstantly being passive aggressive and saying each other is being tricked?? - i got time to if you want)

Where do you get your beliefs from about Christianity? Other people's theories? You seem very confident that your theories are true, but why? What backs your theories up? More theories? Your truths are actually just theories. The Church's truths are based on factual events. You can deny those events and claim The Church lies, but why? What provokes you not to believe an organisation based on honesty? Also, if followers of Our Lord weren't getting any responses from Him, why would we continue to follow Him? Please at least consider seeking out God for yourself.

churches truths are based on facts?? - you do know there is no more evidence of jesus christ existing than harry potter don't you? is it a fact that a man can be born of a virgin without the use of a sperm?? what provokes me? i would say logic - it is the bane of christianity i know. as for the catholic church based on honesty - yeah ignoring catholic history again aren't you..... try thinking for yourself rather than go off in a fantasy of demi gods and magic yeah?? as for my truths are just theories - you shun every other religion and call it fake - based on what?? - a theory?? not much between us then is there.....

I would like to know how I prove myself to be a hypocrite. By not caring about being hypocritical, you again show lack of intelligent judgement (yet the devil's corruption has you too full of arrogance to not consider the consequences of such actions). You contradict yourself yet again in your post, as I have shown with italics. Please understand that I love you Eagle, and am not trying to humiliate you or compete with you. I am only trying to teach you.

See above for the answer to your first question... again you show lack of logic - me admitting to not caring about being called hypocritical BY YOU - and the reason that is is that i admitted i dont tolerate inolerance - does nothing to reflect on intelligent judgement.

devils corruption!! arrogance of religion as you are displaying says nothing about hypocrisy either yeah??

you are not humiliating me at all - you give too much importance on your own words it seems. but its good that you love me if it makes you feel happy or closer to god. i do not love you - and i am just as close to god. i am trying to teach you too.... kind of makes us even doesn't it

[7Believer]

sorry what? - my hypocrisy means that my belief in god is wrong??....... interesting - how about applying your logic to the catholic church then - you have 2000 years of hypocrisy to deal with. calling the catholic church an evil cult does not mean all that involed are evil. as ever you assume too much. do you see the falty logic behind YOUR ideas??

Your hypocrisy means you lack intelligent judgement. If you refer to the mistakes made by The Church, I think they do recognise them as mistakes, as they did not follow what God had instructed. That does not make The Church hypocritical, only certain members that were within it. If you recognise that not all people involved with The Church are evil, then do you think it intelligent judgement to blame the majority of The Church for a few member's mistakes? Does it not make more sense to say some Christians were tricked into evil, not The Church as a whole? To call The Church an evil cult is to claim the majority of those involved are evil. I don't think I assumed too much at all.

I just want to point out to readers how, given Eagle's proven faulty logic, she does not believe in the devil, yet claims The Church to be evil. She also does not care about being proven wrong in her logic. If you considered the possiblity that the devil does exist, can you see the obvious corruption in her? She goes directly against God, following a version of God that she herself has created (or so it appears; I credit the devil), and refuses to consider the possibility that she is wrong even with the lack of intelligence proven frequently in her posts.

anyway - you limit god becasue you are saying god can't be behind the other religions. think about it - can god be behind the other religions?? - if you answer no - then you are saying god can't do something and is not all powerful. if then you say by gods words - the bible says so etc - then how do you know god wasn't talking to a set people when he said those words?

I'm not saying God can't do it, I'm saying He hasn't done it. I'm not saying He is incapable of something, only that He hasn't done something. There is a difference. As for your last statement, I don't think God would contradict Himself willingly through different religions; telling one group to believe this and another not to.

our judgement of violence is gained from living in our society - where we make the rules. we judge killing as wrong as it is not good for society - and also the emotions involed with the loss of someone. its only evil because we judge it as evil - killing in war is not judged as evil by society as it is judged a necessity for society. that ofcourse is changing now - after the world wars and modern day war reporting.

To say something is only wrong because we say so, I don't think that is true. We recognise killing as wrong now, but before we had done so, it was still wrong. That act itself is not different with or without our judgement of it. For example; smoking in cars while children are with you is being banned in texas now. Before it wasn't. We recognise that it is wrong now, but the reasons for this judgement were still in place before the actual judgement. Kids were still vulnerable. It was wrong, we just didn't recognise it. Also, you do not offer any response to my last post about you being wrong concerning movies. In fact, in this post of yours you agree with me (acknowledging killing is wrong), and again contradict yourself in your last post. Also, you mention killing in war not being evil. Wouldn't one side recognise the killers of the other side to be wrong, and thus evil in their wishes?

thou shall not kill was in place long long before the 10 commandments came about. try reasearching a bit - you will soon realise that the church has tricked you into believing what they tell you .......... (seriously you want to go down this route of contstantly being passive aggressive and saying each other is being tricked?? - i got time to if you want)

If you has evidence that we did not know killing to be wrong before The Ten Commandments, please feel free to offer it. Mankind may not have killed each other in the past for convenience, but that doesn't mean they recognised it as wrong altogether, only wrong to their circumstances. There is a difference between defending truth and being passive aggressive. You can claim I am being tricked, but only you are the one who's been proven wrong (contradictive, mistaken in meanings, hypocritical) in our posts.

churches truths are based on facts?? - you do know there is no more evidence of jesus christ existing than harry potter don't you? is it a fact that a man can be born of a virgin without the use of a sperm?? what provokes me? i would say logic - it is the bane of christianity i know. as for the catholic church based on honesty - yeah ignoring catholic history again aren't you..... try thinking for yourself rather than go off in a fantasy of demi gods and magic yeah?? as for my truths are just theories - you shun every other religion and call it fake - based on what?? - a theory?? not much between us then is there.....

Those who communicate with Lord Jesus offer proof of His existence. Those whose prayers are answered do likewise. If you want proof that is undeniable, pray to God for it. What do you have to lose by doing so? Do you consider The Bible to be a fictional book, and everything in it? Please read this site: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm. If The Bible's authenticity proves to be true, and I know God's existence through Christianity to be true, as I do communicate with Him, then I know other religions to be false based on these truths and not on theories. You mention ignoring Catholic history. Again, I do not consider a few members' mistaken actions to speak for The Whole Church.

See above for the answer to your first question... again you show lack of logic - me admitting to not caring about being called hypocritical BY YOU - and the reason that is is that i admitted i dont tolerate inolerance - does nothing to reflect on intelligent judgement. devils corruption!! arrogance of religion as you are displaying says nothing about hypocrisy either yeah??

I have replied in opposition to that accusation of hypocrisy. You say I show lack of logic again; when was the first time? Being proven hypocritical by me or anybody else should help you realise you are mistaken. You have been proven hypocritical for more reasons than not tolerating intolerance. Please read over our past posts. You make statements like, "being hypocritical doesn't mean being unintelligent", and you think it to be true. If you are too corrupted to acknowledge your error, I at least hope others reading our posts will (and hopefully not make the same mistakes), and that my attempts to teach you do not go to waste.

you are not humiliating me at all - you give too much importance on your own words it seems. but its good that you love me if it makes you feel happy or closer to god. i do not love you - and i am just as close to god. i am trying to teach you too.... kind of makes us even doesn't it

Do you suggest that The Creator of existence does not encourage love? Isn't love to care for the welfare of others, and to place more importance on humanity as a whole than just on our individual interests?I think if we did not have love throughout history, we would have already been destroyed. We would not have cared for our children, leaving them to die. We would not have hospitals or schools, or any group function, as we would only seek to come out on top of one another. There would be no law, as to settle for the same as our neighbor would go against our individual interests (being to prosper in enjoyment, as what else would we care for without love?) Life would not be as valuable to us, for without love we would only be surrounded by enemies, and to live life in fear as opposed to the comfort of death I think would seem pointless to many.

[sheepdove]

The Pope is considered the 5th most powerful person in the world and believe me he knows it. He uses his power. The modern church is as the old one and it teaches to kill and it is blessing killers before battle when thou shalt not kill. Because the church follow David. The one Jesus had told the disciples didn't go to heaven. The one in the earth still.

If you are referring to past actions, I've already explained that I think The Church recognises it was wrong.

Read Matthew 23. The church is always doing wrong. It has rabbi's. Only call Jesus rabbi the bible said. Rabbi means master. Maybe we should go out and kill those devils calling theirselves master. After all they are calling theirselves master now. Oh you wish to bow down to them. I wonder if that is why Jesus calls the church which follows man's doctrines servants of Satan. Beats me. At any rate Jesus said thou shalt not kill so christians ignore him and follow David in killing. The Crusades they killed like crazy in. The holocaust. Every chance they get to kill they kill. For the bible teaches them to follow David in killing. Because the the church includes killing in the bible by liars when God's law is thou shalt not kill. According to Jesus and Moses it is leastways. Not according to Satan's christian churches though. They have to teach killing. So David who is in hell has his law of killing ruleing the day. Because christians refuse to accept the fact that the bible was actually written to lead people away from Christ. To contort what the people learned from him and bring them back into the fold. Everyone knows Jesus said thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, do not tempt God ( by tempting fate), and run when they seek you do you harm. Jesus never ever told us to kill. Religious devils did. Lied and said God told them to kill. One lieing Devil named David never went to heaven even though he said he was God's favorite. I thought Lucifer was. Devils lie though. That's why they end up in hell. God has no favorites. That's all in the mind of devils. In truth christians follow the church not for Jesus is the church. They follow Satan and his church which killed Jesus. Christmas is the celebration of the death of Jesus by those who wanted him dead. Man's church which follows David (Satan). They are truly washed in his blood for his blood is on their hands. They share in the guilt of his murder.

Merry Christmas.

[7Believer]

Sheepdove, consider that David was also a sacrifice, being sent to hell for killing to punish him, but killing in the first place only because it was necessary. Without it, perhaps the devil's corruption of other nations would have lead them to kill God's followers altogether, and then the devil really would have been in control. As for the calling of rabbi, perhaps Jesus meant not to follow the rabbi's teachings at the times, but His teachings.

[The Eagle]

Your hypocrisy means you lack intelligent judgement. If you refer to the mistakes made by The Church, I think they do recognise them as mistakes, as they did not follow what God had instructed. That does not make The Church hypocritical, only certain members that were within it. If you recognise that not all people involved with The Church are evil, then do you think it intelligent judgement to blame the majority of The Church for a few member's mistakes? Does it not make more sense to say some Christians were tricked into evil, not The Church as a whole? To call The Church an evil cult is to claim the majority of those involved are evil. I don't think I assumed too much at all.

I just want to point out to readers how, given Eagle's proven faulty logic, she does not believe in the devil, yet claims The Church to be evil. She also does not care about being proven wrong in her logic. If you considered the possiblity that the devil does exist, can you see the obvious corruption in her? She goes directly against God, following a version of God that she herself has created (or so it appears; I credit the devil), and refuses to consider the possibility that she is wrong even with the lack of intelligence proven frequently in her posts.

so the catholic church has had a lack of inteligent judgement then - is that what you are saying? if so i fully agree. how can you trust an organisation that has actualy not only promoted evil but actively pushed it? so by your reasoning then the catholic church has not always represpented god?

consider jesus' words when he was actually alive - he said to do what the jewish scribes said to do. that right there should tell you catholic faith has nothing to do with what jesus wanted.

i will remind readers that 7believer is completely WRONG in what they just said - i am male. assumptions of a believer don't always represnt truth. right there is proof. lack of research has led them to an incorrect assumption. please people research before you make statements.........

I'm not saying God can't do it, I'm saying He hasn't done it. I'm not saying He is incapable of something, only that He hasn't done something. There is a difference. As for your last statement, I don't think God would contradict Himself willingly through different religions; telling one group to believe this and another not to.

YOU are saying god has NOT done something??? YOU dont think god would contradict himself?? you seem to speak for god yeah? tell me how does he think about the closest religion to god spreading throught the world from murder and power struggles all the while raping children? - when you get an answer let me know yeah?

If you has evidence that we did not know killing to be wrong before The Ten Commandments, please feel free to offer it. Mankind may not have killed each other in the past for convenience, but that doesn't mean they recognised it as wrong altogether, only wrong to their circumstances. There is a difference between defending truth and being passive aggressive. You can claim I am being tricked, but only you are the one who's been proven wrong (contradictive, mistaken in meanings, hypocritical) in our posts.

in egypt there was those laws - try researching it. the church told you that was not gods law yeah?? - that is logical isn't it...............
i tell you what when you can say what colour jesus' hair was - let me know. if it wasn't "god" coloured then we know there is a prem involved. then you can talk about be proved wrong yeah? - did jesus have testicles? - if so why would god make jesus with testicals? why would god make jesus without testicals if he wasn't supposed to have children? unless he was gay ofcourse......

Those who communicate with Lord Jesus offer proof of His existence. Those whose prayers are answered do likewise. If you want proof that is undeniable, pray to God for it. What do you have to lose by doing so? Do you consider The Bible to be a fictional book, and everything in it? Please read this site: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm. If The Bible's authenticity proves to be true, and I know God's existence through Christianity to be true, as I do communicate with Him, then I know other religions to be false based on these truths and not on theories. You mention ignoring Catholic history. Again, I do not consider a few members' mistaken actions to speak for The Whole Church.

you think you communicate with god and others that don't believe in your religion don't?? how about the prayers of muslims that are answered?? where or when exactly do the catholic lies start then in your opinion?

I have replied in opposition to that accusation of hypocrisy. You say I show lack of logic again; when was the first time? Being proven hypocritical by me or anybody else should help you realise you are mistaken. You have been proven hypocritical for more reasons than not tolerating intolerance. Please read over our past posts. You make statements like, "being hypocritical doesn't mean being unintelligent", and you think it to be true. If you are too corrupted to acknowledge your error, I at least hope others reading our posts will (and hopefully not make the same mistakes), and that my attempts to teach you do not go to waste..

lol - has the catholic church being proven hypocritcal made you realise that you are mistaken? let me know hte reasons that i am hypocritical other than what has been said please - teach me...... you like feeling that you are teaching someone?? you have actually have been proved wrong - how will that effect you i wonder???

Do you suggest that The Creator of existence does not encourage love? Isn't love to care for the welfare of others, and to place more importance on humanity as a whole than just on our individual interests?I think if we did not have love throughout history, we would have already been destroyed. We would not have cared for our children, leaving them to die. We would not have hospitals or schools, or any group function, as we would only seek to come out on top of one another. There would be no law, as to settle for the same as our neighbor would go against our individual interests (being to prosper in enjoyment, as what else would we care for without love?) Life would not be as valuable to us, for without love we would only be surrounded by enemies, and to live life in fear as opposed to the comfort of death I think would seem pointless to many.

no god does not encourage love. no more than he encouarges hate. if war and murder didnt exist you would not be living - certainly catholic religion would not be in existance anymore. bibles authenticity is no more than harry potter books being authentic. there would be law as we have decided the law. the world we live in is a democratic society - well i do. we decide on the law. life is valuable to us - as we decide it is valuable to us. this has come to us from a tracable hisotry - aprogession of beliefs. history

again if you think morals are god given - then why are they adapting with each genreation??

[7Believer]

so the catholic church has had a lack of inteligent judgement then - is that what you are saying? if so i fully agree. how can you trust an organisation that has actualy not only promoted evil but actively pushed it? so by your reasoning then the catholic church has not always represpented god?

consider jesus' words when he was actually alive - he said to do what the jewish scribes said to do. that right there should tell you catholic faith has nothing to do with what jesus wanted.

i will remind readers that 7believer is completely WRONG in what they just said - i am male. assumptions of a believer don't always represnt truth. right there is proof. lack of research has led them to an incorrect assumption. please people research before you make statements.........

I apologise for mistaking your gender. I did not mean to cause offense, and recognise my error in assumption. I do consider it a trick of evil, as I recognise all of our mistakes to be, and it did go against my intentions. You seem to have completely ignored my statements about a group of follower's mistakes not representing The whole Church. Do you think it right to label The whole Church as evil because some members broke Our God's laws? What about all those who kept God's laws? Don't the people who followed God's, and therefore The Church's, laws represent The Church more than the ones who didn't? Please answer this post, as you did not answer my last post on this subject. As for the part in italics, could you be more specific? If you are suggesting Jesus only repeated laws and is therefore irrelevant, I think you are mistaken. For example; He did teach us to forgive each other, something that I think was left up to God previously.

YOU are saying god has NOT done something??? YOU dont think god would contradict himself?? you seem to speak for god yeah? tell me how does he think about the closest religion to god spreading throught the world from murder and power struggles all the while raping children? - when you get an answer let me know yeah?

I've already explained previously in another post how I think Christians do speak for God, as long as they speak only what they've been taught to speak by Him, and have also mentioned how the devil's tricks explain the corruption. The Church does directly oppose satan, so for him to corrupt some of it's members and create a negative label for The Church would obviously benefit him.

in egypt there was those laws - try researching it. the church told you that was not gods law yeah?? - that is logical isn't it...............
i tell you what when you can say what colour jesus' hair was - let me know. if it wasn't "god" coloured then we know there is a prem involved. then you can talk about be proved wrong yeah? - did jesus have testicles? - if so why would god make jesus with testicals? why would god make jesus without testicals if he wasn't supposed to have children? unless he was gay ofcourse......

I did try researching past egyptian laws before Moses' time, and found nothing proving my post wrong. Perhaps you could back up your own theory, and provide me with evidence? If they did have such laws, how do you know them to be based on morality and not on convenience like I suggested? If I am wrong, I apologise. I believe Lord Jesus' hair color was brown. I think if His loyal followers were mistaken in this belief, He would let us know. God did teach against following false dieties (or identities of Him), so I expect He would also teach us if we were following a false identity of Him. Lord Jesus was sent in the image of man like us; to send Him incomplete in anatomy seems to go against the point of sending Him in a human image altogether.

you think you communicate with god and others that don't believe in your religion don't?? how about the prayers of muslims that are answered?? where or when exactly do the catholic lies start then in your opinion?

I didn't claim that other religion's prayers weren't answered. You see how tricks of evil can make us assume mistakenly, going against what we know is right? You did not mean to mistakenly assume, yet you did (as did I with your gender). As I've mentioned before, I only think the religions are wrong, not the faith. God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with Christianity's religion.

lol - has the catholic church being proven hypocritcal made you realise that you are mistaken? let me know hte reasons that i am hypocritical other than what has been said please - teach me...... you like feeling that you are teaching someone?? you have actually have been proved wrong - how will that effect you i wonder???

factual description....... well...... shall we go back to where that came from - there was nothing insulting about what was said. you only found it insulting because of your own personal faith - and further questioned the wisdom involved.

whatever religion you are talking about i am reminded that a wise man once said: "why would i want to enter christian heaven?? - thats where all the intolerant christian assholes will be....."

I consider an insult to be ill intended. Given the large availability of other words to choose from to state your disapproval of Christianity, and the inclusion of a vulgar word (widely known as vulgar), I consider that to be ill intended. To have ill intent towards others is not only sinful, but unwise. You posted about practical elements of rules:

most religions have don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your missus. etc. These are not religious rules - they are rules for society to maintain order - not many would argue with them

All three of those things are based on ill intent. If you still agree with your post, then you see my point. I also find it unwise because if the speaker does believe in heaven and hell, they would abandon heaven due to opposition to sin, that being what Christians oppose, besides simple mistakes like the misuse of a word, in which case the oppostion would be to positively teach you. I again find it unwise in that the use of the word intolerant is hypocritical, for the speaker proves to be quite intolerant.

Also:

am chosing a diffeerent way to YOU - not to god. you do not represent god when you talk. again intolerance - its the mind set that you are speaking for god - "trying to help people find god" - no you are trying to get people to believe in what you believe in. god has nothing to do with what you are talking about. to claim "one true god" - if that is not a grounding for intolerance i suggest you think more and have blind faith less.

god does not want anything - god does not need followers or faith. religion does. think about it.

You can see by the parts in italics what I'm trying to point out. I love you, but you are a hypocrite. Hopefully you'll remember what I posted previously about the use of the word hypocrite, and realise it is not ill intended. I understand how your thoughts can be manipulated and trick you. You may not agree with me, but I credit it to the works of evil. Being Christian, I think in teaching what God taught us to teach, we do represent God. We pass on his message, and agree with it. I acknowledge that some Christians do make mistakes, and again I blame the tricks of the devil and his demons. I don't think that makes us innocent, more like unaware accomplices. Wrong is still done, and we still play a part in it, even if we mean well.

Likewise:

of course christianity limits god. you limit god to one way. religion (any religion) is like a finger poining to god. you as a catholic unfortunatley focus on the finger - not god. evil exists as a judgement on past actions. there is no outside force of evil. satan exists only in the minds of believers like you. now you can go on to say satan tricks and makes peopple he doesnt exist - but then why is this evil cult you follow not a trick of satan again??

To limit God would be to claim He is not all powerful. I am only limiting false ideas of God. There is a difference. To limit ideas of God is to promote only one idea of God. Is that not what you yourself are doing? You claim God is not what Christians or other religions believe, but is what you believe. This constant hypocrisy you reveal in your posts should help you realise that you are being tricked. You call The Church a cult of evil, indicating that all those who practice unconditional love and forgiveness, benevolence and virtue, are evil. Do you not see the faulty logic behind your ideas?

Again:

there is nothing evil about movies - there is nothing evil about violence until we as humans judge it. movies do not promote violence.

To enjoy people killing each other, I consider that evil. Are you claiming that our judgement of violence being wrong is wrong? If so, you again contradict your own posts on practicality. I hope that with enough of these mistakes being pointed out, you will soon begin to believe me when I tell you that you are being tricked.

our judgement of violence is gained from living in our society - where we make the rules. we judge killing as wrong as it is not good for society - and also the emotions involed with the loss of someone. its only evil because we judge it as evil - killing in war is not judged as evil by society as it is judged a necessity for society. that ofcourse is changing now - after the world wars and modern day war reporting.

To say something is only wrong because we say so, I don't think that is true. We recognise killing as wrong now, but before we had done so, it was still wrong. That act itself is not different with or without our judgement of it. For example; smoking in cars while children are with you is being banned in texas now. Before it wasn't. We recognise that it is wrong now, but the reasons for this judgement were still in place before the actual judgement. Kids were still vulnerable. It was wrong, we just didn't recognise it. Also, you do not offer any response to my last post about you being wrong concerning movies. In fact, in this post of yours you agree with me (acknowledging killing is wrong), and again contradict yourself in your last post. Also, you mention killing in war not being evil. Wouldn't one side recognise the killers of the other side to be wrong, and thus evil in their wishes?

Finally:

well you are proving yourself quite the hypocrit too. you calling me a hypocrit doesnt weigh very heavily on my conscience..... and no i dont speak for god. i speak for mankind. god does not have a voice. mankind does.

I would like to know how I prove myself to be a hypocrite. By not caring about being hypocritical, you again show lack of intelligent judgement (yet the devil's corruption has you too full of arrogance to not consider the consequences of such actions). You contradict yourself yet again in your post, as I have shown with italics. Please understand that I love you Eagle, and am not trying to humiliate you or compete with you. I am only trying to teach you

I hope these examples do teach you as you requested.

no god does not encourage love. no more than he encouarges hate. if war and murder didnt exist you would not be living - certainly catholic religion would not be in existance anymore. bibles authenticity is no more than harry potter books being authentic. there would be law as we have decided the law. the world we live in is a democratic society - well i do. we decide on the law. life is valuable to us - as we decide it is valuable to us. this has come to us from a tracable hisotry - aprogession of beliefs. history

again if you think morals are god given - then why are they adapting with each genreation??

If war and murder didn't exist, I think that would suggest the following of love. Why would Our Creator not encourage us to keep existing (I think impossible without love), as opposed to self destruction, which is what would most likely come about without love. You claim The Bible to not be authentic; I have provided evidence to state otherwise, yet you have not provided evidence to back up your belief. You claim to believe in history, but not in Christianity's history. You were present for neither, yet believe in one as opposed to the other. You have a form of faith, it is just from an opposite point of view from that which founded faith; religion.

As for your last statement; I don't think the morals God has provided have changed at all. They have been abandoned, but I don't think changed. Could you provide an example?

[The Eagle]

I apologise for mistaking your gender. I did not mean to cause offense, and recognise my error in assumption. I do consider it a trick of evil, as I recognise all of our mistakes to be, and it did go against my intentions. You seem to have completely ignored my statements about a group of follower's mistakes not representing The whole Church. Do you think it right to label The whole Church as evil because some members broke Our God's laws? What about all those who kept God's laws? Don't the people who followed God's, and therefore The Church's, laws represent The Church more than the ones who didn't? Please answer this post, as you did not answer my last post on this subject. As for the part in italics, could you be more specific? If you are suggesting Jesus only repeated laws and is therefore irrelevant, I think you are mistaken. For example; He did teach us to forgive each other, something that I think was left up to God previously.

so you admit you were wrong with your belief then - how can you possibly be trusted with the rest of your beliefs then?? you have already been wrong about something - how far does that go?? hmmmm........

look are you saying that the popes that were in charge of the organisation "closest to god" - actually represented god throught the ages or not? even the ones that have since proven to break those laws?? its a yes or no answer 7believer.........

i am not mistaken - the words that jesus said are in your bible. read it.

as for your last statement - are you seriously stating that people didnt forgive each other beore jesus lived??? that does you no justice if you are taliing about logic or even history.....

I've already explained previously in another post how I think Christians do speak for God, as long as they speak only what they've been taught to speak by Him, and have also mentioned how the devil's tricks explain the corruption. The Church does directly oppose satan, so for him to corrupt some of it's members and create a negative label for The Church would obviously benefit him.

trouble with that is - how do you know that all of the church even from the inception was not a trick of satan?? i mean jesus stated that people should do what the jewish scribes say to do - so he did not mean to set up a new religion. think about how christianity has spread thorught the world - there is a lot of evil involved. ignore the bad things about chriistianity by all means - i look at history - not only the good things about christianity.

I did try researching past egyptian laws before Moses' time, and found nothing proving my post wrong. Perhaps you could back up your own theory, and provide me with evidence? If they did have such laws, how do you know them to be based on morality and not on convenience like I suggested? If I am wrong, I apologise. I believe Lord Jesus' hair color was brown. I think if His loyal followers were mistaken in this belief, He would let us know. God did teach against following false dieties (or identities of Him), so I expect He would also teach us if we were following a false identity of Him. Lord Jesus was sent in the image of man like us; to send Him incomplete in anatomy seems to go against the point of sending Him in a human image altogether.

you should apologise - research some more - you obviously have not looked hard enough...... how do you know that moses laws are not based on convenience exactly?? do you think jesus inherrited his hair colour from god or mary then? how do you know that he hasn't been trying to let you know - with all the opposition to christianity that exists?? - remember more people in the people do NOT believe in christinaity than do. is god telling you something??

I didn't claim that other religion's prayers weren't answered. You see how tricks of evil can make us assume mistakenly, going against what we know is right? You did not mean to mistakenly assume, yet you did (as did I with your gender). As I've mentioned before, I only think the religions are wrong, not the faith. God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with Christianity's religion. .

i didnt incorrectly assume anything. so others religions prayers ARE answered?? - wow. that must be scary for you. how do you know your religion is the correct one then? - i mean if the other gods do respond to peoples prayers?? perhaps yours is the incorrect one yeah - there is that chance??

If war and murder didn't exist, I think that would suggest the following of love. Why would Our Creator not encourage us to keep existing (I think impossible without love), as opposed to self destruction, which is what would most likely come about without love. You claim The Bible to not be authentic; I have provided evidence to state otherwise, yet you have not provided evidence to back up your belief. You claim to believe in history, but not in Christianity's history. You were present for neither, yet believe in one as opposed to the other. You have a form of faith, it is just from an opposite point of view from that which founded faith; religion.

As for your last statement; I don't think the morals God has provided have changed at all. They have been abandoned, but I don't think changed. Could you provide an example?

you have not provided one jot of evidence of the bible being authentic - reread your posts. perhaps you need a hand in understanding what evidence is?? again you are putting a human emotion on god - why? from all the god of wars we have had - god has encouraged wars.even the biblical god encouarged wars. god no more loves than hates - you are confusing mankind with god again. you only exist right now because you forefathers fought for thier lives. the killed for you. god was ok with it back then though........

[heartsdreamer]

Religions are not based on facts! Right Eagle?

[Starin0at-my0Shadow]

Trying to comment on the original title of the thread...

Religion itself I can approve of. It's a values and mind changing affair. However the type of religion that takes a belief and makes it extremely limiting, these religions in my view are digging pitfalls for their own followers that wasn't necessary. even if they're trying to free you up, the message largely gets lost along the way because instead of keeping it simple, these "foxhole" religions as I like to call them create entirely new problems of their own. I like what eagle said about someone focusing on the finger pointing to god instead of god itself.

In my opinion religion should involve a lot of psychology. That way you can Learn to distinguish and understand your own voices. Then once you understand who you are, how you think, you'll get a better foundation to explore more esoteric subjects.

I've met a lot of people in the christian church who are trying to carry on the true spirit of.. I'll call it excellent awesome chillness. I really have.
but following dogmatic religion, from my perspective, seems like a bad idea.
Not that I regret being involved with it, I don't. I learned a whoooole lot. About what to do, and about what not to do. For example, I can reach so many more people, help 'em get freed from their stuff, if my mind is not hung up on concepts that no one accepts outside of this one religion. It siphons brainpower away from being open-minded and simple. This be why I think Organized religion should be about helping people, not converting them.. It would do a whole world of good. I was throwing away more than I realized at the time when I forfeited control of my mind's filters to other people. I lost a degree of freedom that is essential to curiosity and learning.

I prefer the to believe that my mind is here to do unexpected and miraculous things, not just learn a set of rules handed to me and adhere to them. A computer program can do that, dawg, but I am much more. This planet.. this world, is not a stand-alone complex, it is alive and twirling, in a vast ocean of infinite variables. That is why I have faith in things unseen... because i have seen enough synchronicity to convince me that the vague beliefs and concepts I have... could be swept away at any moment by an ever-more-accurate conception of reality.


I believe there are Absolutes. I also believe there's a million different languages, cultures and minds with which to understand the Absolutes, or God, the higher realm, all that good stuff. So it's not all gonna be the exact some stuff. but those on a similar underlying mission will recognize each other and be able to help one another, even if they disagree about certain aspects. Agree to disagree if you can somehow orchestrate yourself onto an agreeable wavelength. Connect the pieces that fit, and perhaps save the ones that don't in your collection for next time.

One last thing... the devil is...
Well look up jungian study of the shadow.
As for super devils... I have no comment on the matter until I understand myself better, then perhaps I'll delve back into such questions.

Oh, one more thing..

consider jesus' words when he was actually alive - he said to do what the jewish scribes said to do.

Well, I doubt that all the jewish scribes agreed on what a person should do to serve God. But from the way the story goes... there were some things goin' on and teachings involving the Jewish religious leaders of the day that were out of whack and had Jesus pretty PO'ed... Dude even started throwing tables in the temple once. Just curious if that was a brain fart or what

[7Believer]

so you admit you were wrong with your belief then - how can you possibly be trusted with the rest of your beliefs then?? you have already been wrong about something - how far does that go?? hmmmm........

look are you saying that the popes that were in charge of the organisation "closest to god" - actually represented god throught the ages or not? even the ones that have since proven to break those laws?? its a yes or no answer 7believer.........

I recognise my mistake as going against my own logic. As you did not reply to your past mistakes that you had asked me to remind you of, I assume (and apologise if mistaken) that you also recognise them as going against your own logic. The difference here is that your mistakes directly relate to your universal beliefs. Mine, on the other hand, was a simple gender assumption. There is a big difference. Your mistakes prove your beliefs on God's existence faulty, my mistake had nothing to do with my beliefs on God's existence. For your yes or no question, by breaking God's rules they did not represent Him; by following them they did represent Him.

i am not mistaken - the words that jesus said are in your bible. read it.

as for your last statement - are you seriously stating that people didnt forgive each other beore jesus lived??? that does you no justice if you are taliing about logic or even history.....

I think you are the one who should read The Bible. Our Lord Jesus did not exclusively limit His teaching to what was already written. He did teach new lessons. For you to deny that shows that you did not read The whole Bible, or are made to be ignorant of all that is written. I think The Law before Jesus was based on The Ten Commandments. It does not mention forgiveness within them. It does not mention to love your neighbor as you would yourself. It does not mention to refer to God as Our Father. He also taught, in opposition to what I think was believed by the scribes, to allow healing on The Sabbath Day. I think they had misinterpreted (meaning been tricked) to think helping others was merely work, as The Ten Commandments deterred from work on The Sabbath Day. Lord Jesus corrected them.

You seem to have a lot of surety in belief based on historical facts, but you do not provide any. Or is it just imagined history that you base your beliefs on, being without documents, or spoken word passed down, or communication with God to back up such beliefs? They seem to be brought into being by you yourself, not history as you state. As for my beliefs, I think it was taught "an eye for an eye" before Jesus arrived, and I think that is mentioned in The Bible.

trouble with that is - how do you know that all of the church even from the inception was not a trick of satan?? i mean jesus stated that people should do what the jewish scribes say to do - so he did not mean to set up a new religion. think about how christianity has spread thorught the world - there is a lot of evil involved. ignore the bad things about chriistianity by all means - i look at history - not only the good things about christianity.

If Christianity is The One True religion, then just by it's mere existence it has prevented the eradication of God's Way, therefore preventing the devil from taking over the world. As for a new religion, I think He did mean to create one, as He sent His Disciples to teach this new religion. One including the message about His Sacrifice and Resurrection. Those intelligent enough to see the logic in at least taking a chance to believe in Him, The One that was innocent who died for our sins (teaching so importantly to place others before ourselves), being rewarded by Him with eternal life for their faith. Those willing to go as far as He did, and love so strongly to sacrifice themselves, showing the potential for a great future society, filled with complete trust; as those so benevolent to sacrifice for others would not be tempted through lack of love to lie.

you should apologise - research some more - you obviously have not looked hard enough...... how do you know that moses laws are not based on convenience exactly?? do you think jesus inherrited his hair colour from god or mary then? how do you know that he hasn't been trying to let you know - with all the opposition to christianity that exists?? - remember more people in the people do NOT believe in christinaity than do. is god telling you something??

If you know of a site providing proof of what you state, please feel free to offer it. If not, I'm left to assume you are just making statements based on personal theories again. Moses' Laws were from God, not man made for convenience. I believe Our Lord Jesus to be stronger than the devil's tricks, and that if He wished to correct our belief of His appearance, the devil would not be strong enough to stop Him. I mentioned before about Christianity predicting the rise of evil before Lord Jesus' return. I also mentioned how with the increase of attacks on The Church, and increase in loss of believers, there is also an increase in sin and crime.

i didnt incorrectly assume anything. so others religions prayers ARE answered?? - wow. that must be scary for you. how do you know your religion is the correct one then? - i mean if the other gods do respond to peoples prayers?? perhaps yours is the incorrect one yeah - there is that chance??

Eagle, for your first statement, I proved that you did. You've been made to ignore logic and follow arrogance. I'm starting to think you are not entirely comprehending what is posted, because aside from this instance, as for some of the statements you make in opposition, I have already answered in past posts. I do not believe there to be other creators aside from The One True Creator, and have already posted about religions' faith in the One True God being similar, only the facts that go along with it, basically the religion, being wrong. You repeat yourself in showing lack of comprehension in what I have previously posted to you. It's as if you are not reading all that I am posting.

you have not provided one jot of evidence of the bible being authentic - reread your posts. perhaps you need a hand in understanding what evidence is?? again you are putting a human emotion on god - why? from all the god of wars we have had - god has encouraged wars.even the biblical god encouarged wars. god no more loves than hates - you are confusing mankind with god again. you only exist right now because you forefathers fought for thier lives. the killed for you. god was ok with it back then though........

Here is a quote from the site that I posted, which it appears as if you did not even notice, for you have not commented on it:

"One therefore has to go beyond mere skepticism about the authenticity of these Books – in fact, anyone who denies that these books are factual and genuine, must therefore doubt all historical literature written in the last 3 millennia, because there is not a single historical document that has anywhere near the scientific credentials that the Bible has as being authentic.
Having established therefore, according to irrefutable scientific and academic evidence that the Bible is, as far as we can possibly prove, authentic, we need to examine its contents."

I also reread my post as you suggested, and stick by what is posted. If prayers weren't being answered, and communication didn't exist, why would we have continued to follow The Church? Are you calling all the Christians who have communicated with God, and received answers to prayers, liars?

As for wars, I explained in a post to sheepdove about those times, how those who fought not escaping punishment in hell, but having fought to prevent the extinction of those who followed God, and possibly His whole history through Christianity with us. Otherwise, the devil could have removed altogether evidence of The One True God. This image of God that you have created, what provoked you to do so? What made you doubt mankind's history (as Christianity is also mankind's history)? What leads you to believe your image is true, as opposed to Christianity? Do you communicate with your created image of God? Has your image provided you with any historical evidence, directly produced through Him, to back up your beliefs?

[sheepdove]

The Pope is considered the 5th most powerful person in the world and believe me he knows it. He uses his power. The modern church is as the old one and it teaches to kill and it is blessing killers before battle when thou shalt not kill. Because the church follow David. The one Jesus had told the disciples didn't go to heaven. The one in the earth still.

If you are referring to past actions, I've already explained that I think The Church recognises it was wrong.

Read Matthew 23. The church is always doing wrong. It has rabbi's. Only call Jesus rabbi the bible said. Rabbi means master. Maybe we should go out and kill those devils calling theirselves master. After all they are calling theirselves master now. Oh you wish to bow down to them. I wonder if that is why Jesus calls the church which follows man's doctrines servants of Satan. Beats me. At any rate Jesus said thou shalt not kill so christians ignore him and follow David in killing. The Crusades they killed like crazy in. The holocaust. Every chance they get to kill they kill. For the bible teaches them to follow David in killing. Because the the church includes killing in the bible by liars when God's law is thou shalt not kill. According to Jesus and Moses it is leastways. Not according to Satan's christian churches though. They have to teach killing. So David who is in hell has his law of killing ruleing the day. Because christians refuse to accept the fact that the bible was actually written to lead people away from Christ. To contort what the people learned from him and bring them back into the fold. Everyone knows Jesus said thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, do not tempt God ( by tempting fate), and run when they seek you do you harm. Jesus never ever told us to kill. Religious devils did. Lied and said God told them to kill. One lieing Devil named David never went to heaven even though he said he was God's favorite. I thought Lucifer was. Devils lie though. That's why they end up in hell. God has no favorites. That's all in the mind of devils. In truth christians follow the church not for Jesus is the church. They follow Satan and his church which killed Jesus. Christmas is the celebration of the death of Jesus by those who wanted him dead. Man's church which follows David (Satan). They are truly washed in his blood for his blood is on their hands. They share in the guilt of his murder.

Merry Christmas.

David wasn't a sacrifice. He was a devil. Jesus called him a liar and a murderer to the people so the church made out that Jesus was talking about Abraham who Jesus said went to heaven. The lieing devils of the church followed the doctrines of David so they had to do that. Jesus had everyone giveing away their wealth. Seeing them loseing out on their ties. If you don't have money you don't have ties. The church killed the disciples in the hundreds that gave away their wealth for doing so. They had to have the weath and power over people. Jesus was takeing it away. He healed people so they trusted and obeyed him instead of the church. If he hadn't of been killed there would have been no church. Other than Jesus. So they killed him and then wrote the New Testament to bring the people back to them. They couldn't cover up everything so they changed what they could. They didn't want the people to know they were conning them. Each disciple in the New Testament tells different stories about the ressurection because the disciples didn't write it. Church scribes did. The disciples would have told it the same way for they were part of it and knew the truth. The church kept the people following The doctrines of man and thus serveing Satan. Thus christians keep killing and a jealous God is turning his back on them and not answering their prayers. Why would he answer the prayers of devils? You can't serve 2 masters. The church serves Satan as does all within it. They do not follow Jesus. Jesus later on said pay your ties and taxes to try and stop the killing. It didn't stop it though. Religion as government is only politics and has to have it's power. Even before Jesus came it had to have it's power. Jesus asked the church why it didn't follow the laws Moses gave it. The 10 Commandments. It followed the doctrines of man. The doctrines of man that Jesus has cursed it to eternal hell for following. And all within it as well. The church never quit following those laws. Thus the christians and Jews continue to kill, and kill, and kill. Like true devils they are seeking their reward of eternal hell. Those who follows Jesus and not the church though will find heaven. Those in the church claim they talk to God but the only one they talk to is Satan their Master. God does not talk to those who follows the doctrines of man. The straight and narrow path does not allow or support killing as the church does.

[7Believer]

Trying to comment on the original title of the thread...

Religion itself I can approve of. It's a values and mind changing affair. However the type of religion that takes a belief and makes it extremely limiting, these religions in my view are digging pitfalls for their own followers that wasn't necessary. even if they're trying to free you up, the message largely gets lost along the way because instead of keeping it simple, these "foxhole" religions as I like to call them create entirely new problems of their own. I like what eagle said about someone focusing on the finger pointing to god instead of god itself.

In my opinion religion should involve a lot of psychology. That way you can Learn to distinguish and understand your own voices. Then once you understand who you are, how you think, you'll get a better foundation to explore more esoteric subjects.

I've met a lot of people in the christian church who are trying to carry on the true spirit of.. I'll call it excellent awesome chillness. I really have.
but following dogmatic religion, from my perspective, seems like a bad idea.
Not that I regret being involved with it, I don't. I learned a whoooole lot. About what to do, and about what not to do. For example, I can reach so many more people, help 'em get freed from their stuff, if my mind is not hung up on concepts that no one accepts outside of this one religion. It siphons brainpower away from being open-minded and simple. This be why I think Organized religion should be about helping people, not converting them.. It would do a whole world of good. I was throwing away more than I realized at the time when I forfeited control of my mind's filters to other people. I lost a degree of freedom that is essential to curiosity and learning.

I prefer the to believe that my mind is here to do unexpected and miraculous things, not just learn a set of rules handed to me and adhere to them. A computer program can do that, dawg, but I am much more. This planet.. this world, is not a stand-alone complex, it is alive and twirling, in a vast ocean of infinite variables. That is why I have faith in things unseen... because i have seen enough synchronicity to convince me that the vague beliefs and concepts I have... could be swept away at any moment by an ever-more-accurate conception of reality.


I believe there are Absolutes. I also believe there's a million different languages, cultures and minds with which to understand the Absolutes, or God, the higher realm, all that good stuff. So it's not all gonna be the exact some stuff. but those on a similar underlying mission will recognize each other and be able to help one another, even if they disagree about certain aspects. Agree to disagree if you can somehow orchestrate yourself onto an agreeable wavelength. Connect the pieces that fit, and perhaps save the ones that don't in your collection for next time.

One last thing... the devil is...
Well look up jungian study of the shadow.
As for super devils... I have no comment on the matter until I understand myself better, then perhaps I'll delve back into such questions.

Oh, one more thing..

consider jesus' words when he was actually alive - he said to do what the jewish scribes said to do.

Well, I doubt that all the jewish scribes agreed on what a person should do to serve God. But from the way the story goes... there were some things goin' on and teachings involving the Jewish religious leaders of the day that were out of whack and had Jesus pretty PO'ed... Dude even started throwing tables in the temple once. Just curious if that was a brain fart or what

Consider this; those who choose to abandon what is believed God has instructed us to do, in favor of free will, choose to follow their own judgement instead of God's. They choose personal interest over universal interest. Knowing that His judgement is perfect, wouldn't choosing any other way be to choose wrongly, and to allow the corruption of the devil? Please, try asking God for the truth about whether you should follow Christianity or not.

I don't think Lord Jesus was wrathful in the temple, only in opposition. To turn tables over isn't the same as striking another.
To claim that He was would be to claim He was a sinner.

[Tal]

[/quote]I think you are the one who should read The Bible. Our Lord Jesus did not exclusively limit His teaching to what was already written. He did teach new lessons. For you to deny that shows that you did not read The whole Bible, or are made to be ignorant of all that is written. I think The Law before Jesus was based on The Ten Commandments. It does not mention forgiveness within them. It does not mention to love your neighbor as you would yourself. It does not mention to refer to God as Our Father. He also taught, in opposition to what I think was believed by the scribes, to allow healing on The Sabbath Day. I think they had misinterpreted (meaning been tricked) to think helping others was merely work, as The Ten Commandments deterred from work on The Sabbath Day. Lord Jesus corrected them.

You seem to have a lot of surety in belief based on historical facts, but you do not provide any. Or is it just imagined history that you base your beliefs on, being without documents, or spoken word passed down, or communication with God to back up such beliefs? They seem to be brought into being by you yourself, not history as you state. As for my beliefs, I think it was taught "an eye for an eye" before Jesus arrived, and I think that is mentioned in The Bible. [quote]

http://www.innvista.com/culture/religio ... mithra.htm

[The Eagle]

I recognise my mistake as going against my own logic. As you did not reply to your past mistakes that you had asked me to remind you of, I assume (and apologise if mistaken) that you also recognise them as going against your own logic. The difference here is that your mistakes directly relate to your universal beliefs. Mine, on the other hand, was a simple gender assumption. There is a big difference. Your mistakes prove your beliefs on God's existence faulty, my mistake had nothing to do with my beliefs on God's existence. For your yes or no question, by breaking God's rules they did not represent Him; by following them they did represent Him.

See your logic is faulty here. I have not made any mistakes. You posted a hypocritical thing that I told you was hypocritical, but that had nothing to do with my belief in god. Hence me saying to you – if that was the case – your mistake shows you make wrong assumptions so your belief in god must be wrong – it was exposing your logic being faulty and hypocritical. It makes no sense. So this organisation closest to god as it does not always represent god – how do you know that the inception of the religion wasn’t representing god? Jesus didn’t set up the religion and before you say he did – again do some research outside of the bible. Its all there.

I think you are the one who should read The Bible. Our Lord Jesus did not exclusively limit His teaching to what was already written. He did teach new lessons. For you to deny that shows that you did not read The whole Bible, or are made to be ignorant of all that is written. I think The Law before Jesus was based on The Ten Commandments. It does not mention forgiveness within them. It does not mention to love your neighbor as you would yourself. It does not mention to refer to God as Our Father. He also taught, in opposition to what I think was believed by the scribes, to allow healing on The Sabbath Day. I think they had misinterpreted (meaning been tricked) to think helping others was merely work, as The Ten Commandments deterred from work on The Sabbath Day. Lord Jesus corrected them.

no he didn’t teach new lessons. what he actually taught was already being taught hundreds of years before Jesus lived – not by a demigod myth – but by living breathing human beings. for you to deny that – does that show you have ONLY read the bible?

You seem to have a lot of surety in belief based on historical facts, but you do not provide any. Or is it just imagined history that you base your beliefs on, being without documents, or spoken word passed down, or communication with God to back up such beliefs? They seem to be brought into being by you yourself, not history as you state. As for my beliefs, I think it was taught "an eye for an eye" before Jesus arrived, and I think that is mentioned in The Bible.

how do you know I have not received this information directly from god then? – the research can be done by you should you want to clear the fog of ignorance that your religion survives upon. Again you limit human beings to what is only written in the bible. An eye for an eye was in the bible yes. Remember the bible is only the history of one group of people – not every civilisation in the world. Like I said – Egypt had the 10 commandments in place long before the bible or moses came about. And as for jesus correcting it – again there was a set of people practicing that hundreds of years before jesus lived. don’t be afraid to research it.

If Christianity is The One True religion, then just by it's mere existence it has prevented the eradication of God's Way, therefore preventing the devil from taking over the world. As for a new religion, I think He did mean to create one, as He sent His Disciples to teach this new religion. One including the message about His Sacrifice and Resurrection. Those intelligent enough to see the logic in at least taking a chance to believe in Him, The One that was innocent who died for our sins (teaching so importantly to place others before ourselves), being rewarded by Him with eternal life for their faith. Those willing to go as far as He did, and love so strongly to sacrifice themselves, showing the potential for a great future society, filled with complete trust; as those so benevolent to sacrifice for others would not be tempted through lack of love to lie.

mithra had a virgin mother, was sacrificed for mankinds sins, died and resurrected 3 days later you know – guess what? it happened hundreds of years before jesus lived. what is more interesting is paul – who basically is to blame for modern day Christianity (paul never met jesus when he was alive remember) – grew up in a town where they had a big mithra temple. Strange that isn’t it…….. those intelligent enough to read and research will see that jesus was nothing new. lets remember though you can't blame jesus for christianity.

a quote for you - "a thing is not necessarily true becuase a man died for it". Oscar Wilde (sinner, gay boy and living in hell yeah 7believer??)

the catholic church as a whole has been responsible for a hell of a lot if evil in the world. If it is the one true religion – it has not survived because of the teachings of jesus. It has been the murder and political nature and force behind it.

If you know of a site providing proof of what you state, please feel free to offer it. If not, I'm left to assume you are just making statements based on personal theories again. Moses' Laws were from God, not man made for convenience. I believe Our Lord Jesus to be stronger than the devil's tricks, and that if He wished to correct our belief of His appearance, the devil would not be strong enough to stop Him. I mentioned before about Christianity predicting the rise of evil before Lord Jesus' return. I also mentioned how with the increase of attacks on The Church, and increase in loss of believers, there is also an increase in sin and crime.

Look if you wanted to go research it go for it. It is all there – posting websites does nothing. You can assume all you want – your assumptions have already proven to be wrong – remember that. How do you know that god was not behind the other laws already in place hundreds of years before moses was about then? Are you limiting god to one way again??

As for jesus appearance – I will ask again since you missed it – do you think that jesus hair colour was inherited from god or mary then??

I will ask you a further question – does god create something without purpose?

Eagle, for your first statement, I proved that you did. You've been made to ignore logic and follow arrogance. I'm starting to think you are not entirely comprehending what is posted, because aside from this instance, as for some of the statements you make in opposition, I have already answered in past posts. I do not believe there to be other creators aside from The One True Creator, and have already posted about religions' faith in the One True God being similar, only the facts that go along with it, basically the religion, being wrong. You repeat yourself in showing lack of comprehension in what I have previously posted to you. It's as if you are not reading all that I am posting.

7believer – no you didn’t prove anything. Solved that one then. Again your opinion of what I am doing should be applied to yourself – it should show you what you are indeed doing. Its how I am teaching you.

so we will go through this again since you really don’t get it and avoid answering questions – are other peoples prayers answered when they pray to god through another religion? YES or NO? if the answer is yes – then how can you assume that yours it the one true religion?? If you are saying there religion is false – how are the prayers answered?? You have not answered the question. is it arrogance on your part to say you must be right about the facts that go along with it?? how have you got to that point where you say the other religions are incorrect? - when thay have just as much proof of thier religion being correct?? also if like you say the facts surrpounding thier religion are incorrect but thier prayers are still asnwered - it would suggest that the facts surrounding it are NOT important then yeah?

Here is a quote from the site that I posted, which it appears as if you did not even notice, for you have not commented on it:

"One therefore has to go beyond mere skepticism about the authenticity of these Books – in fact, anyone who denies that these books are factual and genuine, must therefore doubt all historical literature written in the last 3 millennia, because there is not a single historical document that has anywhere near the scientific credentials that the Bible has as being authentic.
Having established therefore, according to irrefutable scientific and academic evidence that the Bible is, as far as we can possibly prove, authentic, we need to examine its contents."

I also reread my post as you suggested, and stick by what is posted. If prayers weren't being answered, and communication didn't exist, why would we have continued to follow The Church? Are you calling all the Christians who have communicated with God, and received answers to prayers, liars?

As for wars, I explained in a post to sheepdove about those times, how those who fought not escaping punishment in hell, but having fought to prevent the extinction of those who followed God, and possibly His whole history through Christianity with us. Otherwise, the devil could have removed altogether evidence of The One True God. This image of God that you have created, what provoked you to do so? What made you doubt mankind's history (as Christianity is also mankind's history)? What leads you to believe your image is true, as opposed to Christianity? Do you communicate with your created image of God? Has your image provided you with any historical evidence, directly produced through Him, to back up your beliefs?

Right proof of harry potter existing – there is a platform 9 and three quarters at Kings Cross Station. There is a prime minister – there is England, there is London, there is a harry potter living and breathing as we speak. – the point is the actual evidence of the bible being correct is the same as harry potter being true- it does not prove the existence of a demigod with magic tricks. Do you see what I am saying?

With what you are saying about Christians prayers answered as above – how about muslim prayers, jewish prayers etc etc – I have already offered a theory on why this is the case – which doesn’t exclude any religion. are you calling all the faiths around the world that are not christian liars? - remember christianity is split in its beliefs too and further more you are in the minority of what people believe in. more people do not believe in the catholic faith than do. so you are saying all those other poeple are liars for believing something different?? they all have thier proof of thier god existing just the same as you. so rather than playing the yeah but everyone else is wrong - try to look for what people can agree upon and build your theroy of god from there. you will see as in my original post - that the rules of religion and arrogance of religion have nothing to do with god - but only speak of mankind. you insisting you are correct in your belief becuase your faith is stronger wins no intelligent argument. it speaks for your conviction to your religion - but you are no different from someone else from another religion arguing the same thing. faith is not proof. it is faith. i will say this to you and hope it gets through to you - your faith in your religion is not stronger than mine in what i believe in. you can say devil's corruption all you want - i can say the same thing back to you if it is based on faith.

I don’t doubt mankind’s history – I just don’t ignore it as you seem to do. Christianity –the bible is part of mankind’s history – not the whole story its one group of peoples account in a certain time period. Think about this ok – when “god flooded the earth and noah built his ark” – there are flood stories from all around the world in different civilizations. There are animals in Australia that cannot have got there from the ark – unless the ark dropped them off on their way. The logical approach would say – a world event happened the earth flooded – it has happened before and will again – this is backed up by geology. The story in the bible is one account of it – just like stories from south America of the world flooding. It is the same with the new testament – the account in the bible is an account of an event. It’s a collection of books by an organisation that had a political reason for including some books and ignoring others – the different accounts and the time the were written shows this. Remember it was written decades and decades after the event. It is an account of a small group of people that make up one part of mankind’s history – there were people living breathing all around the world before the bible old and new came into existence. Please do not ignore all of mankind’s history and limit your self to viewing the bible as a history book.

another quote for you: "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world” Max Born

[The Eagle]

Religions are not based on facts! Right Eagle?

well i could go for christianity as:
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed". Adolf Hitler

but i think i will go for this as a message to believers:
"Say not, ''I have found the truth,'' but rather, ''I have found a truth."" Kahlil Gibran

(sorry reading some philosophy books so thats why i am quoting lots. )

[sheepdove]

The Pope is considered the 5th most powerful person in the world and believe me he knows it. He uses his power. The modern church is as the old one and it teaches to kill and it is blessing killers before battle when thou shalt not kill. Because the church follow David. The one Jesus had told the disciples didn't go to heaven. The one in the earth still.

If you are referring to past actions, I've already explained that I think The Church recognises it was wrong.

Read Matthew 23. The church is always doing wrong. It has rabbi's. Only call Jesus rabbi the bible said. Rabbi means master. Maybe we should go out and kill those devils calling theirselves master. After all they are calling theirselves master now. Oh you wish to bow down to them. I wonder if that is why Jesus calls the church which follows man's doctrines servants of Satan. Beats me. At any rate Jesus said thou shalt not kill so christians ignore him and follow David in killing. The Crusades they killed like crazy in. The holocaust. Every chance they get to kill they kill. For the bible teaches them to follow David in killing. Because the the church includes killing in the bible by liars when God's law is thou shalt not kill. According to Jesus and Moses it is leastways. Not according to Satan's christian churches though. They have to teach killing. So David who is in hell has his law of killing ruleing the day. Because christians refuse to accept the fact that the bible was actually written to lead people away from Christ. To contort what the people learned from him and bring them back into the fold. Everyone knows Jesus said thou shalt not kill, turn the other cheek, do not tempt God ( by tempting fate), and run when they seek you do you harm. Jesus never ever told us to kill. Religious devils did. Lied and said God told them to kill. One lieing Devil named David never went to heaven even though he said he was God's favorite. I thought Lucifer was. Devils lie though. That's why they end up in hell. God has no favorites. That's all in the mind of devils. In truth christians follow the church not for Jesus is the church. They follow Satan and his church which killed Jesus. Christmas is the celebration of the death of Jesus by those who wanted him dead. Man's church which follows David (Satan). They are truly washed in his blood for his blood is on their hands. They share in the guilt of his murder.

Merry Christmas.

David wasn't a sacrifice. He was a devil. Jesus called him a liar and a murderer to the people so the church made out that Jesus was talking about Abraham who Jesus said went to heaven. The lieing devils of the church followed the doctrines of David so they had to do that. Jesus had everyone giveing away their wealth. Seeing them loseing out on their ties. If you don't have money you don't have ties. The church killed the disciples in the hundreds that gave away their wealth for doing so. They had to have the weath and power over people. Jesus was takeing it away. He healed people so they trusted and obeyed him instead of the church. If he hadn't of been killed there would have been no church. Other than Jesus. So they killed him and then wrote the New Testament to bring the people back to them. They couldn't cover up everything so they changed what they could. They didn't want the people to know they were conning them. Each disciple in the New Testament tells different stories about the ressurection because the disciples didn't write it. Church scribes did. The disciples would have told it the same way for they were part of it and knew the truth. The church kept the people following The doctrines of man and thus serveing Satan. Thus christians keep killing and a jealous God is turning his back on them and not answering their prayers. Why would he answer the prayers of devils? You can't serve 2 masters. The church serves Satan as does all within it. They do not follow Jesus. Jesus later on said pay your ties and taxes to try and stop the killing. It didn't stop it though. Religion as government is only politics and has to have it's power. Even before Jesus came it had to have it's power. Jesus asked the church why it didn't follow the laws Moses gave it. The 10 Commandments. It followed the doctrines of man. The doctrines of man that Jesus has cursed it to eternal hell for following. And all within it as well. The church never quit following those laws. Thus the christians and Jews continue to kill, and kill, and kill. Like true devils they are seeking their reward of eternal hell. Those who follows Jesus and not the church though will find heaven. Those in the church claim they talk to God but the only one they talk to is Satan their Master. God does not talk to those who follows the doctrines of man. The straight and narrow path does not allow or support killing as the church does.

There is proof that the modern church is a servant of Satan's. In World War 1 the catholics and protestants of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy went to war and killed other catholics and protestants world-wide. Jews as well. In War World 2 not only did the catholics and protestants of Germany, Italy. and Hungary kill catholics and protestants from all over the world but they took part in the Holocaust in which jews were mercilessly slaughtered. Plus the catholics of Ireland and the protestants of England had always sought each others death. Now and then you still hear about bombings there. One of the 10 Commandments was thou shalt not kill. Religion refused Jesus and his commandments. It follows the doctrines of David the liar and murderer. Only includes the 10 Commandments in it's religion to get the people in it. Where God's doctrines are different from man's man's doctrines are supposed to be not followed. They are followed though by the church for the church is Satan's.

[7Believer]

Thank you for the site you posted, Tal. I was previously unaware that such a religion even existed. Concerning it:

http://carm.org/christianity/bible/doesnt-religion-mithra-prove-christianity-false

http://www.well.com/~davidu/mithras.html

Here is a quote from that last site offered:

For most of the twentieth century it has been assumed that Mithraism was imported from Iran, and that Mithraic iconography must therefore represent ideas drawn from ancient Iranian mythology. The reason for this is that the name of the god worshipped in the cult, Mithras, is a Greek and Latin form of the name of an ancient Iranian god, Mithra; in addition, Roman authors themselves expressed a belief that the cult was Iranian in origin. At the end of the nineteenth century Franz Cumont, the great Belgian historian of ancient religion, published a magisterial two- volume work on the Mithraic mysteries based on the assumption of the Iranian origins of the cult. Cumont's work immediately became accepted as the definitive study of the cult, and remained virtually unchallenged for over seventy years.

There were, however, a number of serious problems with Cumont's assumption that the Mithraic mysteries derived from ancient Iranian religion. Most significant among these is that there is no parallel in ancient Iran to the iconography which is the primary fact of the Roman Mithraic cult. For example, as already mentioned, by far the most important icon in the Roman cult was the tauroctony. This scene shows Mithras in the act of killing a bull, accompanied by a dog, a snake, a raven, and a scorpion; the scene is depicted as taking place inside a cave like the mithraeum itself. This icon was located in the most important place in every mithraeum, and therefore must have been an expression of the central myth of the Roman cult. Thus, if the god Mithras of the Roman religion was actually the Iranian god Mithra, we should expect to find in Iranian mythology a story in which Mithra kills a bull. However, the fact is that no such Iranian myth exists: in no known Iranian text does Mithra have anything to do with killing a bull.

Franz Cumont had responded to this problem by focusing on an ancient Iranian text in which a bull is indeed killed, but in which the bull-slayer is not Mithra but rather Ahriman, the force of cosmic evil in Iranian religion. Cumont argued that there must have existed a variant of this myth-- a variant for which there was, however, no actual evidence-- in which the bull-slayer had been transformed from Ahriman to Mithra. It was this purely hypothetical variant on the myth of Ahriman's killing of a bull that according to Cumont lay behind the tauroctony icon of the Roman cult of Mithras.

I wanted to point out that Mithra, an iranian dieity, was depicted often slaying a bull, but according to iranian myth, it was actually Ahriman (the iranian dieity for all evil) that slayed the bull. So the Mithra of rome could easily have been the Ahriman of iran. Considering Mithra's conflict with Christianity, do you see how possible it is that the devil (under a different name, but still recognised as all evil) was the worshipped dieity of the religion claimed so close to Christianity?

See your logic is faulty here. I have not made any mistakes. You posted a hypocritical thing that I told you was hypocritical, but that had nothing to do with my belief in god. Hence me saying to you – if that was the case – your mistake shows you make wrong assumptions so your belief in god must be wrong – it was exposing your logic being faulty and hypocritical. It makes no sense. So this organisation closest to god as it does not always represent god – how do you know that the inception of the religion wasn’t representing god? Jesus didn’t set up the religion and before you say he did – again do some research outside of the bible. Its all there.

My mistake went against my logic, and therefore does not represent my logic. You notice that I do not claim to defend that it wasn't a mistake. My belief in God is not based on assumption. I did not have facts telling me whether you are male or female, but I do have facts telling me about Christianity. It is a fact that The Bible contains information about God. It is a fact that, not only I, but many other people do receive replys when we seek an answer from God. Therefore, you are wrong in your statement. I have not shown faulty logic (as the action was not in agreement with my logic) or been hypocritical. To do so would be to defend that my mistake wasn't a mistake. Does this make sense to you? You state that The Church does not always represent God. You are wrong. Only it's members that turn away from God's Law did not represent God. How I know the creation of Judaism, or Christianity, whichever religion you refer to, is created by God; it was Him who wrote The Ten Commandments and Him who sent Lord Jesus. I acknowlegde that Lord Jesus didn't create Judaism, but He did create Christianity. He taught His disciples to teach the same as Himself, and that is where Christianity is from; His teachings.

As for the part in italics:

factual description....... well...... shall we go back to where that came from - there was nothing insulting about what was said. you only found it insulting because of your own personal faith - and further questioned the wisdom involved.

whatever religion you are talking about i am reminded that a wise man once said: "why would i want to enter christian heaven?? - thats where all the intolerant christian assholes will be....."

I consider an insult to be ill intended. Given the large availability of other words to choose from to state your disapproval of Christianity, and the inclusion of a vulgar word (widely known as vulgar), I consider that to be ill intended. To have ill intent towards others is not only sinful, but unwise. You posted about practical elements of rules:

most religions have don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your missus. etc. These are not religious rules - they are rules for society to maintain order - not many would argue with them

All three of those things are based on ill intent. If you still agree with your post, then you see my point. I also find it unwise because if the speaker does believe in heaven and hell, they would abandon heaven due to opposition to sin, that being what Christians oppose, besides simple mistakes like the misuse of a word, in which case the oppostion would be to positively teach you. I again find it unwise in that the use of the word intolerant is hypocritical, for the speaker proves to be quite intolerant.

{This hypocritical mistake is not the one concerning you being intolerant of intolerance. It is about you stating that ill intent goes against common knowledge, then practicing ill intent yourself. If you had recognised it as a mistake, in which you didn't, it wouldn't have been hypocritical. It is not one of the hypocritical mistakes concerning God that I referred to you making, but it is a mistake that you denied in the post to which I am replying.}

Also:

am chosing a diffeerent way to YOU - not to god. you do not represent god when you talk. again intolerance - its the mind set that you are speaking for god - "trying to help people find god" - no you are trying to get people to believe in what you believe in. god has nothing to do with what you are talking about. to claim "one true god" - if that is not a grounding for intolerance i suggest you think more and have blind faith less.

god does not want anything - god does not need followers or faith. religion does. think about it.

You can see by the parts in italics what I'm trying to point out. I love you, but you are a hypocrite. Hopefully you'll remember what I posted previously about the use of the word hypocrite, and realise it is not ill intended. I understand how your thoughts can be manipulated and trick you. You may not agree with me, but I credit it to the works of evil. Being Christian, I think in teaching what God taught us to teach, we do represent God. We pass on his message, and agree with it. I acknowledge that some Christians do make mistakes, and again I blame the tricks of the devil and his demons. I don't think that makes us innocent, more like unaware accomplices. Wrong is still done, and we still play a part in it, even if we mean well.

{In this mistake, which again is not the same one as intolerating intolerance, it does concern God as you claim that I do not speak for God yet that is exactly what you are attempting to do. It is a hypocritical mistake concerning your beliefs of God as there is no divine indication evident that you speak for Our Lord, or are even acting in accordance with His wishes, however, I have His divine indication through the sending of Our Lord Jesus, and Lord Jesus' teachings, that I speak for Him; For it is God's instruction that we Christians teach, not our own.}

Likewise:

of course christianity limits god. you limit god to one way. religion (any religion) is like a finger poining to god. you as a catholic unfortunatley focus on the finger - not god. evil exists as a judgement on past actions. there is no outside force of evil. satan exists only in the minds of believers like you. now you can go on to say satan tricks and makes peopple he doesnt exist - but then why is this evil cult you follow not a trick of satan again??

To limit God would be to claim He is not all powerful. I am only limiting false ideas of God. There is a difference. To limit ideas of God is to promote only one idea of God. Is that not what you yourself are doing? You claim God is not what Christians or other religions believe, but is what you believe. This constant hypocrisy you reveal in your posts should help you realise that you are being tricked. You call The Church a cult of evil, indicating that all those who practice unconditional love and forgiveness, benevolence and virtue, are evil. Do you not see the faulty logic behind your ideas?

{I apologise first for not pointing out earlier, but in this hypocritical mistake concerning God (again, not the one about you being intolerant of intolerance), you claim Christians do not focus on God. We do focus on God, so far as to even seek to do His bidding. Is not seeking to serve Our God to focus on what He wants? To focus on Him? Through His teachings we also learn more about His character, coming to know Him better than without such teachings. Isn't this to focus on God as well? Seeking to learn His identity? As for you, you prove hypocritical in that you are the one not focused on God. Your focus is on your own fabricated opinion of Him. With this opinion, you can claim whatever you want about God to be true, not caring whether it really is true or not, for you do not have any divine indication as previously stated. In this way, you are more focused on what you want God to be, not on what He has taught us He is. You are not focused on Him, but yourself. Not on His will, but your own will.}

Again:

there is nothing evil about movies - there is nothing evil about violence until we as humans judge it. movies do not promote violence.

To enjoy people killing each other, I consider that evil. Are you claiming that our judgement of violence being wrong is wrong? If so, you again contradict your own posts on practicality. I hope that with enough of these mistakes being pointed out, you will soon begin to believe me when I tell you that you are being tricked.

our judgement of violence is gained from living in our society - where we make the rules. we judge killing as wrong as it is not good for society - and also the emotions involed with the loss of someone. its only evil because we judge it as evil - killing in war is not judged as evil by society as it is judged a necessity for society. that ofcourse is changing now - after the world wars and modern day war reporting.

To say something is only wrong because we say so, I don't think that is true. We recognise killing as wrong now, but before we had done so, it was still wrong. That act itself is not different with or without our judgement of it. For example; smoking in cars while children are with you is being banned in texas now. Before it wasn't. We recognise that it is wrong now, but the reasons for this judgement were still in place before the actual judgement. Kids were still vulnerable. It was wrong, we just didn't recognise it. Also, you do not offer any response to my last post about you being wrong concerning movies. In fact, in this post of yours you agree with me (acknowledging killing is wrong), and again contradict yourself in your last post. Also, you mention killing in war not being evil. Wouldn't one side recognise the killers of the other side to be wrong, and thus evil in their wishes?

{In this hypocritical mistake, you claim movies portraying violence for entertainment are not evil, but that violence is evil. You contradict yourself. It is not a mistake concerning intolerance of intolerance, or one about God, but it is a mistake in which you denied making. This proves you to be hypocritical in logic, and therefore suggests you are prone to hypocritical reasoning concerning God. This also proves true when we consider how you use defences like the devil could be tricking me, when you yourself do not even believe in the devil. Why not use claims from your own beliefs to defend against my statements, or would they not hold up?}

Finally:

well you are proving yourself quite the hypocrit too. you calling me a hypocrit doesnt weigh very heavily on my conscience..... and no i dont speak for god. i speak for mankind. god does not have a voice. mankind does.

I would like to know how I prove myself to be a hypocrite. By not caring about being hypocritical, you again show lack of intelligent judgement (yet the devil's corruption has you too full of arrogance to not consider the consequences of such actions). You contradict yourself yet again in your post, as I have shown with italics. Please understand that I love you Eagle, and am not trying to humiliate you or compete with you. I am only trying to teach you

{In this contradictive mistake, you acknowledge you do not speak for God, but continue to do so anyway. Perhaps this is a mistake not based on your logic? Or do you still claim it is not a mistake? You also state that you do not care about being hypocritical. This does relate to beliefs of God as you prove you do not care if your beliefs about Him are hypocritical, and therefore wrong. This is obviously not intelligent logic. I'm not attacking you by that statement, as I believe the devil to be behind such things, so please don't think I hold any ill will towards you.}

no he didn’t teach new lessons. what he actually taught was already being taught hundreds of years before Jesus lived – not by a demigod myth – but by living breathing human beings. for you to deny that – does that show you have ONLY read the bible?

I have researched, and I have not found anywhere that it suggests Lord Jesus' teachings were already known. If you have, please offer a website. I also have not encountered in any other religion (or law), and apologise if I'm wrong, the importance that Lord Jesus placed on self-sacrifice over all other morals. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", was the single law Jesus stated with the most important law "Love Our Father with all our being". Please read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon.

The golden rule, equality, was taught before Jesus, but Jesus was the only one to teach going beyond equalty, not just to treat others like you expect them to treat you, but to treat others with love as you love yourself; true self-sacrifice. Now altruism may have been taught before, but by true self-sacrifice I refer to dedicating your lives to all others (not just a single person, or group). Complete abandonment of personal interest for universal interest. This was further taught by Lord Jesus in His Sacrifice for us. Such a thing is not emphasised in other religions like Buddhism. Though without sin, He received the punishment for it on our behalf. If we all followed Lord Jesus and committed ourselves to each other on the scale that He did, living His life for us (as He did not seek personal progress, but the progress of all others), then willing to die for us (again, different from simple altruism; true self-sacrifice), we would be living in bliss. We would seek the pure happiness, progress, and unity of all and would be willing to die for it. Also, we would not be without a leader, as Lord Jesus' first Law stated; by completely loving Our Father, we completely devote ourselves to Him first. His judgement being perfect, we would be able to find out the answer to every problem by seeking Him. Look at what Christianity now teaches; a perfect world. Pure devotion, first to God then to each other. Only Christianity teaches this perfect concept. Without complete devotion to all, and first to God, room for conflict is involved. Do you see Christianity's undeniable truth? It alone teaches the perfection that could only come from God.

how do you know I have not received this information directly from god then? – the research can be done by you should you want to clear the fog of ignorance that your religion survives upon. Again you limit human beings to what is only written in the bible. An eye for an eye was in the bible yes. Remember the bible is only the history of one group of people – not every civilisation in the world. Like I said – Egypt had the 10 commandments in place long before the bible or moses came about. And as for jesus correcting it – again there was a set of people practicing that hundreds of years before jesus lived. don’t be afraid to research it.

For the first question, by you claiming before that God does not speak, I assumed then that you never attempted to communicate with Him. The Ten Commandments may have common laws with the book of the dead, but there is no proof that is where The Ten Commandments came from. Also, though recognised by egypt, those laws were not known to be the desire of The One True God until He Himself wrote similar laws for us. I think egypt also had many other laws;
http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/TenCommandments.html. Please provide me with the location as to where you learned that others corrected the same as Jesus. I would like to also look into that.

mithra had a virgin mother, was sacrificed for mankinds sins, died and resurrected 3 days later you know – guess what? it happened hundreds of years before jesus lived. what is more interesting is paul – who basically is to blame for modern day Christianity (paul never met jesus when he was alive remember) – grew up in a town where they had a big mithra temple. Strange that isn’t it…….. those intelligent enough to read and research will see that jesus was nothing new. lets remember though you can't blame jesus for christianity.

I've already addressed Mithra at the beginning of my post.

a quote for you - "a thing is not necessarily true becuase a man died for it". Oscar Wilde (sinner, gay boy and living in hell yeah 7believer??)

the catholic church as a whole has been responsible for a hell of a lot if evil in the world. If it is the one true religion – it has not survived because of the teachings of jesus. It has been the murder and political nature and force behind it.

Can you provide any evidence at all to back up that last statement? If so, please do. The Church directly opposes evil, it doesn't produce it. In fact, if one followed The Church's laws, they would not commit evil. Again, please do not claim that members of The Church who break The Church's own laws represent the Church.

Look if you wanted to go research it go for it. It is all there – posting websites does nothing. You can assume all you want – your assumptions have already proven to be wrong – remember that. How do you know that god was not behind the other laws already in place hundreds of years before moses was about then? Are you limiting god to one way again??

I know because The One True God did not Himself claim to be, as He did with The Ten Commandments.

As for jesus appearance – I will ask again since you missed it – do you think that jesus hair colour was inherited from god or mary then??

I see that now you are paying attention to missed questions. There are several of mine you have not replied to. Please consider doing so. Before you ask me what they are, please look over my past posts to see. To answer your question, I think through Mary and her descendants, as I do not know The Holy Spirit to have an individual history of genetics. What was the purpose of this question?

I will ask you a further question – does god create something without purpose?

I don't think He does.

7believer – no you didn’t prove anything. Solved that one then. Again your opinion of what I am doing should be applied to yourself – it should show you what you are indeed doing. Its how I am teaching you.

Those who communicate with Lord Jesus offer proof of His existence. Those whose prayers are answered do likewise. If you want proof that is undeniable, pray to God for it. What do you have to lose by doing so? Do you consider The Bible to be a fictional book, and everything in it? Please read this site: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_chris ... _bible.htm. If The Bible's authenticity proves to be true, and I know God's existence through Christianity to be true, as I do communicate with Him, then I know other religions to be false based on these truths and not on theories. You mention ignoring Catholic history. Again, I do not consider a few members' mistaken actions to speak for The Whole Church.

you think you communicate with god and others that don't believe in your religion don't?? how about the prayers of muslims that are answered?? where or when exactly do the catholic lies start then in your opinion?

You can see I mention Lord Jesus, not Our Father. That proves Lord Jesus to be God, and Christianity to be true. For the other part in italics, I do not state other religions prayers to be unanswered like you suggest. I claim to know The Bible to be true, through authenticity, which includes the law of not worshipping false dieities (other religions' images of God), and I know God to exist through communication with Him. By stating through Christianity, I mean not in conflict with it, so God acknowledging the rule of no false worship, and not indicating that Christianity does so. You assumed I meant I don't believe other religions' prayers weren't answered. I apologise if I mislead you.

I didn't claim that other religion's prayers weren't answered. You see how tricks of evil can make us assume mistakenly, going against what we know is right? You did not mean to mistakenly assume, yet you did (as did I with your gender). As I've mentioned before, I only think the religions are wrong, not the faith. God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with Christianity's religion.

didnt incorrectly assume anything. so others religions prayers ARE answered?? - wow. that must be scary for you. how do you know your religion is the correct one then? - i mean if the other gods do respond to peoples prayers?? perhaps yours is the incorrect one yeah - there is that chance??

Eagle, for your first statement, I proved that you did. You've been made to ignore logic and follow arrogance. I'm starting to think you are not entirely comprehending what is posted, because aside from this instance, as for some of the statements you make in opposition, I have already answered in past posts. I do not believe there to be other creators aside from The One True Creator, and have already posted about religions' faith in the One True God being similar, only the facts that go along with it, basically the religion, being wrong. You repeat yourself in showing lack of comprehension in what I have previously posted to you. It's as if you are not reading all that I am posting.

so we will go through this again since you really don’t get it and avoid answering questions – are other peoples prayers answered when they pray to god through another religion? YES or NO? if the answer is yes – then how can you assume that yours it the one true religion?? If you are saying there religion is false – how are the prayers answered?? You have not answered the question. is it arrogance on your part to say you must be right about the facts that go along with it?? how have you got to that point where you say the other religions are incorrect? - when thay have just as much proof of thier religion being correct?? also if like you say the facts surrpounding thier religion are incorrect but thier prayers are still asnwered - it would suggest that the facts surrounding it are NOT important then yeah?

I've already answered your first question. This quote is taken from a dec. 4th post:

I didn't claim that other religion's prayers weren't answered. You see how tricks of evil can make us assume mistakenly, going against what we know is right? You did not mean to mistakenly assume, yet you did (as did I with your gender). As I've mentioned before, I only think the religions are wrong, not the faith. God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with Christianity's religion.

I think that was not a logic based mistake, am I right? Was it merely a mistake by you, or do you defend that it wasn't a mistake? If other religions' prayers are answered, that don't conflict with Christianity's rules, I don't see how that makes my beliefs incorrect. I think prayers based on what Christianity teaches, even if from other religions, could be answered by Our Lord, as The One True God is still recognised, and the act of praying to Him is still he same. For prayers answered that directly oppose Christianity, I credit the devil. For the question about other religions facts not being important, I believe the fact (as I know it to be) that they are mistaken is important. Christianity holds exclusive messages (the one about true self-sacrifice I already mentioned) that I think need to be recognised. For instance, no other religion provides such recent authorative action By Our Father on earth as to send His Only Son. Compared to all other religions at the time, and then from that time onward, only Christianity claims such authority by God. This shows that God does have only One True Way, and it is through Christianity, through belief in Lord Jesus.

Right proof of harry potter existing – there is a platform 9 and three quarters at Kings Cross Station. There is a prime minister – there is England, there is London, there is a harry potter living and breathing as we speak. – the point is the actual evidence of the bible being correct is the same as harry potter being true- it does not prove the existence of a demigod with magic tricks. Do you see what I am saying?

I think my post was stating the authenticity of The Bible, not claiming that The Bible is the only evidence of Lord Jesus' existence. I have already mentioned how those who believe in Him and communicate with Him also offer evidence. So I offer to you this proof; pray to Lord Jesus for proof of His existence. If you honestly do that, kneeling and Sign Of The Cross included, I am confident that you will receive an answer, even if not right away. You can claim that no immediate response is proof otherwise, but I will be satisfied knowing that, for your part, you have already sought the truth through the best possible way for you; from asking God Himself.

With what you are saying about Christians prayers answered as above – how about muslim prayers, jewish prayers etc etc – I have already offered a theory on why this is the case – which doesn’t exclude any religion. are you calling all the faiths around the world that are not christian liars? - remember christianity is split in its beliefs too and further more you are in the minority of what people believe in. more people do not believe in the catholic faith than do. so you are saying all those other poeple are liars for believing something different?? they all have thier proof of thier god existing just the same as you. so rather than playing the yeah but everyone else is wrong - try to look for what people can agree upon and build your theroy of god from there. you will see as in my original post - that the rules of religion and arrogance of religion have nothing to do with god - but only speak of mankind. you insisting you are correct in your belief becuase your faith is stronger wins no intelligent argument. it speaks for your conviction to your religion - but you are no different from someone else from another religion arguing the same thing. faith is not proof. it is faith. i will say this to you and hope it gets through to you - your faith in your religion is not stronger than mine in what i believe in. you can say devil's corruption all you want - i can say the same thing back to you if it is based on faith.

I've already stated that I believe Christianity to be The One True Way several times, and that other religions are false. I wouldn't mind comparing religions with other religions' members. I think it would be enlightening for both of us. For your last statement, you cannot claim the devil's tricks responsible for anything I do or claim if you do not believe in the devil. Doing so, you just acknowledge the existence of the devil and that Christianity is true. Therefore, you need to offer defense based on your own beliefs in oppose to my statements. Then we can see if they prove believable or not. The fact that you do not acknowledge the devil in your beliefs, along with your practicality theory, does not explain the rise of sin and evil in the world from your point of view. I would like to hear it, for I think it actually directly opposes your practicality theory.

I don’t doubt mankind’s history – I just don’t ignore it as you seem to do. Christianity –the bible is part of mankind’s history – not the whole story its one group of peoples account in a certain time period. Think about this ok – when “god flooded the earth and noah built his ark” – there are flood stories from all around the world in different civilizations. There are animals in Australia that cannot have got there from the ark – unless the ark dropped them off on their way. The logical approach would say – a world event happened the earth flooded – it has happened before and will again – this is backed up by geology. The story in the bible is one account of it – just like stories from south America of the world flooding. It is the same with the new testament – the account in the bible is an account of an event. It’s a collection of books by an organisation that had a political reason for including some books and ignoring others – the different accounts and the time the were written shows this. Remember it was written decades and decades after the event. It is an account of a small group of people that make up one part of mankind’s history – there were people living breathing all around the world before the bible old and new came into existence. Please do not ignore all of mankind’s history and limit your self to viewing the bible as a history book.

I am open to other points of view on God, but will not refrain from opposing them as I know them to be false. As to why I don't just accept that there are different points of view; I seek to save souls, not be idle while the devil tricks them. A thousand years in hell or purgatory is something I don't desire for anybody. I found the sites on the book of the dead and mithra to be educational, but to succeed in only strengthening my faith, not weakening it, as the sites that I provided do likewise.

another quote for you: "The belief that there is only one truth, and that oneself is in possession of it, is the root of all evil in the world” Max Born

There is only one truth. Existence is only one creation, therefore everything in it follows only one plan; one truth. For example; if an event happened, there are only two ways to describe it, truthfully or falsely. That leaves one truth. The many true facts that accompany it you can claim as truths too, but they are just part of the one true truth. Please consider the proof I offered to you about Lord Jesus. Please pray to Him. He is the strongest proof I have, and I desire for you to not spend a thousand years in purgatory or hell. I know you don't love me, but I love you, and I am devoted to you, seeking only the best possible outcome for you in life that I know of.

[The Eagle]

My mistake went against my logic, and therefore does not represent my logic. You notice that I do not claim to defend that it wasn't a mistake. My belief in God is not based on assumption. I did not have facts telling me whether you are male or female, but I do have facts telling me about Christianity. It is a fact that The Bible contains information about God. It is a fact that, not only I, but many other people do receive replys when we seek an answer from God. Therefore, you are wrong in your statement. I have not shown faulty logic (as the action was not in agreement with my logic) or been hypocritical. To do so would be to defend that my mistake wasn't a mistake. Does this make sense to you? You state that The Church does not always represent God. You are wrong. Only it's members that turn away from God's Law did not represent God. How I know the creation of Judaism, or Christianity, whichever religion you refer to, is created by God; it was Him who wrote The Ten Commandments and Him who sent Lord Jesus. I acknowlegde that Lord Jesus didn't create Judaism, but He did create Christianity. He taught His disciples to teach the same as Himself, and that is where Christianity is from; His teachings.

no your mistake was based on lack of research. With you lack of knowledge on the mithra religion too – it shows that you have not researched around your own religion and go from blind faith. I have not made mistakes – the mistakes you claim I have made are only mistakes in YOUR eyes – as they go against what you believe in. my logic is fine.

As for prayes being answered, you state you “didn’t claim they haven’t.” and that “God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with christianity's religion” – well why is it you made the assumption that christianity isn’t a false religion and that god is answering christians prayers – even though it’s a false religion?? Again faith can be your only answer here – but faith is exactly the same answer someone in another religion will use. It makes it even. Jewish faith does conflict with christainity – so are you saying no jewish prayers are answered?? furthermore every religion conflicts with christianity because christianity states it is the one true religion and all others are wrong – remember?

You have contradicted yourself – you state the church did not represent god when it ordered murders and covered up rape of children. When the pope ordered murders – or covered up child rape. That pope did not represent god – in terms of your belief I agree with that. But what you are saying is the pope does not always represent god. Its good that you can admit that. It’s the first step. Congratulations.

How you know that god created Christianity? because god created it. That is basically what you just said. There is no logic involved there – its faith you are talking about.

{In this contradictive mistake, you acknowledge you do not speak for God, but continue to do so anyway. Perhaps this is a mistake not based on your logic? Or do you still claim it is not a mistake? You also state that you do not care about being hypocritical. This does relate to beliefs of God as you prove you do not care if your beliefs about Him are hypocritical, and therefore wrong. This is obviously not intelligent logic. I'm not attacking you by that statement, as I believe the devil to be behind such things, so please don't think I hold any ill will towards you.}

I don’t speak for god. I speak for man. You speak for man too. Solved that one then – no contradiction, no mistake. being hypocritical about be not wanting to not tolerate intolerance has nothing to do with god. Again it is speaking about mankind and is what society is based around. You believe the devil is the minds of all those billions of people who do not believe as you do – yeah I get that. However – I believe the devil only exists in the minds of people like you – as I don’t believe in the devil. So as for belief in the devil – its only you that believes in it, so its only in your mind – not mine. Think about it.

I have researched, and I have not found anywhere that it suggests Lord Jesus' teachings were already known. If you have, please offer a website. I also have not encountered in any other religion (or law), and apologise if I'm wrong, the importance that Lord Jesus placed on self-sacrifice over all other morals. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself", was the single law Jesus stated with the most important law "Love Our Father with all our being". Please read this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon.

The golden rule, equality, was taught before Jesus, but Jesus was the only one to teach going beyond equalty, not just to treat others like you expect them to treat you, but to treat others with love as you love yourself; true self-sacrifice. Now altruism may have been taught before, but by true self-sacrifice I refer to dedicating your lives to all others (not just a single person, or group). Complete abandonment of personal interest for universal interest. This was further taught by Lord Jesus in His Sacrifice for us. Such a thing is not emphasised in other religions like Buddhism. Though without sin, He received the punishment for it on our behalf. If we all followed Lord Jesus and committed ourselves to each other on the scale that He did, living His life for us (as He did not seek personal progress, but the progress of all others), then willing to die for us (again, different from simple altruism; true self-sacrifice), we would be living in bliss. We would seek the pure happiness, progress, and unity of all and would be willing to die for it. Also, we would not be without a leader, as Lord Jesus' first Law stated; by completely loving Our Father, we completely devote ourselves to Him first. His judgement being perfect, we would be able to find out the answer to every problem by seeking Him. Look at what Christianity now teaches; a perfect world. Pure devotion, first to God then to each other. Only Christianity teaches this perfect concept. Without complete devotion to all, and first to God, room for conflict is involved. Do you see Christianity's undeniable truth? It alone teaches the perfection that could only come from God.

well you have proven your research skills are limited to the internet – and not very good at that. Try Essenes – it’s a commonly known group that were in existence long before jesus lived and jesus probably learnt his teachings from them.

as for him sacrificing himself – many other demigods sacrificed themselves for mankinds sins – again do some resreach.

Christianity teaches exactly what every other religion teaches – it is the one true faith and perfection as it came from god. If everyone was muslim there would be peace on earth. If everyone was jewish – peace on earth. Christinaity is no different. Open you eyes.

For the first question, by you claiming before that God does not speak, I assumed then that you never attempted to communicate with Him. The Ten Commandments may have common laws with the book of the dead, but there is no proof that is where The Ten Commandments came from. Also, though recognised by egypt, those laws were not known to be the desire of The One True God until He Himself wrote similar laws for us. I think egypt also had many other laws;
http://www.kingdavid8.com/FAQs/TenCommandments.html. Please provide me with the location as to where you learned that others corrected the same as Jesus. I would like to also look into that.

but in your faith god does speak. So maybe god is speaking to me telling me to correct you – I just don’t know it.

As for commandments – try some logic – Egypt had the commandments like don’t kill don’t steal etc – 1000 years before moses had them. Moses left Egypt and god then tells him some laws which happen to be the same as what had existed for 1000 years in the place he just left – but those were fake and not from god……… please come on you are not stupid – you can see it.

Can you provide any evidence at all to back up that last statement? If so, please do. The Church directly opposes evil, it doesn't produce it. In fact, if one followed The Church's laws, they would not commit evil. Again, please do not claim that members of The Church who break The Church's own laws represent the Church.

the usual response from a believer – “those who are part of my religion that kill people are not apart of my religion” but as I said before I agree. The pope ordered murders – so just because someone is pope they do not necessarily represent god. So when the religion was set up – the people involved might of not of represented god.

Look the religion relied on rome adopting it. Why did rome adopt it? – a last ditch effort to keep their empire in place. One empire one religion. Its not by the grace of jesus that the religion has spread over the world – it’s the murder and destruction of other religions ordered by the catholic church – or the pope if you don’t like me using the term church. It’s a religion that has been forced on people because of the power of empires. Ignore it all you like and believe it was jesus’ teachings – ignore history if you like.

I know because The One True God did not Himself claim to be, as He did with The Ten Commandments.

Where does the ten commandments say that rules made before were not from god? Perhaps you would like to quote it?

I think through Mary and her descendants, as I do not know The Holy Spirit to have an individual history of genetics. What was the purpose of this question?

just interested on your opinion on how aspects of jesus did not actually come from god. You think there is some – I guess that’s a start.

I will ask you a further question – does god create something without purpose?

I don't think He does.

don’t be offended here – it’s a serious question. – do you think jesus had testicals? And if so do you think jesus’ testicals produced sperm?

For your last statement, you cannot claim the devil's tricks responsible for anything I do or claim if you do not believe in the devil. Doing so, you just acknowledge the existence of the devil and that Christianity is true. Therefore, you need to offer defense based on your own beliefs in oppose to my statements. Then we can see if they prove believable or not. The fact that you do not acknowledge the devil in your beliefs, along with your practicality theory, does not explain the rise of sin and evil in the world from your point of view. I would like to hear it, for I think it actually directly opposes your practicality theory.

I can claim that because YOU believe in the devil. And by saying that I am not saying the devil exists or Christianity is true. Your logic is faulty. The devil is in YOUR mind – not mine. Try reading one of my other threads – “gods, ghosts and Dreams – The Great Spirit” this will explain to you why I can claim that.

The rise in sin and evil in the world? – what “sins” are you on about here exactly? I will happily explain my view point.

I am open to other points of view on God, but will not refrain from opposing them as I know them to be false. As to why I don't just accept that there are different points of view; I seek to save souls, not be idle while the devil tricks them. A thousand years in hell or purgatory is something I don't desire for anybody. I found the sites on the book of the dead and mithra to be educational, but to succeed in only strengthening my faith, not weakening it, as the sites that I provided do likewise.

you contradict youself by saying you open to other points of view on god and say there is only one true religion. Think about it.

you argue faith as proof. I accept that. Faith is not proof for me. remember websites are websites – you can research much more and spend time on it – not just go to a christian defence website as you seem to do.

There is only one truth. Existence is only one creation, therefore everything in it follows only one plan; one truth. For example; if an event happened, there are only two ways to describe it, truthfully or falsely. That leaves one truth. The many true facts that accompany it you can claim as truths too, but they are just part of the one true truth. Please consider the proof I offered to you about Lord Jesus. Please pray to Him. He is the strongest proof I have, and I desire for you to not spend a thousand years in purgatory or hell. I know you don't love me, but I love you, and I am devoted to you, seeking only the best possible outcome for you in life that I know of.

this statements are proof of your faith – not proof of god. Please research some more and not go from blind faith. If you are devoted to me – then research some things around Christianity – and do it properly. Go into it with an open mind – not closed relying on blind faith.

Try this - pick one word to describe an orange. If you think we have to pick the same word and if we choose different words and one must be false – then you there is no hope for you. god is that orange, there is not one word, one way. Good luck.

[7Believer]

no your mistake was based on lack of research. With you lack of knowledge on the mithra religion too – it shows that you have not researched around your own religion and go from blind faith. I have not made mistakes – the mistakes you claim I have made are only mistakes in YOUR eyes – as they go against what you believe in. my logic is fine.

I don't think my faith to be blind, as I do not ignore information that opposes it. I consider it's content, and realise through examination that it doesn't prove my faith wrong. You have been made very arrogant by the devil concerning your mistakes. It is common knowledge that the mistakes you have made are true mistakes. Here is a definition for hypocrisy from wikianswers.com: The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. You see, it is not just my opinion that your mistakes are indeed mistakes, but a worldwide opinion. It is known as a fact. Your logic is not fine, as I will again show you; being hypocritical goes against equality, and therefore even your own beliefs of practicality. You further state that you do not care about being hypocritical, so you do not care about correcting something that is wrong, and which creates ill intent. If you do not wish to stop your creation of ill intent, you are basically choosing to do evil. Do you see the corruption apparent in you? Do you see how you are an unaware accomplice of the devil?

As for prayes being answered, you state you “didn’t claim they haven’t.” and that “God, even though worshipped by a false identity, could possibly be answering prayers that don't conflict with christianity's religion” – well why is it you made the assumption that christianity isn’t a false religion and that god is answering christians prayers – even though it’s a false religion?? Again faith can be your only answer here – but faith is exactly the same answer someone in another religion will use. It makes it even. Jewish faith does conflict with christainity – so are you saying no jewish prayers are answered?? furthermore every religion conflicts with christianity because christianity states it is the one true religion and all others are wrong – remember?

You claim Christianity false, but do not have any intelligent reason to do so. Once again, my best proof for you is God Himself. Throughout our posts I have continuously requested from you to, for a minute or two, humble yourself and pray to Our Lord for proof. What is to stop you from doing so, aside from the devil? For the last part in italics, I state that I think prayers which do not conflict can be answered, not faiths or religions that do not conflict. For another religion's member to pray to Our Lord asking proof of His existence, that does not conflict with Christianity at all.

You have contradicted yourself – you state the church did not represent god when it ordered murders and covered up rape of children. When the pope ordered murders – or covered up child rape. That pope did not represent god – in terms of your belief I agree with that. But what you are saying is the pope does not always represent god. Its good that you can admit that. It’s the first step. Congratulations.

How have I contradicted myself? I do not claim that The Pope does not always represent God, only that if he did oppose God's Law, then he would not be representing Our Lord. I do not know of any case where The Pope opposed God's Law. I'm aware there are crimes that have been commited by The Church's members, but as for The current Pope himself, I haven't learned anything stating so.

How you know that god created Christianity? because god created it. That is basically what you just said. There is no logic involved there – its faith you are talking about.

There is more than faith in my belief that Our Father created Christianity; there is also logic. I do communicate with Our Lord Jesus, as do many other Christians; not just Our Father, but Lord Jesus. I also have stated how only Christianity teaches a perfect world. Other religions teach positivity, but they always leave room for error through personal interest over universal interest. Christianity is also the only religion in which Our Father intervenes on earth so recently with such authority as sending His Only Son. There is also logic in realising that the odds of every Christian geneology breaking The Ten Commandment Law of not bearing false witness when they passed on their claim that Lord Jesus was seen resurrected throughout the generations is very unlikely. To believe that would be to believe that every Christian from Lord Jesus' time onward has had a liar in their family history, which covered every possible branch. Do you see the logic behind Christianity now?

I don’t speak for god. I speak for man. You speak for man too. Solved that one then – no contradiction, no mistake. being hypocritical about be not wanting to not tolerate intolerance has nothing to do with god. Again it is speaking about mankind and is what society is based around. You believe the devil is the minds of all those billions of people who do not believe as you do – yeah I get that. However – I believe the devil only exists in the minds of people like you – as I don’t believe in the devil. So as for belief in the devil – its only you that believes in it, so its only in your mind – not mine. Think about it.

Eagle, when you claim things like God does not have a voice, or that God does not want anything, you are attempting to speak for Our Lord. I do not speak for man when I teach what Our Loving God has taught us to teach, as it is His word that I teach, not man's. You are mistaken again in your claim of not making a mistake, but I understand, as I recognise evil has it's hold on you. I think I did explain in my first reply in this post that by not caring about being hypocritical, you actually directly oppose Our Lord, and also all humanity.

well you have proven your research skills are limited to the internet – and not very good at that. Try Essenes – it’s a commonly known group that were in existence long before jesus lived and jesus probably learnt his teachings from them.

as for him sacrificing himself – many other demigods sacrificed themselves for mankinds sins – again do some resreach.

Christianity teaches exactly what every other religion teaches – it is the one true faith and perfection as it came from god. If everyone was muslim there would be peace on earth. If everyone was jewish – peace on earth. Christinaity is no different. Open you eyes.

I did research Essenes. Thank you for informing me about them, as with the book of the dead and Mithra, I also did not previously know of their existence. There is no evidence stating that they taught the exact same as Lord Jesus, or anything resembling Our Lord's message of true self-sacrifice. The same can be said with your claims of other religions doing likewise, as I have researched many other religions; none of them having the same message of true self-sacrifice. Christianity differs from Islam and Judaism as they once again do not teach the perfection of Christianity, and leave room for error with personal interest over universal interest.

but in your faith god does speak. So maybe god is speaking to me telling me to correct you – I just don’t know it.

If that is what you believe, feel free to keep trying.

As for commandments – try some logic – Egypt had the commandments like don’t kill don’t steal etc – 1000 years before moses had them. Moses left Egypt and god then tells him some laws which happen to be the same as what had existed for 1000 years in the place he just left – but those were fake and not from god……… please come on you are not stupid – you can see it.

In the site I offered regarding the book of the dead, it explains how in about one hundred laws there are likely going to be similarities with The Ten Commandments. For example; The Ten Commandment about not blaspheming would obviously be used by worshippers of false dieities. Likewise, the one about not killing is obviously going to be used as well.

the usual response from a believer – “those who are part of my religion that kill people are not apart of my religion” but as I said before I agree. The pope ordered murders – so just because someone is pope they do not necessarily represent god. So when the religion was set up – the people involved might of not of represented god.

I am glad you finally agree with me about not blaming The whole Church anymore. Thank you. Your last statement does not seem likely, as I don't think man created such a perfect religion. Also, please consider my past posts on why I believe in Christianity's authenticity.

Look the religion relied on rome adopting it. Why did rome adopt it? – a last ditch effort to keep their empire in place. One empire one religion. Its not by the grace of jesus that the religion has spread over the world – it’s the murder and destruction of other religions ordered by the catholic church – or the pope if you don’t like me using the term church. It’s a religion that has been forced on people because of the power of empires. Ignore it all you like and believe it was jesus’ teachings – ignore history if you like.

I don't intend to ignore history. If you have something historical and of importance to our discussions, please offer it if you like. For the past instances in which you have, I thank you. They have indeed taught me. Even if everything you claim about rome is true, which I do not think it is, their clear opposition to what was taught by Christianity does not discredit Christianity.

Where does the ten commandments say that rules made before were not from god? Perhaps you would like to quote it?

The Ten Commandments Law of not worshipping false dieities, and further on in Christianity, God claiming that only through Lord Jesus could we be saved, indicates that He does not speak for other religions; only Christianity.

just interested on your opinion on how aspects of jesus did not actually come from god. You think there is some – I guess that’s a start.

If you are referring to His physical form, as Our Father has not let any details about His physical from be known throughout Christianity, I do not see the point you are trying to make.

don’t be offended here – it’s a serious question. – do you think jesus had testicals? And if so do you think jesus’ testicals produced sperm?

Like I explained in a past post, for Lord Jesus to be created in an incomplete form of man would obviously suggest His imperfection, that of which does not exist.

I can claim that because YOU believe in the devil. And by saying that I am not saying the devil exists or Christianity is true. Your logic is faulty. The devil is in YOUR mind – not mine. Try reading one of my other threads – “gods, ghosts and Dreams – The Great Spirit” this will explain to you why I can claim that.

I did read your thread, and yet I fail to see how it allows you to use the devil as a defense when you don't believe in him. I also do not see where my logic is at fault. For example; if I claim the devil is tricking you, and you claim that it is only a trick by him that I believe so, by not believing in him your claim is obviously fake. From your point of view, it is the same as stating nothing is tricking me. Do you see? The devil is non-existant to you, so if you ask, "how do I know the devil isn't behind my logic", it is the same as you asking, "how do I know nothing is behind my logic"?

The rise in sin and evil in the world? – what “sins” are you on about here exactly? I will happily explain my view point.

Here are some examples of how corrupted mankind has become: We consider evil, in the form of crime and sin (sin being ill intent; examples are the seven deadly sins), to be our entertainment in books, movies, games, tv, and even music. With all the available words to express drama, we choose to use religious (and more specifically; Christian) slurs. We consider people getting hurt or being insulted enjoyable (which truthfully describes humor in general). We approve of inflicting pain on each other and call it a sport. I think this site also deserves to be read, as it too explains current times: [url]
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the ... _end_times[/url]

you contradict youself by saying you open to other points of view on god and say there is only one true religion. Think about it.

By stating being open to other points of view, I mean by other people. Sorry for not clarifying.

you argue faith as proof. I accept that. Faith is not proof for me. remember websites are websites – you can research much more and spend time on it – not just go to a christian defence website as you seem to do.

As for Christian websites, I don't think every website I offered was Christian. When you offer information that opposes Christianity, you should not be surprised when I offer information that supports it.

this statements are proof of your faith – not proof of god. Please research some more and not go from blind faith. If you are devoted to me – then research some things around Christianity – and do it properly. Go into it with an open mind – not closed relying on blind faith.

Proof of my faith is the same as proof of Our Loving God. They are directly connected. As I believe it, my faith is His One True Way. To prove He did indeed create Christianity as His One True Way is to prove He did intevene on earth, and therefore does exist. I don't think my faith blind, as I am trying to point out to you through these posts. Please understand, Eagle, for me to consider my faith fake would be to deny all the signs Our Loving God has shown me, the truths He has taught me, and the commitment He has shared with me; for whenever I need Him, He is there. I am, however, open to other people's points of view on Him, but to me that means learning of their belief; not changing mine. I do not consider this to be blind faith, as I think for it to be blind would suggest I ignore facts, but I address them.

Try this - pick one word to describe an orange. If you think we have to pick the same word and if we choose different words and one must be false – then you there is no hope for you. god is that orange, there is not one word, one way. Good luck.

As I explained before, many truths are just part of the same overall single truth. An orange is round. It is also the color orange. These two truths are just part of the one whole truth that is the complete existence of the orange.

Eagle, are you willing to consider my offer of proof regarding prayer to Our God? As you seem to have no moral reason not to, I think it would be the best course of action for you. Please do consider, as you have nothing to lose by doing so, but immortality, universal truth, and eternal happiness to gain.

[Jtini87]

We need to realize that overall Jesus life is a blur bc we didn't live in that age. So everyone viewing him has their own perception that isn't true only true to the person viewing it but not true to Jesus. Only Jesus knows his purpose and what he was trying to get across. As for the church serving satan naaah, there is no satan, or it's just a nature people fear bc they don't understand it's reason.
As for all religions under one God sure why not the power in beliefs in number is powerful enough to create something so one God to multiple Gods why not. There must have been a reason why the Romans had multiple gods in geek mythology to the transition of one.
I wonder how life was for people at that time was there more conflict or more acceptance bc of the multiple natures of Gods. As Jesus said he was his own master and so are we, we are our own masters maybe even our own God. Yet in the end as most religions we all become one.

[The Eagle]

I don't think my faith to be blind,

I know you don’t – that’s the problem.

You claim Christianity false, but do not have any intelligent reason to do so.

intelligent reason – a man being born without the use of a sperm. That seem intelligent to you?

I do communicate with Our Lord Jesus, as do many other Christians; not just Our Father, but Lord Jesus.

well I can and have explained how you are confused by this from the great spirit thread.

Eagle, when you claim things like God does not have a voice, or that God does not want anything, you are attempting to speak for Our Lord. .

nope- my voice is speaking for mankind. -as has every other voice that mankind has ever spoken. Where are gods vocal chords and tongue that allows god to speak? Words are for mankind – not god. take the human actions/emotions out of wht you call god - then you may find god. Your religion states mankind was made in gods image - lucky us.

religions of man, god is protrayed in mankinds image. hence we do not speak for god no matter what we say or write. god according to religion relates to explaining mankinds emotions, or mankinds actions. god of war, god of love, god of forgiveness, all of which protray mankinds emotions/actions and it is done so to help mankind live its life.

I did research Essenes. Thank you for informing me about them, as with the book of the dead and Mithra, I also did not previously know of their existence. There is no evidence stating that they taught the exact same as Lord Jesus, or anything resembling Our Lord's message of true self-sacrifice. The same can be said with your claims of other religions doing likewise, as I have researched many other religions; none of them having the same message of true self-sacrifice. Christianity differs from Islam and Judaism as they once again do not teach the perfection of Christianity, and leave room for error with personal interest over universal interest. .

its amazing that you can research something in just a few hours and make big decisions like "there is no evidence" - you did actually research it - and not pray to jesus for your answer yeah?

Many religions have their demigod sacrificing themselves for mankind’s sins. Jesus was not the first, wasn’t the last. Its just the one YOU personally belief to be true. If you want to dress jesus' one up with words like "true self-sacrifice" - something that jesus didnt say - by all means keep ignoring history.

I am glad you finally agree with me about not blaming The whole Church anymore. Thank you. Your last statement does not seem likely, as I don't think man created such a perfect religion. Also, please consider my past posts on why I believe in Christianity's authenticity. .

well depends on how you define church – do you define a religion by the myth or by the followers.

A quote from Ghandi – “jesus I like – I’m not sure about his followers”

The Ten Commandments Law of not worshipping false dieities, and further on in Christianity, God claiming that only through Lord Jesus could we be saved, indicates that He does not speak for other religions; only Christianity. .

But if god was behind the other religions too – then they are not false deities. Different time periods god acts in different ways. Even in your own religions history that is true. Old/new testament. (just for your reference - god did not say that about jesus)

If you are referring to His physical form, as Our Father has not let any details about His physical from be known throughout Christianity, I do not see the point you are trying to make. .

aspects of jesus did not come from god – you thought that too. Not just his physical appearance too – the bible will back that up. So where do you decide what was from god and what was of sinful man??

don’t be offended here – it’s a serious question. – do you think jesus had testicals? And if so do you think jesus’ testicals produced sperm?

Like I explained in a past post, for Lord Jesus to be created in an incomplete form of man would obviously suggest His imperfection, that of which does not exist. .

so again – you could just answer the question rather than spouting that. Did jesus have testicals? – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Did those holy testicals produce sperm – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Now if jesus was god – jesus’ testicals produces sperm for what purpose?

also - are you suggesting that jesus always knew he was this saviour - even when he was in the womb?? you talk as he was never a child and didn't ahve to grow and learn.

I did read your thread, and yet I fail to see how it allows you to use the devil as a defense when you don't believe in him. I also do not see where my logic is at fault. For example; if I claim the devil is tricking you, and you claim that it is only a trick by him that I believe so, by not believing in him your claim is obviously fake. From your point of view, it is the same as stating nothing is tricking me. Do you see? The devil is non-existant to you, so if you ask, "how do I know the devil isn't behind my logic", it is the same as you asking, "how do I know nothing is behind my logic"?.

its pretty simple – you believe in the devil. Therefore the devil makes up part of your beliefs and the devil exists in your mind. It makes up part of your consciousness. By me saying to you the devil can be behind your thought is because you believe in the idea that the devil exists and can be behind it. Therefore by me saying the devil can be behind your thoughts – it no more suggests that the devil actually exists or Christianity is actually true. Only that you believe it is true. Understand? – If you want to discuss this please take it over onto the other thread.

Here are some examples of how corrupted mankind has become: We consider evil, in the form of crime and sin (sin being ill intent; examples are the seven deadly sins), to be our entertainment in books, movies, games, tv, and even music. With all the available words to express drama, we choose to use religious (and more specifically; Christian) slurs. We consider people getting hurt or being insulted enjoyable (which truthfully describes humor in general). We approve of inflicting pain on each other and call it a sport. I think this site also deserves to be read, as it too explains current times: [url]
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the ... _end_times[/url]

what you describe as sin. Isn’t. probably not even by your own religion for most of it. you got anything else? If you want to consider the amount of murders or theft or sex rising – this can easily be explained. As people we do not act differently from two thousands years ago. There are many more people (billions) now than say 2000 years ago. Media reports more things, and lets remember people are more open about how they act. We don’t really do anything differently.

Another point you might consider - They used to say a naked virgin could walk from one side of the empire to the other without fear of being raped or murdered. Sounds good doesn’t it. That was of course Genghis Kahn’s empire. Achieved not from forgiveness. Forgiveness has caused a lot of evil. Just need to look at the catholic priests that the pope forgave for raping children and moved them to another area….. where they raped more children. Being concerned about life after death to the point where you cause evil in this – never sits right with me.

Proof of my faith is the same as proof of Our Loving God. They are directly connected.

children believing in Santa Claus is proof of Santa really existing then yeah?

Try this - pick one word to describe an orange. If you think we have to pick the same word and if we choose different words and one must be false – then you there is no hope for you. god is that orange, there is not one word, one way. Good luck.

As I explained before, many truths are just part of the same overall single truth. An orange is round. It is also the color orange. These two truths are just part of the one whole truth that is the complete existence of the orange.

did you get the point that christianity is just one of the words – not the orange? From your response it seemed like you did – but I can’t be sure since you have spent the last 2 pages of this thread arguing that it isn’t?

Eagle, are you willing to consider my offer of proof regarding prayer to Our God?

nah I’m good as I am thanks.

[Les]

The practical side of religious beliefs

The question of religion relies on one thing for me - "Why?' - and 'Where is that idea come from?' These questions are the bain of every religion stating it is the one true belief - because why and the 'where did that idea come from?' is explained by saying "god". That to me is a lack of explanation.

What I believe is important is to see the roots of a belief or religion - why have rules - or why is god is stating "you must do this" . The answer for me is simple - there is always a practical element to these beliefs not a spiritual one.

Taking god out of the rules - most religions have don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your missus. etc. These are not religious rules - they are rules for society to maintain order - not many would argue with them. Where did the idea come from- god? or people wanting to live in a settled society? - Rich people - kings, pharaohs etc wanting to maintain their rule by order. saying god made the rules - helps this king maintain order so he can stay rich and society can grow and give him ultimate justification for these rules.

An important part of many religions is ceremony. The roots of ceremony are to do with people not being able to read and write and having a way of passing down information to the next generation. This was not based on god telling people to act a certain way or burning some smelly things brings you closer to god - it was people living their lives in a routine for a practical reason. Routine becomes ceremony - ceremony becomes rules of a religion.

Many religious beliefs come from simple survival hints - i.e. eating certain foods. It is more practical to not eat meats that are difficult to cook to avoid food poisoning. The practical side of dietary laws are based on this idea - not that the animal is evil or dirty but just our ancestors found it difficult to survive on it.

Moreover there are several things that every religion has that can be linked to basic human survival - for example sacrifice. Getting to the root of the idea of sacrifice we look at the first sacrifice. Hunter gatherers - this can mean something as basic as putting back some eggs in a nest - not taking them all. Therefore guarantying the future food resource. That is sacrifice. You are sacrificing some food in order to be able to tap into the source at a later date - i.e. survival. The concept of sacrifice came from enabling survival. We can see further evidence of this - Is a cow revered because it is so special - or by killing it you remove the food source for a longer period of time? Its about respecting nature as the thing that lets you live.

It is managing the resources around you that enables survival - now that may seem stupid compared to sacrificing animals or humans to appease the gods, or indeed a sacrifice of a demi-god for peoples sins. But that's where we must remember what has happened - the personification of the universe. Religion and spiritual beliefs were founded on the basic human survival requirements. Sun, Water, Food, Family, Shelter. As religion and civilization grew these basic things grew into personifications - we then have the sun god, god of the sea, god of love, god of war etc etc humanisation of the different aspects of the world. Personification of the universe is exactly what happened to religions of Egypt - and the middle east and therefore the progression into christianity. I believe it is the ultimate egotistical act of mankind to humanise the world and universal processes - and even humanising god.

It is clear looking at every religion that there is a progression of beliefs. This is a normal thing to occur - we can say that there is a greater understanding of the world around us - or greater understanding of god. But that does an injustice to the people that lived before us - no religion sprung up and maintained the original beliefs. It is people living - building their beliefs on the previous generations beliefs that builds society - and builds the religion . If religion wasn't deemed so important by people then it is just another thing that we continually change and adapt to help society live its life . An idea or concept of god changing is no different to an idea of slavery or democracy changing. But there lies the problem - many people think that that beliefs and therefore god are constant. We just need to look at every religion and every generation to know that this is just not true.

In my opinion it is clear that religious beliefs have come from practical elements of survival. These beliefs have been built upon by every generation from hunter gatherers to modern day society, changing and adapting to the society , the people live in it and the political aspirations of the people making the rules. That in my opinion is a key thing to consider when considering religion.

Holy shit The Eagle! It's been a long time friend, how has life been treating you? I hope you and yours are all well.

[The Eagle]

Holy shit The Eagle! It's been a long time friend, how has life been treating you? I hope you and yours are all well.

Hey Les! Indeed long time no talkie talkie!

I am really good thank you - i got married last week! woohoo!

how the devil are ya? still fighting the good fight?

[Les]

Holy shit The Eagle! It's been a long time friend, how has life been treating you? I hope you and yours are all well.

Hey Les! Indeed long time no talkie talkie!

I am really good thank you - i got married last week! woohoo!

how the devil are ya? still fighting the good fight?

Congrats Eagle! Ah marriage...few things bring as much happiness or sorrow. I'm sure you'll do just fine. I am well thank you. Things could be better, but things could be far worse! I rarely stop in these days to fight the good fight. I have become addicted to the XBOX 360 and now spend most free time playing games with my son or friends. Do you play?

[The Eagle]

Congrats Eagle! Ah marriage...few things bring as much happiness or sorrow. I'm sure you'll do just fine. I am well thank you. Things could be better, but things could be far worse! I rarely stop in these days to fight the good fight. I have become addicted to the XBOX 360 and now spend most free time playing games with my son or friends. Do you play?

yeah that is true - love is responsible for the best and good in the world. but i am hopeful for the future.

well honestly i am jealous. spending time with ya children is the best thing in the world in my opinion. lost my games appetite since i moved in with my mrs a year and a half ago. living in sin - there have been better things to do........

can't wait for that though - pretending to lose the games to my kids. i got nephews so know there is not better feelings.

you know where i am if ya need me Les. as ever you are under the Eagle's wing.

[7Believer]

I know you don’t – that’s the problem.

intelligent reason – a man being born without the use of a sperm. That seem intelligent to you?

well I can and have explained how you are confused by this from the great spirit thread.

You claim my faith blind, but like I have stated before, I do not ignore opposing information; I address it.

For a tree to produce fruit, and not every fruit to be eaten, does that make the concept of a tree unintelligent to you?

Your great spirit thread basically says all who communicate with Our God are just imagining responses. A mass psychological trick. You claim every single one of us, regardless of backgorund or educational level, cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination, and that all of our prayers being answered is by the power of our own psychs. Do you suggest we all have the power to will into happening whatever we desire, but without our actual willing it? You also deny the one way to prove me correct or incorrect; to communicate with God yourself. Being all powerful, I'm sure He could offer you proof that He is not just a psychological trick, if you asked Him.

nope- my voice is speaking for mankind. -as has every other voice that mankind has ever spoken. Where are gods vocal chords and tongue that allows god to speak? Words are for mankind – not god. take the human actions/emotions out of wht you call god - then you may find god. Your religion states mankind was made in gods image - lucky us.

religions of man, god is protrayed in mankinds image. hence we do not speak for god no matter what we say or write. god according to religion relates to explaining mankinds emotions, or mankinds actions. god of war, god of love, god of forgiveness, all of which protray mankinds emotions/actions and it is done so to help mankind live its life.

False dieities did not represent God. Your ignorance of my statement does not make it untrue. By claiming what Our God is, wants, or does, you are speaking for Him. Even if you do not think He exists. For example; if you were to say a ghost did not really appear, you are taking information provided by this fictional ghost and passing it on. The fictional ghost produces the information, you just teach it verbally. Therefore, you are speaking for the ghost. The same came be said with a tree. To say a tree has leaves is to speak for it. The tree produces the information of having leaves; you simply repeat that information verbally. The difference is, Our God does speak for Himself, and has; Christians just repeat it.

its amazing that you can research something in just a few hours and make big decisions like "there is no evidence" - you did actually research it - and not pray to jesus for your answer yeah?

Many religions have their demigod sacrificing themselves for mankind’s sins. Jesus was not the first, wasn’t the last. Its just the one YOU personally belief to be true. If you want to dress jesus' one up with words like "true self-sacrifice" - something that jesus didnt say - by all means keep ignoring history.

I have researched essenes again at your request, and am glad I have. Please read this site: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception11.htm. It appears this group of people so similar to Lord Jesus, are actually His followers. I can understand how the devil provoked such claims as you believe, considering only three people in all of history actually reported this group as ever existing, yet, contradictory to one of their claims that this group numbered in thousands, there is no mention of them anywhere else at all.

As for Lord Jesus and true self-sacrifice; Lord Jesus does not say it exactly, but it is indicated when He says "love your neighbors as you love yourself", for love requires devotion; without it the leftover product is kindness, and our devotion to ourselves is one hundred percent, as we would never betray ourselves in our right mind. It is also indicated when He sacrifices Himself for all mankind. In a site I will post later on, it teaches about how His disciples even practiced true self-sacrifice; not just kindness (suggested by temporary self-sacrifice). They devoted their entire existence to all mankind, sacrificing themselves, like Our Lord Jesus, to spread the same perfect message.

Regarding other religion's claims of true self-sacrifice:http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

I think that should cover them.

well depends on how you define church – do you define a religion by the myth or by the followers.

I don't see what this statement has to do with you not blaming The whole Church for a few members' mistakes. I will address it anyway. I define it the same as wikipedia (and do not consider Christianity a myth).

A quote from Ghandi – “jesus I like – I’m not sure about his followers”

Gandhi is also quoted as claiming to be Christian.

But if god was behind the other religions too – then they are not false deities. Different time periods god acts in different ways. Even in your own religions history that is true. Old/new testament. (just for your reference - god did not say that about jesus)

Like I have repeatedly mentioned, I don't think God was behind other religions, as that would be contradictory to what He teaches in Christianity. AS for old and new testament, it's not unlikely that the devil played a big role in misconceptions. For example; Our Lord's claim of being jealous or wrathful could indicate the consequences of turning away from God and therefore inviting the devil to do as he wishes to you. In other words, the devil's wrath could be falsely claimed as The Lord's jealousy. Whether this was a trick or deliberate, I don't know, but the former makes a lot more sense. For the part in which I mentioned Our God teaching only through Lord Jesus would we be saved, Lord Jesus spoke for Our Father; so His claim of it is equal to Our Father's claim of it.

aspects of jesus did not come from god – you thought that too. Not just his physical appearance too – the bible will back that up. So where do you decide what was from god and what was of sinful man??

It appears as if you are tring to suggest Lord Jesus was not divine. Please read this site: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Here are some parts I would like to place emphasis on:

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.


OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.


HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

so again – you could just answer the question rather than spouting that. Did jesus have testicals? – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Did those holy testicals produce sperm – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Now if jesus was god – jesus’ testicals produces sperm for what purpose?

You are ignoring the fact that to send Lord Jesus as incomplete in anatomy would indicate His imperfection. This answers your question. Please think about it.

also - are you suggesting that jesus always knew he was this saviour - even when he was in the womb?? you talk as he was never a child and didn't ahve to grow and learn.

I don't know if He knew as a child or not, for it is never mentioned (as far as I know). For your last statement, I don't see how that is what I suggested.

its pretty simple – you believe in the devil. Therefore the devil makes up part of your beliefs and the devil exists in your mind. It makes up part of your consciousness. By me saying to you the devil can be behind your thought is because you believe in the idea that the devil exists and can be behind it. Therefore by me saying the devil can be behind your thoughts – it no more suggests that the devil actually exists or Christianity is actually true. Only that you believe it is true. Understand? – If you want to discuss this please take it over onto the other thread.

I still think you are wrong, as I will attempt to show you. If I said the devil tricked you, and you replied, the devil tricked me, what is your explanation for being tricked? Furthermore, what is your explanation for me being tricked, considering you don't even believe in the devil? Without a true explanation, it is equal to you saying nothing tricked us. Therefore, you cannot use the devil as a reason if you do not believe in him.

what you describe as sin. Isn’t. probably not even by your own religion for most of it. you got anything else? If you want to consider the amount of murders or theft or sex rising – this can easily be explained. As people we do not act differently from two thousands years ago. There are many more people (billions) now than say 2000 years ago. Media reports more things, and lets remember people are more open about how they act. We don’t really do anything differently.

Another point you might consider - They used to say a naked virgin could walk from one side of the empire to the other without fear of being raped or murdered. Sounds good doesn’t it. That was of course Genghis Kahn’s empire. Achieved not from forgiveness. Forgiveness has caused a lot of evil. Just need to look at the catholic priests that the pope forgave for raping children and moved them to another area….. where they raped more children. Being concerned about life after death to the point where you cause evil in this – never sits right with me.

Consider this; most content associated with movies, books, music, and games nowadays is more inhumane than any acts done in either world war. War was also not considered enjoyable, like the negative acts considered entertainment today.
Schools were considered safe. Swearing wasn't considered normal. Do a websearch for moral decline and you will see what I am talking about. The great amount of evidence produced also mentions in most sites how there is an equal decline in Christianity. What I described as sin was indeed sin: http://www.answers.com/topic/sin. Your claim that forgiveness has caused evil is based on one single example; with disregard to the consequences of not having forgiveness in the world. Considering the vast majority of the good forgiveness produces over evil, I don't consider your claim credible.

children believing in Santa Claus is proof of Santa really existing then yeah?

I stated that proof of my faith was also proof of Our Loving God. Not just my faith being proof of Our God.

did you get the point that christianity is just one of the words – not the orange? From your response it seemed like you did – but I can’t be sure since you have spent the last 2 pages of this thread arguing that it isn’t?

I think what you are trying to say is that all religions are true. This again proves you hypocritical, if I am correct in my assumption of your statement.

nah I’m good as I am thanks.

Why then do you request that I keep an open mind in addressing your cases, while you do not do likewise? Once again, the hypocrisy that the devil has filled you with is coming to surface.

[Les]

I know you don’t – that’s the problem.

intelligent reason – a man being born without the use of a sperm. That seem intelligent to you?

well I can and have explained how you are confused by this from the great spirit thread.

You claim my faith blind, but like I have stated before, I do not ignore opposing information; I address it.

For a tree to produce fruit, and not every fruit to be eaten, does that make the concept of a tree unintelligent to you?

Your great spirit thread basically says all who communicate with Our God are just imagining responses. A mass psychological trick. You claim every single one of us, regardless of backgorund or educational level, cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination, and that all of our prayers being answered is by the power of our own psychs. Do you suggest we all have the power to will into happening whatever we desire, but without our actual willing it? You also deny the one way to prove me correct or incorrect; to communicate with God yourself. Being all powerful, I'm sure He could offer you proof that He is not just a psychological trick, if you asked Him.

nope- my voice is speaking for mankind. -as has every other voice that mankind has ever spoken. Where are gods vocal chords and tongue that allows god to speak? Words are for mankind – not god. take the human actions/emotions out of wht you call god - then you may find god. Your religion states mankind was made in gods image - lucky us.

religions of man, god is protrayed in mankinds image. hence we do not speak for god no matter what we say or write. god according to religion relates to explaining mankinds emotions, or mankinds actions. god of war, god of love, god of forgiveness, all of which protray mankinds emotions/actions and it is done so to help mankind live its life.

False dieities did not represent God. Your ignorance of my statement does not make it untrue. By claiming what Our God is, wants, or does, you are speaking for Him. Even if you do not think He exists. For example; if you were to say a ghost did not really appear, you are taking information provided by this fictional ghost and passing it on. The fictional ghost produces the information, you just teach it verbally. Therefore, you are speaking for the ghost. The same came be said with a tree. To say a tree has leaves is to speak for it. The tree produces the information of having leaves; you simply repeat that information verbally. The difference is, Our God does speak for Himself, and has; Christians just repeat it.

its amazing that you can research something in just a few hours and make big decisions like "there is no evidence" - you did actually research it - and not pray to jesus for your answer yeah?

Many religions have their demigod sacrificing themselves for mankind’s sins. Jesus was not the first, wasn’t the last. Its just the one YOU personally belief to be true. If you want to dress jesus' one up with words like "true self-sacrifice" - something that jesus didnt say - by all means keep ignoring history.

I have researched essenes again at your request, and am glad I have. Please read this site: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception11.htm. It appears this group of people so similar to Lord Jesus, are actually His followers. I can understand how the devil provoked such claims as you believe, considering only three people in all of history actually reported this group as ever existing, yet, contradictory to one of their claims that this group numbered in thousands, there is no mention of them anywhere else at all.

As for Lord Jesus and true self-sacrifice; Lord Jesus does not say it exactly, but it is indicated when He says "love your neighbors as you love yourself", for love requires devotion; without it the leftover product is kindness, and our devotion to ourselves is one hundred percent, as we would never betray ourselves in our right mind. It is also indicated when He sacrifices Himself for all mankind. In a site I will post later on, it teaches about how His disciples even practiced true self-sacrifice; not just kindness (suggested by temporary self-sacrifice). They devoted their entire existence to all mankind, sacrificing themselves, like Our Lord Jesus, to spread the same perfect message.

Regarding other religion's claims of true self-sacrifice:http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

I think that should cover them.

well depends on how you define church – do you define a religion by the myth or by the followers.

I don't see what this statement has to do with you not blaming The whole Church for a few members' mistakes. I will address it anyway. I define it the same as wikipedia (and do not consider Christianity a myth).

A quote from Ghandi – “jesus I like – I’m not sure about his followers”

Gandhi is also quoted as claiming to be Christian.

But if god was behind the other religions too – then they are not false deities. Different time periods god acts in different ways. Even in your own religions history that is true. Old/new testament. (just for your reference - god did not say that about jesus)

Like I have repeatedly mentioned, I don't think God was behind other religions, as that would be contradictory to what He teaches in Christianity. AS for old and new testament, it's not unlikely that the devil played a big role in misconceptions. For example; Our Lord's claim of being jealous or wrathful could indicate the consequences of turning away from God and therefore inviting the devil to do as he wishes to you. In other words, the devil's wrath could be falsely claimed as The Lord's jealousy. Whether this was a trick or deliberate, I don't know, but the former makes a lot more sense. For the part in which I mentioned Our God teaching only through Lord Jesus would we be saved, Lord Jesus spoke for Our Father; so His claim of it is equal to Our Father's claim of it.

aspects of jesus did not come from god – you thought that too. Not just his physical appearance too – the bible will back that up. So where do you decide what was from god and what was of sinful man??

It appears as if you are tring to suggest Lord Jesus was not divine. Please read this site: http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Here are some parts I would like to place emphasis on:

FACT #6: JESUS' APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.


OVER 500 WITNESSES
Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ's post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago." Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.


HOSTILE WITNESSES
Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ's appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ's followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

so again – you could just answer the question rather than spouting that. Did jesus have testicals? – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Did those holy testicals produce sperm – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Now if jesus was god – jesus’ testicals produces sperm for what purpose?

You are ignoring the fact that to send Lord Jesus as incomplete in anatomy would indicate His imperfection. This answers your question. Please think about it.

also - are you suggesting that jesus always knew he was this saviour - even when he was in the womb?? you talk as he was never a child and didn't ahve to grow and learn.

I don't know if He knew as a child or not, for it is never mentioned (as far as I know). For your last statement, I don't see how that is what I suggested.

its pretty simple – you believe in the devil. Therefore the devil makes up part of your beliefs and the devil exists in your mind. It makes up part of your consciousness. By me saying to you the devil can be behind your thought is because you believe in the idea that the devil exists and can be behind it. Therefore by me saying the devil can be behind your thoughts – it no more suggests that the devil actually exists or Christianity is actually true. Only that you believe it is true. Understand? – If you want to discuss this please take it over onto the other thread.

I still think you are wrong, as I will attempt to show you. If I said the devil tricked you, and you replied, the devil tricked me, what is your explanation for being tricked? Furthermore, what is your explanation for me being tricked, considering you don't even believe in the devil? Without a true explanation, it is equal to you saying nothing tricked us. Therefore, you cannot use the devil as a reason if you do not believe in him.

what you describe as sin. Isn’t. probably not even by your own religion for most of it. you got anything else? If you want to consider the amount of murders or theft or sex rising – this can easily be explained. As people we do not act differently from two thousands years ago. There are many more people (billions) now than say 2000 years ago. Media reports more things, and lets remember people are more open about how they act. We don’t really do anything differently.

Another point you might consider - They used to say a naked virgin could walk from one side of the empire to the other without fear of being raped or murdered. Sounds good doesn’t it. That was of course Genghis Kahn’s empire. Achieved not from forgiveness. Forgiveness has caused a lot of evil. Just need to look at the catholic priests that the pope forgave for raping children and moved them to another area….. where they raped more children. Being concerned about life after death to the point where you cause evil in this – never sits right with me.

Consider this; most content associated with movies, books, music, and games nowadays is more inhumane than any acts done in either world war. War was also not considered enjoyable, like the negative acts considered entertainment today.
Schools were considered safe. Swearing wasn't considered normal. Do a websearch for moral decline and you will see what I am talking about. The great amount of evidence produced also mentions in most sites how there is an equal decline in Christianity. What I described as sin was indeed sin: http://www.answers.com/topic/sin. Your claim that forgiveness has caused evil is based on one single example; with disregard to the consequences of not having forgiveness in the world. Considering the vast majority of the good forgiveness produces over evil, I don't consider your claim credible.

children believing in Santa Claus is proof of Santa really existing then yeah?

I stated that proof of my faith was also proof of Our Loving God. Not just my faith being proof of Our God.

did you get the point that christianity is just one of the words – not the orange? From your response it seemed like you did – but I can’t be sure since you have spent the last 2 pages of this thread arguing that it isn’t?

I think what you are trying to say is that all religions are true. This again proves you hypocritical, if I am correct in my assumption of your statement.

nah I’m good as I am thanks.

Why then do you request that I keep an open mind in addressing your cases, while you do not do likewise? Once again, the hypocrisy that the devil has filled you with is coming to surface.

A commendable level of effort 7 but this reads more like it was authored by a man trying to justify his own faith much more so than a man attempting to convince another that his point is valid. If you choose to believe that your god is real like so many others do, why not be at peace with that choice and accept it on your own terms? You cannot and will not move this argument forward or "prove" any point by referencing the bible or other creation websites to Eagle.
Look at it from his perspective. The data you are using to support your claim that god exists, is merely the opinions of those that share your views. Try to look at using this legal metephor; if the scientific community were to put god "on trial" and present a case before a judge, the scietific community could provide and endless wealth of factual evidence that would obliterate the principles of the entire religion. (this occurs everyday) Meanwhile; the defendents (Christians) could provide nothing to prove god exists save the bible and faith but the bible and faith 7, proves nothing at all.

[The Eagle]

You claim my faith blind, but like I have stated before, I do not ignore opposing information; I address it.

Address it by ignoring it – or find the first website that agrees with your blind belief and post it as proof that your beliefs are the one true faith. It’s a cop out.

For a tree to produce fruit, and not every fruit to be eaten, does that make the concept of a tree unintelligent to you?

well that has no reference to what I posted.

Your great spirit thread basically says all who communicate with Our God are just imagining responses. A mass psychological trick. You claim every single one of us, regardless of backgorund or educational level, cannot tell the difference between reality and imagination, and that all of our prayers being answered is by the power of our own psychs. Do you suggest we all have the power to will into happening whatever we desire, but without our actual willing it? You also deny the one way to prove me correct or incorrect; to communicate with God yourself. Being all powerful, I'm sure He could offer you proof that He is not just a psychological trick, if you asked Him. .

clearly didn’t understand what was being said in the Great Spirit thread…..

plus – you claim that those billions of people that don’t believe the same as you are being tricked and cant tell the difference between truth and the devil. So you do exactly the same. Want to talk of hypocrisy??

False dieities did not represent God. Your ignorance of my statement does not make it untrue. By claiming what Our God is, wants, or does, you are speaking for Him. Even if you do not think He exists. For example; if you were to say a ghost did not really appear, you are taking information provided by this fictional ghost and passing it on. The fictional ghost produces the information, you just teach it verbally. Therefore, you are speaking for the ghost. The same came be said with a tree. To say a tree has leaves is to speak for it. The tree produces the information of having leaves; you simply repeat that information verbally. The difference is, Our God does speak for Himself, and has; Christians just repeat it.

What your god wants needs and desires – is what mankind has created as their want need and desire. You no more speak for god than me. the ideas of want, need and indeed speaking are aspects of mankind.

I have researched essenes again at your request, and am glad I have. Please read this site: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception11.htm. It appears this group of people so similar to Lord Jesus, are actually His followers. I can understand how the devil provoked such claims as you believe, considering only three people in all of history actually reported this group as ever existing, yet, contradictory to one of their claims that this group numbered in thousands, there is no mention of them anywhere else at all.

I am sure you spent a long time researching it. Keep trying – you will get there eventually.

As for Lord Jesus and true self-sacrifice; Lord Jesus does not say it exactly, but…….

so – jesus didn’t say it and you have read into it to bring that statement out. You sure its not the devil playing tricks on you?……..

I define it the same as Wikipedia.

that says a lot. What is it written in the bible that all you need is the bible and Wikipedia? God created Wikipedia you know……

Gandhi is also quoted as claiming to be Christian.

Must have been after he said: If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian.-- Mahatma Ghandi

Like I have repeatedly mentioned, I don't think God was behind other religions, as that would be contradictory to what He teaches in Christianity. AS for old and new testament, it's not unlikely that the devil played a big role in misconceptions. For example; Our Lord's claim of being jealous or wrathful could indicate the consequences of turning away from God and therefore inviting the devil to do as he wishes to you. In other words, the devil's wrath could be falsely claimed as The Lord's jealousy. Whether this was a trick or deliberate, I don't know, but the former makes a lot more sense. For the part in which I mentioned Our God teaching only through Lord Jesus would we be saved, Lord Jesus spoke for Our Father; so His claim of it is equal to Our Father's claim of it.

actually it would not be contradictive. Its only contradictive if you insert intolerance into the teachings of jesus – this is what many Christian religions do – catholic especially.

It appears as if you are tring to suggest Lord Jesus was not divine.

you thought that certain aspects of jesus came from mary and not god. So the question of divinity is this – where do you split the bits that he got from mankind and the bits he got from god? Unless you are changing your mind that his hair colour was indeed from god too??

so again – you could just answer the question rather than spouting that. Did jesus have testicals? – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Did those holy testicals produce sperm – I take it from your answer it was a yes. Now if jesus was god – jesus’ testicals produces sperm for what purpose?

You are ignoring the fact that to send Lord Jesus as incomplete in anatomy would indicate His imperfection. This answers your question. Please think about it.

yes his imperfection – I am not the one saying he was perfect – you are. So anyway if you could answer the answer the question - what purpose does jesus’ sperm have?

also - are you suggesting that jesus always knew he was this saviour - even when he was in the womb?? you talk as he was never a child and didn't ahve to grow and learn.

I

don't know if He knew as a child or not, for it is never mentioned (as far as I know). For your last statement, I don't see how that is what I suggested.

So this “perfect” jesus had to learn then??

I

I still think you are wrong, as I will attempt to show you. If I said the devil tricked you, and you replied, the devil tricked me, what is your explanation for being tricked? Furthermore, what is your explanation for me being tricked, considering you don't even believe in the devil? Without a true explanation, it is equal to you saying nothing tricked us. Therefore, you cannot use the devil as a reason if you do not believe in him.

You are not following the logic involved. Why do you assume that someone has to be tricked? The idea is that you believe in something evil so you cause evil to be in the world. The devil does not have to be real for you to believe in it yes? If you believe something to be true – you give it power to act on your consciousness. The logic is there – it’s a big point to try and understand and personally I don’t think you will be able to understand it. Its ok.


I

Consider this; most content associated with movies, books, music, and games nowadays is more inhumane than any acts done in either world war. War was also not considered enjoyable, like the negative acts considered entertainment today.
Schools were considered safe. Swearing wasn't considered normal. Do a websearch for moral decline and you will see what I am talking about. The great amount of evidence produced also mentions in most sites how there is an equal decline in Christianity. What I described as sin was indeed sin: http://www.answers.com/topic/sin. Your claim that forgiveness has caused evil is based on one single example; with disregard to the consequences of not having forgiveness in the world. Considering the vast majority of the good forgiveness produces over evil, I don't consider your claim credible.

This is showing how narrow your historical viewpoint it. We as mankind do nothing differently from as we acted throughout the history of man. Ok we have more destructive ways to kill each other – which accounts for the many more deaths in the world wars. You think people didn’t swear until a few decades ago or something??

Moral decline has nothing to do with jesus. Your morals are not the same as mine. Remember that.

As for forgiveness – yes forgiveness means that evil is allowed to exist in society. You forgive a paedophile and allow him to live in society – that paedophile will usually rape again. There are plenty of examples.

children believing in Santa Claus is proof of Santa really existing then yeah?

I

I stated that proof of my faith was also proof of Our Loving God. Not just my faith being proof of Our God.

Really?? What is proof of you faith then? Want me to find a kid to prove his faith in santa by doing exactly the same as you do?? do you not get logic or something??

did you get the point that christianity is just one of the words – not the orange? From your response it seemed like you did – but I can’t be sure since you have spent the last 2 pages of this thread arguing that it isn’t?

I

I think what you are trying to say is that all religions are true. This again proves you hypocritical, if I am correct in my assumption of your statement.

Nope. Your assumption is incorrect. That makes you wrong by the way.

nah I’m good as I am thanks.

I

Why then do you request that I keep an open mind in addressing your cases, while you do not do likewise? Once again, the hypocrisy that the devil has filled you with is coming to surface.

Lol – because you have not said anything to me that some other christian idiot has not said before. you are not original even in your insults.

You are not teaching me – but I am teaching you it seems. There is hope for you yet if you can keep that open mind.

[7Believer]

A commendable level of effort 7 but this reads more like it was authored by a man trying to justify his own faith much more so than a man attempting to convince another that his point is valid. If you choose to believe that your god is real like so many others do, why not be at peace with that choice and accept it on your own terms? You cannot and will not move this argument forward or "prove" any point by referencing the bible or other creation websites to Eagle.
Look at it from his perspective. The data you are using to support your claim that god exists, is merely the opinions of those that share your views. Try to look at using this legal metephor; if the scientific community were to put god "on trial" and present a case before a judge, the scietific community could provide and endless wealth of factual evidence that would obliterate the principles of the entire religion. (this occurs everyday) Meanwhile; the defendents (Christians) could provide nothing to prove god exists save the bible and faith but the bible and faith 7, proves nothing at all.

For some to claim there is no God, and then for me to offer evidence otherwise, I do not see how that is a problem, Les. You mention Eagle will not care about the evidence taught in the websites, because they are merely opinions. Evidence is not an opinion. Facts are unbiased, for they don't choose one side or another, they just provide information. To deny the evidence mentioned is to do what Eagle claims I am doing; following blind faith (although not faith exactly, more like blind doubt). If you compare evidence, you will see that mine offers more true facts than yours, and involves more research with less assumptions. Les, if you know of any wealth of factual evidence that would obliterate the principles of Christianity, please offer it. I think that's what Eagle has been trying to do already, so far unsuccessfully. In any case, speaking of factual evidence from the scientific community: http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match. I believe it does mention the plagues in egypt.

[7Believer]

Address it by ignoring it – or find the first website that agrees with your blind belief and post it as proof that your beliefs are the one true faith. It’s a cop out.

How am I ignoring the facts you offer by offering the truth about those facts? Everything you have posted against Christianity I have not ignored; I have replied with more thoroughly researched evidence. If you would have researched your claims more deeply, you would have discovered them false and presumptuous.

intelligent reason – a man being born without the use of a sperm. That seem intelligent to you?

For a tree to produce fruit, and not every fruit to be eaten, does that make the concept of a tree unintelligent to you?

well that has no reference to what I posted.

The point I was making was, not every man (tree) needs to procreate (have their fruit eaten) in order for them to not be considered pointless. Trees also produce oxygen; necessary for mankind. Lord Jesus also saved humanity. Do you consider the existence of every living person that has not procreated pointless? If indeed everybody in history procreated, this world would have already been destroyed by overpopulation.

clearly didn’t understand what was being said in the Great Spirit thread…..

plus – you claim that those billions of people that don’t believe the same as you are being tricked and cant tell the difference between truth and the devil. So you do exactly the same. Want to talk of hypocrisy??

I did not claim anything of the sort. I think those being tricked by the devil can still tell the difference between a fact and a fabrication. That doesn't mean they aren't made biased against Christianity. What is your main reason for not believing in Christianity?

What your god wants needs and desires – is what mankind has created as their want need and desire. You no more speak for god than me. the ideas of want, need and indeed speaking are aspects of mankind.

Please reread my post on this subject, as I stand by what was said. To describe the identity of something is to speak for it. Please realise there is substantially more evidence proving God's existence, and Christianity's authenticity, then to your theory on Our Lord. In fact, what evidence do you have to back up your theory? If it is what was already offered, I've addressed that in my first post.

I am sure you spent a long time researching it. Keep trying – you will get there eventually.

Are you denying the evidence offered? Is that because it offers much more evidence than the sites I've seen about essenes in favor of opposing Christianity, which I assume are the ones you base your logic on? Would you not like to know the whole story behind the essenes, not just some of it?

so – jesus didn’t say it and you have read into it to bring that statement out. You sure its not the devil playing tricks on you?……..

I've already explained how I am just summarising the words "love thy neighbor as you love thyself", The Crucifixion, and The Disciples acting on "love thy neighbor as you love thyself", as true self-sacrifice. To simply call it self-sacrifice can lead to confusion of it with kindness or charity. So when I say true self-sacrifice, I am referring to what is posted above. It was the only other commandment Lord Jesus said was most important aside from loving Our God with all our being.

that says a lot. What is it written in the bible that all you need is the bible and Wikipedia? God created Wikipedia you know……

I don't know what exactly you are trying to say here. I obviously research outside The Bible and wikipedia. As for the last remark, if you are being sarcastic, please don't be. If you are serious, considering Our God set in motion all that is, than indirectly yes, Our Lord created wikipedia, through the series of events that lead up to it's creation.

Must have been after he said: If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian.-- Mahatma Ghandi

I don't think it logical to avoid following a religion because of some of it's followers; as it is the religion that's important, not the mistakes of it's followers. Gandhi is also quoted as suggesting all Jewish people should have committed suicide to avoid being murdered by Hitler.

actually it would not be contradictive. Its only contradictive if you insert intolerance into the teachings of jesus – this is what many Christian religions do – catholic especially.

Lord Jesus clearly taught that all ways do not lead to Our Lord; only through Him. And yes, it would be contradictive to state that God claimed all religions as His.

you thought that certain aspects of jesus came from mary and not god. So the question of divinity is this – where do you split the bits that he got from mankind and the bits he got from god? Unless you are changing your mind that his hair colour was indeed from god too??

Everything Lord Jesus has came from Our Loving God, even what came through Mother Mary. Like previously posted, His hair color can not be traced to The Holy Spirit, as The Holy Spirit's hair color (if He has hair) is never mentioned.

yes his imperfection – I am not the one saying he was perfect – you are. So anyway if you could answer the answer the question - what purpose does jesus’ sperm have?

If simply for being a part of His complete anatomy, that is purpose enough. I've answered this question in a previous post regarding trees.

So this “perfect” jesus had to learn then??

As I've stated, I don't know if He knew or it. If He didn't, that does not mean He wasn't still perfect.

You are not following the logic involved. Why do you assume that someone has to be tricked? The idea is that you believe in something evil so you cause evil to be in the world. The devil does not have to be real for you to believe in it yes? If you believe something to be true – you give it power to act on your consciousness. The logic is there – it’s a big point to try and understand and personally I don’t think you will be able to understand it. Its ok.

I was using a trick as an example. By acknowledging there is evil in the world, I do not cause it to be. It is already there. I think what you mean to say is, all the past instances in which you stated something like, "how do you know the devil hasn't tricked you", what you were actually trying to say is, "it is just your imagination".

Consider this; at the end of your past post, you insult Christians. Ill intent ultimately leads to universal destruction (consider if everyone were to hate each other from now on), but you do not appear suicidal. So why did you choose to commit ill intent? A mistake in judgement, or did your feelings and thoughts make you think it was the right thing to do? If the latter, why would your feelings and thoughts follow the path of being homicidal, and thus suicidal? I think the cause is anger. What makes anger happen? I may be mistaken, but I think the only root cause explained by science is the "fight or flight" response. Where does this come from? It is believed to be from a general adaption system. And where does this come from? Stress. A quote describing stress from wikipedia: "It refers to the consequence of the failure of an organism – human or animal – to respond appropriately to emotional or physical threats, whether actual or imagined". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the cause for the failure of response is never explained by science. So, science does not explain why you made ultimately homicidal and suicidal choices. The devil's existence, however, does explain it (you even recognise ill intent as wrong in your practicality post, as I have previously pointed out).

This is showing how narrow your historical viewpoint it. We as mankind do nothing differently from as we acted throughout the history of man. Ok we have more destructive ways to kill each other – which accounts for the many more deaths in the world wars. You think people didn’t swear until a few decades ago or something??

Moral decline has nothing to do with jesus. Your morals are not the same as mine. Remember that.

As for forgiveness – yes forgiveness means that evil is allowed to exist in society. You forgive a paedophile and allow him to live in society – that paedophile will usually rape again. There are plenty of examples.

I am not referring to times before Lord Jesus. Please understand that.

Moral decline indeed has ties to Lord Jesus; for there is also a similar decline in Christianity. I am not the only one who considers this more than a coincidence. Many non-Christian sites also agree. Abandoning morals goes against what Lord Jesus taught; hence, if more people believed in Our Lord, and followed His Laws, there would not be a world moral decline on the rise. What do you think a non-Christian future will bring? Without complete devotion to each other (as I like to put it, true self-sacrifice), I indeed think we will become more and more corrupted by the devil.

What about the people who truly change their ways? Again, like when you blamed The whole Church for a few members' mistakes, you are condemning innocent people. The devil has you condemning innocents, and you still do not believe in his existence? Now that I've pointed that out, will you change your opinion?
7Believer wrote:

this statements are proof of your faith – not proof of god. Please research some more and not go from blind faith. If you are devoted to me – then research some things around Christianity – and do it properly. Go into it with an open mind – not closed relying on blind faith.

Proof of my faith is the same as proof of Our Loving God. They are directly connected.

children believing in Santa Claus is proof of Santa really existing then yeah?

I stated that proof of my faith was also proof of Our Loving God. Not just my faith being proof of Our God.

Really?? What is proof of you faith then? Want me to find a kid to prove his faith in santa by doing exactly the same as you do?? do you not get logic or something??

I didn't claim that I had proven my faith (as clearly you still do not believe), I claimed that to prove my faith would be to also prove God's existence, as the whole quote explains. You incorrectly replied each time to what I actually posted. Again, I credit the devil for your mistakes.

There is only one truth. Existence is only one creation, therefore everything in it follows only one plan; one truth. For example; if an event happened, there are only two ways to describe it, truthfully or falsely. That leaves one truth. The many true facts that accompany it you can claim as truths too, but they are just part of the one true truth

Try this - pick one word to describe an orange. If you think we have to pick the same word and if we choose different words and one must be false – then you there is no hope for you. god is that orange, there is not one word, one way. Good luck.

7Believer wrote:
As I explained before, many truths are just part of the same overall single truth. An orange is round. It is also the color orange. These two truths are just part of the one whole truth that is the complete existence of the orange.

did you get the point that christianity is just one of the words – not the orange? From your response it seemed like you did – but I can’t be sure since you have spent the last 2 pages of this thread arguing that it isn’t?

I

I think what you are trying to say is that all religions are true. This again proves you hypocritical, if I am correct in my assumption of your statement.

Nope. Your assumption is incorrect. That makes you wrong by the way.

I mention two ways to describe things; truthfully and falsely. Then you indicate we should pick two words to describe something, and if I consider one false, then I am wrong; meaning you consider both words as representing truth. Then you describe Christianity as one of the truths. If you consider Christianity as only one of the truths, then it becomes apparent that you consider the other religions to be other truths, as you do not mention anything indicating otherwise. If you meant to say you consider Christianity a truth, and something else as also a truth, but not another religion, then you have indeed played a trick on words; for you did not indicate in any way anything other than the obvious connection. In this case, I am wrong, but I acknowledged that I could have been mistaken. So, am I correct in my new assumption of you referring to Christianity as a truth but not other religions?

Lol – because you have not said anything to me that some other christian idiot has not said before. you are not original even in your insults.

You are not teaching me – but I am teaching you it seems. There is hope for you yet if you can keep that open mind.

I forgive you again for insulting me. If another Christian has proven your logic faulty with the same counter evidence, then why did you continue to use faulty evidence? This still does not explain your refusal to even make an attempt to communicate with Our Lord; the devil's corruption of you does explain it, however. I apologise if you feel I have insulted you, as that was not my intention. I explained how stating you are hypocritical is a factual statement, not an insult. The same can be said about me claiming your logic faulty. You have encouraged me to research more about Christianity and other religions, and I thank you. It has increased my faith, and revealed many truths about the mistakenly presumptuous things people claim prove Christianity false. I apologise for not being able to teach you. Hopefully others reading this might learn something about what I intended to teach.

[The Eagle]

well Holy Lord Sugar what have we got here..........

How am I ignoring the facts you offer by offering the truth about those facts? Everything you have posted against Christianity I have not ignored; I have replied with more thoroughly researched evidence. If you would have researched your claims more deeply, you would have discovered them false and presumptuous.

more thoroughly researched evidence??? in the space of a couple of hours you are claiming you have researched something thoroughly??

intelligent reason – a man being born without the use of a sperm. That seem intelligent to you?

For a tree to produce fruit, and not every fruit to be eaten, does that make the concept of a tree unintelligent to you?

well that has no reference to what I posted.

The point I was making was, not every man (tree) needs to procreate (have their fruit eaten) in order for them to not be considered pointless. Trees also produce oxygen; necessary for mankind. Lord Jesus also saved humanity. Do you consider the existence of every living person that has not procreated pointless? If indeed everybody in history procreated, this world would have already been destroyed by overpopulation..

but my post had nothing to do iwth jesus reproducing. i think you are getting confused and not following the argument. did the word sperm confuse you? - freud would have a field day.........

clearly didn’t understand what was being said in the Great Spirit thread…..

plus – you claim that those billions of people that don’t believe the same as you are being tricked and cant tell the difference between truth and the devil. So you do exactly the same. Want to talk of hypocrisy??

I did not claim anything of the sort. I think those being tricked by the devil can still tell the difference between a fact and a fabrication. That doesn't mean they aren't made biased against Christianity. What is your main reason for not believing in Christianity?.

wait a minute this doesnt make sense. you saying that when the "devil plays tricks" that man can tell the difference between that trick and truth - fact and fabrication? - but yet they still beleive in what they beleive in as true for what reason then?

christianity - especially catholic faith - is illogical to the point of insulting to academia. how old is the Earth 7believer?

Please reread my post on this subject, as I stand by what was said. To describe the identity of something is to speak for it. ..

incorrect - to describe the identity of something is to give your opinion of what it is. it does not speak for the actual thing.

Please realise there is substantially more evidence proving God's existence, and Christianity's authenticity. ..

no there is not - any website you have posted any argument you have brought forward relies on faith not fact.

Are you denying the evidence offered? Is that because it offers much more evidence than the sites I've seen about essenes in favor of opposing Christianity, which I assume are the ones you base your logic on? Would you not like to know the whole story behind the essenes, not just some of it?. ..

i am denying you posting websites as factual evidence and the whole story yes. considering you had not even heard of the essenes a few days ago - and now you are suggesting you know more about them than me - really says something about you. is arrogance a sin?

I've already explained how I am just summarising the words "love thy neighbor as you love thyself", The Crucifixion, and The Disciples acting on "love thy neighbor as you love thyself", as true self-sacrifice. To simply call it self-sacrifice can lead to confusion of it with kindness or charity. So when I say true self-sacrifice, I am referring to what is posted above. It was the only other commandment Lord Jesus said was most important aside from loving Our God with all our being...

stick to what jesus said - and avoid inventing your own swing to them. thats how things like the catholic faith got created. its how jesus words have been used for evil for the last 2000 years.

I don't know what exactly you are trying to say here. I obviously research outside The Bible and wikipedia. As for the last remark, if you are being sarcastic, please don't be. If you are serious, considering Our God set in motion all that is, than indirectly yes, Our Lord created wikipedia, through the series of events that lead up to it's creation.……

but sinful man created wikipedia yeah? might be a trick of the devil. (i will be sarcastic whenever i feel like thanks - god said i could be)

Must have been after he said: If it weren't for Christians, I'd be a Christian.-- Mahatma Ghandi

I don't think it logical to avoid following a religion because of some of it's followers; as it is the religion that's important, not the mistakes of it's followers. Gandhi is also quoted as suggesting all Jewish people should have committed suicide to avoid being murdered by Hitler.

did you get what he meant by saying that? i guess not since you posted it...

gandhi is exactly what jesus was in my opinion. a wiseman. human, breathing, believing - a message of peace - like the dali lama too.good men and the world could do with a lot more of - not promoting intolerant religions.

actually it would not be contradictive. Its only contradictive if you insert intolerance into the teachings of jesus – this is what many Christian religions do – catholic especially.

Lord Jesus clearly taught that all ways do not lead to Our Lord; only through Him. And yes, it would be contradictive to state that God claimed all religions as His..

no it wouldnt. it would contradictive to your doctrine. to the rules you have created around jesus words.

think of this right the jewish people still entered heaven before jesus came about yeah? - then jesus says only through him can people get to heaven etc - so think back to that time - those people that stayed true to what god originally said that have not heard jesus say that don't get to heaven?? what does god think? you as christians speak for god afterall.......

Everything Lord Jesus has came from Our Loving God, even what came through Mother Mary. Like previously posted, His hair color can not be traced to The Holy Spirit, as The Holy Spirit's hair color (if He has hair) is never mentioned.??

right......... so when you said earlier that you think his hair colour came from mary - you actually meant it came from god and not mary and her decendants then.

how about jesus accent - do you think jesus accent came from god?

yes his imperfection – I am not the one saying he was perfect – you are. So anyway if you could answer the answer the question - what purpose does jesus’ sperm have?

If simply for being a part of His complete anatomy, that is purpose enough. I've answered this question in a previous post regarding trees.

yeah your tree one again - nice this is where the answer should of gone not above.

lets recap - you think jesus did have testicals, did produce sperm - but that sperm had no purpose other than being part of jesus body. correct? just want to get it correct before i make my point.

as for your tree - let me ask you what do you think the purpose of fruit is?

So this “perfect” jesus had to learn then??

As I've stated, I don't know if He knew or it. If He didn't, that does not mean He wasn't still perfect.

if you dont know are you going on a theory??

come on - you speak for god remember! if he had to learn - then that would suggest he would have to learn off someone yes?

I was using a trick as an example. By acknowledging there is evil in the world, I do not cause it to be. It is already there. I think what you mean to say is, all the past instances in which you stated something like, "how do you know the devil hasn't tricked you", what you were actually trying to say is, "it is just your imagination".

really didnt get the point of the great spirit thread did you........... no i am not saying that. you won't get the concept - its ok dont worry. its not meant for you.

Consider this; at the end of your past post, you insult Christians. Ill intent ultimately leads to universal destruction

put it this way - if you dont think you have ill intent on every other religions followers - then you really are ignorant of how you act.

christains insult scientists, every other religion, atheists - even other christians since christianity is divided - by stating like you have the the catholic religion is true and logical.

so if you want to talk about ill intent - go for it, but include yourself in that too. this is the main problem with christianity - the total arrogance and ignorance of how you are acting.

I am not referring to times before Lord Jesus. Please understand that.

why exclude it?

Moral decline indeed has ties to Lord Jesus; for there is also a similar decline in Christianity. I am not the only one who considers this more than a coincidence. Many non-Christian sites also agree. Abandoning morals goes against what Lord Jesus taught; hence, if more people believed in Our Lord, and followed His Laws, there would not be a world moral decline on the rise. What do you think a non-Christian future will bring? Without complete devotion to each other (as I like to put it, true self-sacrifice), I indeed think we will become more and more corrupted by the devil.

when do you think morals peaked then? give me a decade........

if everyone followed muslim laws, celtic laws, jewish laws - everyone would get on fine. hell if everone followed THE law everyone would get on fine. why you single out christainity only shows one thing. - your ignorance of mankind.

you could look at it like this of course - there have never been so many christians in the world. the moral decline could be because there are many more christians in the world.

What about the people who truly change their ways? Again, like when you blamed The whole Church for a few members' mistakes, you are condemning innocent people. The devil has you condemning innocents, and you still do not believe in his existence? Now that I've pointed that out, will you change your opinion?

well you being catholic - your religion states there is no such thing as innocence - only degrees of guilt yeah?

i have not condemned anyone. again your logic jumps to a completely random idea. must be frustrating for you when that happens.

put it this way - if a paedophile came to a catholic priest (one of the ones that hasn't raped children yet) - in confession the paedophile states he has raped a 7 year old boy, but is really really sorry and wants forgiveness from jesus and is willing to pray etc.

what do you think the priest should do? in accordance with the catholic religion what do you think the priest should do?

this will show why the catholic religion - catholic church has nothing to do with god in my opinion.

I didn't claim that I had proven my faith (as clearly you still do not believe), I claimed that to prove my faith would be to also prove God's existence, as the whole quote explains. You incorrectly replied each time to what I actually posted. Again, I credit the devil for your mistakes.

so as you have have not proved your faith - you have not proved the existance of your god yet then?

re-read the posts. perhaps you used the wrong words to try and get what you wanted to say out. for there are no mistakes from your words you used. again i blame the devil that exists in your mind only for being insulting toward me. i do not however forgive you.

I mention two ways to describe things; truthfully and falsely. Then you indicate we should pick two words to describe something, and if I consider one false, then I am wrong; meaning you consider both words as representing truth. Then you describe Christianity as one of the truths. If you consider Christianity as only one of the truths, then it becomes apparent that you consider the other religions to be other truths, as you do not mention anything indicating otherwise. If you meant to say you consider Christianity a truth, and something else as also a truth, but not another religion, then you have indeed played a trick on words; for you did not indicate in any way anything other than the obvious connection. In this case, I am wrong, but I acknowledged that I could have been mistaken. So, am I correct in my new assumption of you referring to Christianity as a truth but not other religions?

nope. your logic is faulty. no tricks.

the words are what you individually believe to be true. they do not have to actually be true. actually think about the concept - and not just through christian tinted goggles.

I forgive you again for insulting me. If another Christian has proven your logic faulty with the same counter evidence, then why did you continue to use faulty evidence?

i did not insult you - i stated the truth. the devil in your mind must of thought you were being insulted and react by saying it was the devil corruption in my mind. see how this works yet?

no christian has not proven my logic faulty. it stands up there fine - even if you cant understand it. no faulty evidence was supplied by me - no website or bible quote you produced in the few hours of learning something new has changed that.

[Les]

A commendable level of effort 7 but this reads more like it was authored by a man trying to justify his own faith much more so than a man attempting to convince another that his point is valid. If you choose to believe that your god is real like so many others do, why not be at peace with that choice and accept it on your own terms? You cannot and will not move this argument forward or "prove" any point by referencing the bible or other creation websites to Eagle.
Look at it from his perspective. The data you are using to support your claim that god exists, is merely the opinions of those that share your views. Try to look at using this legal metephor; if the scientific community were to put god "on trial" and present a case before a judge, the scietific community could provide and endless wealth of factual evidence that would obliterate the principles of the entire religion. (this occurs everyday) Meanwhile; the defendents (Christians) could provide nothing to prove god exists save the bible and faith but the bible and faith 7, proves nothing at all.

For some to claim there is no God, and then for me to offer evidence otherwise, I do not see how that is a problem, Les. You mention Eagle will not care about the evidence taught in the websites, because they are merely opinions. Evidence is not an opinion. Facts are unbiased, for they don't choose one side or another, they just provide information. To deny the evidence mentioned is to do what Eagle claims I am doing; following blind faith (although not faith exactly, more like blind doubt). If you compare evidence, you will see that mine offers more true facts than yours, and involves more research with less assumptions. Les, if you know of any wealth of factual evidence that would obliterate the principles of Christianity, please offer it. I think that's what Eagle has been trying to do already, so far unsuccessfully. In any case, speaking of factual evidence from the scientific community: http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match. I believe it does mention the plagues in egypt.

No thank you 7. My days of participating in religious debate are over. I'm an Atheist. I have little interest is trying to convince you that your god is not real and even less interest in you trying to convince me that he is. My point was simply that your faith will serve you better if you avoid these kinds of altercations.
I'll tell you this however; after many years of watching and engaging in these kinds of discussions, I have witnessed even the most devout faithful crumble eventually. Keep in mind 7, that faith is a fragile thing.

If you go looking for trouble, looking for people who stand ready to refute your claims, one day you may find yourself staring into the face of a new truth. One that neither the bible nor any amount of faith can withstand. It seems unlikely I know. You appear to believe most genuinely in god and you express believable love for that theology, but Christians abandon their god in record numbers each day for thousands of different reasons. Why increase the chances of damaging your devotion?

If I felt faith in god I imagine that I would protect it at all costs. I would never invite doubt by asking anyone to prove my god was fiction, but that's just me, and really...what do I know of such things?

[drewterry]

You have to love the closed mind of an atheist and their unshakable faith in humanism. Evidence of something should only be presented to people who are willing to examine that evidence with an open mind... atheists are not those kinds of people. The only thing that makes humans different than animals is their ability to think in abstract terms. In other words their imagination. Atheists do not have this ability. An atheist therefore is incapable of even imagining that God exists. That being the case you can never prove to them that God is real because they will deny the proof even when it is right in front of them. Another thing is faith. Faith is the essence of things hoped for the evidence of which is unseen. All people hope for something. The something that all people hope for is different from person to person. No two faiths are the same. The hope of an atheist lies in humanity. The hope of a christian lies in God and Jesus. That is the primary source of irreconciliation between christians and atheists. Their source of hope is different and incompatible. Through history we know that humanity will stumble and fall. It has many many times and is in the process of doing so again. God is the promise of something solid that will never fail. Jesus is the way to God. Jesus is the cap stone the foundation of solid ground. Humanity is the foundation of sand. We all hope for the best of things in one way or the other the fundamental difference is in what we percieve as being the best most solid ground for that hope to be built on. For me personally my hope my faith is in God and Jesus.

[The Eagle]

Evidence of something should only be presented to people who are willing to examine that evidence with an open mind....

Hey Drew how are you doing?

as soon as you make that decision that the bible is correct and factual about everything written in it and that god exists - and that god can do anything then you are not approaching any evidence with an open mind. you have closed it too. this is because those thoughts become the foundation of your belief system. god can never be wrong, god can magic up miracles. you no longer need an explanation of anything other than "god did it" -the other person is wrong because they dont believe what you believe etc etc people search for the evidence that agrees with thier opinion. its just the way it works.

to me - an athiest does exactly the same as someone who believes in god - and this goes for all religions across the world too - they base thier knowledge on what they believe to be true. that i believe, is a key thing for mankind to realise in the next step on our spiritual path.

once you decide a belief is "truth" then you close you mind to possibilities. we have a talked about this before and i know you dissagree.

anyway good to see you on here Drew.

[Les]

You have to love the closed mind of an atheist and their unshakable faith in humanism. Evidence of something should only be presented to people who are willing to examine that evidence with an open mind... atheists are not those kinds of people. The only thing that makes humans different than animals is their ability to think in abstract terms. In other words their imagination. Atheists do not have this ability. An atheist therefore is incapable of even imagining that God exists. That being the case you can never prove to them that God is real because they will deny the proof even when it is right in front of them. Another thing is faith. Faith is the essence of things hoped for the evidence of which is unseen. All people hope for something. The something that all people hope for is different from person to person. No two faiths are the same. The hope of an atheist lies in humanity. The hope of a christian lies in God and Jesus. That is the primary source of irreconciliation between christians and atheists. Their source of hope is different and incompatible. Through history we know that humanity will stumble and fall. It has many many times and is in the process of doing so again. God is the promise of something solid that will never fail. Jesus is the way to God. Jesus is the cap stone the foundation of solid ground. Humanity is the foundation of sand. We all hope for the best of things in one way or the other the fundamental difference is in what we percieve as being the best most solid ground for that hope to be built on. For me personally my hope my faith is in God and Jesus.

Ah right on cue to try and sound like you know what you're talking about! "The hope of an Atheist lies in humanity!" You are too old drew to continue being so childish. Didn't your parents ever teach you that it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? Surely there is something that needs done on the Terry compound. Perhaps you can go feed the hounds or check your snare traps or whatever it is you make-believe mountian men do between Guiding Light an peak dreammoods traffic time. At any rate; go away, grown folks are talking here. If I wanted to read your nonsense I would buy a box of tract comics and laugh my ass off while enjoying my morning coffee and Vicodin.

[The Eagle]

This is just like old times - i've missed this.

Since Hearts is still floating about - just need Goldmoon, Linka, Purplekoolade, Coccain Eyes and even a certain "mr" bernard to float in now. there was someone from india that i really liked too - can't remember his name!

its funny the names of people you remember and the ones you forget.

ah - great days.

[Les]

This is just like old times - i've missed this.

Since Hearts is still floating about - just need Goldmoon, Linka, Purplekoolade, Coccain Eyes and even a certain "mr" bernard to float in now. there was someone from india that i really liked too - can't remember his name!

its funny the names of people you remember and the ones you forget.

ah - great days.

Saint Bernard! Now there was a freak among freaks. I'll never forget his story of how upon waking one night and seeing a spider on the wall, he devoted himself to Christ! Pricelessly moronic in every way! I miss him...
Now all we have is a guy with estrogen/bipolar like mood swings that can't decide if he's coming or going or even if he's human at all...

[The Eagle]

Saint Bernard! Now there was a freak among freaks. I'll never forget his story of how upon waking one night and seeing a spider on the wall, he devoted himself to Christ! Pricelessly moronic in every way! I miss him...
Now all we have is a guy with estrogen/bipolar like mood swings that can't decide if he's coming or going or even if he's human at all...

i forgot Kauhji from my list of old'ns still flaoting about - sorry Kauhji!

i think the guy from india was called Diwas?? something like that. wonder if he is still about.

yeah bernie boy certainly was a strange cookie! i think my favorite post from him was that babies that die dont go to heaven because they are selfish.

Drew was funny because you didnt know what group he was going to single out and be abusive toward. athiests, gay people, black people, jewish people, rich people and my favorite - "working people" Thanks for that Drew - i look back on those times with a smile on my face.

[Les]

Saint Bernard! Now there was a freak among freaks. I'll never forget his story of how upon waking one night and seeing a spider on the wall, he devoted himself to Christ! Pricelessly moronic in every way! I miss him...
Now all we have is a guy with estrogen/bipolar like mood swings that can't decide if he's coming or going or even if he's human at all...

i forgot Kauhji from my list of old'ns still flaoting about - sorry Kauhji!

i think the guy from india was called Diwas?? something like that. wonder if he is still about.

yeah bernie boy certainly was a strange cookie! i think my favorite post from him was that babies that die dont go to heaven because they are selfish.

Drew was funny because you didnt know what group he was going to single out and be abusive toward. athiests, gay people, black people, jewish people, rich people and my favorite - "working people" Thanks for that Drew - i look back on those times with a smile on my face.

Yep, if you aren't straight, white, christian, married, Irish, and on disability drew thinks you're a mindless "slave of the system!"

[heartsdreamer]

This is just like old times - i've missed this.

Since Hearts is still floating about - just need Goldmoon, Linka, Purplekoolade, Coccain Eyes and even a certain "mr" bernard to float in now. there was someone from india that i really liked too - can't remember his name!

its funny the names of people you remember and the ones you forget.

ah - great days.

From India? His name is Diwaswapi-- I miss his wisdom!

I believe most of them went to Facebook. I've been invited by many to join Facebook but I have refused. I just can't stand those social networks online.

Prince Barnard? Holly Guacamole!!! God help us if he returns

Do you guys remember Always Dreaming (?) I miss her

[Les]

This is just like old times - i've missed this.

Since Hearts is still floating about - just need Goldmoon, Linka, Purplekoolade, Coccain Eyes and even a certain "mr" bernard to float in now. there was someone from india that i really liked too - can't remember his name!

its funny the names of people you remember and the ones you forget.

ah - great days.

From India? His name is Diwaswapi-- I miss his wisdom!

I believe most of them went to Facebook. I've been invited by many to join Facebook but I have refused. I just can't stand those social networks online.

Prince Barnard? Holly Guacamole!!! God help us if he returns

Do you guys remember Always Dreaming (?) I miss her

I agree, Facebook blows. I used to use Myspace as a zombie network for other undead enthusiasts but not so much anymore. What what that one young boy's name that hung around for awhile? He was becoming a priest.

[The Eagle]

From India? His name is Diwaswapi-- I miss his wisdom!

I believe most of them went to Facebook. I've been invited by many to join Facebook but I have refused. I just can't stand those social networks online.

Prince Barnard? Holly Guacamole!!! God help us if he returns

Do you guys remember Always Dreaming (?) I miss her

ah yes thanks Hearts! Diwaswapi!! really admired that guy. was he not from india?? perhaps i have just imagined that. i feel i could talk with him for hours. he was great.

i still speak to Goldmoon now and again really miss her.

i remember Always Dreaming and the priest guy - can't remember his name. i remember had some good "discussions" with him. lol

raise a glass - great days and beautiful people

[drewterry]

* zyme
* innocuous

* keek
* jorum

truth
- 6 dictionary results
Michigan Probate Law
Wills, Probate, Trusts, Estates 800-728-3363
www.michprobate.com
Dictionary.com Free Toolbar
Define Truth Instantly. Faster Page Loads With Fewer Ads.
Dictionary.com
truth
   /truθ/ Show Spelled[trooth] Show IPA
–noun, plural truths  /truðz, truθs/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
1.
the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.
the state or character of being true.
5.
actuality or actual existence.
6.
an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7.
honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8.
( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9.
agreement with a standard or original.
10.
accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11.
Archaic . fidelity or constancy.
—Idiom
12.
in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.





be·lief
   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.





The obvious overlap between the two is found in definition number 2 for the word belief.

[drewterry]

And no I am not an adult. I am too in tune with my inner child to ever be what people consider to be an adult. Another interesting thing to ponder about truth and belief is the anthropic principle both strong and weak. Philosophy was a great excersize in humanity its too bad it has been destroyed by "modern" society.

[Les]

[drewterry]

See truth is individualized. Its based on individual perception and interpretation of facts. What is true for me might not be true for someone else but the bottom line is that it really doesnt matter if someone else shares my truth or not. If its absolutely true for me then that is good enough.... for me. A secure person who has faith in their convictions doesnt need confirmation for what they believe from someone else. That is a hive mentality. In short most of you are just borg. That is a shame because there is a lot to be said for being self sufficient. Jesus said this as well... He said that everyones relationship with God is personal. Each person comes to know God in their own unique individual way. While there may be safety in numbers there is strength in individuality.

[drewterry]

Just as some things cannot be seen only felt some things cannot be proven only experienced. God is one of those things that can only be experienced. And God can only be experienced if you have an open mind and an open heart. Some people are just simply closed to certain experiences and feelings.

[The Eagle]

The obvious overlap between the two is found in definition number 2 for the word belief.

we all know what the words mean Drew. why do you think they put it number two and not number one? i feel a consipracy theory coming on!

the point of "a statement unworthy of belief" - who is to decide it is "unworthy" of belief or not?

come on Drew you can do this.

besides you have to believe in evidence to decide its truth - so truth is dependant on belief - its all belief at the end of the day.

[The Eagle]

See truth is individualized. Its based on individual perception and interpretation of facts. What is true for me might not be true for someone else but the bottom line is that it really doesnt matter if someone else shares my truth or not.

Just as some things cannot be seen only felt some things cannot be proven only experienced. God is one of those things that can only be experienced. And God can only be experienced if you have an open mind and an open heart. Some people are just simply closed to certain experiences and feelings.

i applaud your first statement there. you have grown.

but do you see your posts are contradicitve? - i thought by posting them side by side you might be able to pick up on it.

[heartsdreamer]

From India? His name is Diwaswapi-- I miss his wisdom!

I believe most of them went to Facebook. I've been invited by many to join Facebook but I have refused. I just can't stand those social networks online.

Prince Barnard? Holly Guacamole!!! God help us if he returns

Do you guys remember Always Dreaming (?) I miss her

ah yes thanks Hearts! Diwaswapi!! really admired that guy. was he not from india?? perhaps i have just imagined that. i feel i could talk with him for hours. he was great.

i still speak to Goldmoon now and again really miss her.

i remember Always Dreaming and the priest guy - can't remember his name. i remember had some good "discussions" with him. lol

raise a glass - great days and beautiful people

Yes! Cheers for the beautiful people.

Those were the good old days here

I got myself into some discussions with Princebarnard and Lampost(?) Hell! Who didn't! I hope he's still happy with his beliefs But remember-- he sent us all nonbelievers to hell Bless his soul

Oh well Life goes on... follow the to "LIFE!"