If Jesus couldn't keep HIMSELF out of trouble...

[Harry Dresden]

Where does it say not to help those who don't want to help themselves?... I mean.. philosophically, I agree with you... but show me the scripture. The typical problem with your side is that you think every poor person simply doesn't want to help themselves. When in fact... the number of people that REALLY are duping the system are very few... but in the Conservative eye... that doesn't matter. Even if there are only a few doing this... you're willing to screw the rest over so that the few don't get something for nothing.

while i agree with your point Steele about the poor.......i dont agree with what you said about fraud in the system as being a very few......if Welfare fraud is in the billions of dollars nationwide......then there is more doing it than just a few.....

I've done a Google search and it took me three pages to even get a number on how much it costs the nation... The highest figure I've seen is $300M. Yes, that is a lot of money... but it's not destroying us.

this one i found.......

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...rch="welfare fraud dollars cents nation wide"

said this ......about ten years ago....is it worse now or better?....

10% of the $22 billion spent annually on food stamps nation- wide is lost to fraud.

 

[Cuyo]

I'm not a christian, but according to the Bible it seems like he wanted to get in trouble (crucifixion) to absolve people of their sins.

Yeah... You'll have to 'splain exactly how that happened. Historically speaking he was crucified for his own behavior... There's some scholarly debate over exactly why. Claiming "I'm the son of God!" is a little bit like me proclaiming "I'm the President of the United States!" It's absurd, ridiculous, but hardly worthy of execution. But I digress.

There seems to be no contiguous, logical train of thought attaching his execution (Likely for being a rabble rouser) and "Dying for your (everyone's) sins." Occum's razor suggests it far more likely that the latter was invented long after his death. Remember that nothing - No part of the New Testament, nor anything else - Was written about the man while he was alive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I agree that God doesn't make anyone do anything, and that Judas did what he did out of his own free will. I however, am not sure that it wasn't choreographed between Judas and Jesus.

The Gospel of Judas(found in 1970) describes a very different Judas than is portrayed in our bible. Once again... our bible was a "voted on" affair by men in the Council of Nicaea.

it wouldn't be the first time that they got something wrong. Mary Magdalene, up until very recently was portrayed as a prostitute, when in truth.. she was a trusted member of the group and may have been an apostle herself.

Here's a little something on the "Gospel of Judas"....

The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot? : NPR

Yeah.. i know... it's NPR... but there are plenty of other links out there.

The ability of people to make shit up doesn't make it valid or meaningful. If you're going to discuss Christianity and what it teaches, then you're going to have to work with accepted Christian gospel and doctrine, not a fiction book you read somewhere and think would make a more interesting debate.

I cannot imagine what "shocking significance" it is supposed to have that people decided what was and wasn't valid to their beliefs, given that ALL beliefs are decided on by the people who believe them.

The Gospel of Thomas, are The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are part of the Gnostic Gospels. They exist as historical truths, not fiction.

Although, some say the entire Bible is fiction. It depends on how you look at it. Certainly, the Bible has been written in many different languages and is interpreted in many ways.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean, "historic truth"? That Thomas and Mary Magdalene existed? Fine. That the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" exist? Sure. That they're a legitimate part of the Bible? Obviously, that's far from a settled "historic truth". And shockingly, people don't just get to decide on their own to add to or rewrite the sacred texts of a religion to suit themselves.

I'm afraid you're just going to have to deal with the REAL truth here, which is that if you're going to discuss the teachings and doctrines of Christianity, YOU don't get to define those parameters to suit yourself.

Which, strangely enough, is exactly the same thing I said BEFORE you wasted my time and screen space trying to tell me what is and isn't a sacred Christian text, Reverend Sky Dancer. Funny how, as usual, no amount of gum-running from you makes a damned bit of difference.

I do so love have a self-professed Buddhist try to define Christianity for me. The arrogance is almost as breathtaking as when an atheist tries it.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Maybe He was foreseeing your birth and wondering if it meant that mankind wasn't worth saving, after all. God knows, your existence makes ME wonder that sometimes.

Wow. Skipping your thorazine much??

I have to tell you, this series of tantrum-ettes is only a pathetic shadow of what I've seen you post in the past. You need to up your game, girlie, or I'll have to put you on ignore.

As it now stands, there's no need for you at all. AllieBlubber can post better drivel that what you've come up with in the last 24 hours.

Nice try, loser. But your OP was about as deep and clever as the average teenager cussing at the dinner table to shock Mom and Dad, and your subsequent posts were less meaningful and coherent than my last conversation with my two-year-old. No amount of assumed loftiness or looking up the spellings of psych meds is going to change the fact that you've made yourself out to be a crass, ill-mannered, adolescent religious bigot for all of us to see and laugh at.

Feel free to continue trying to pretend your posts require any sort of serious response. And by all means, hold your breath until you merit enough of my respect to get one.

Hey, tell us again how Avatar can't join a mercenary unit, and how that's relevant to the topic.

You've just confirmed you're no longer needed. Stupidity I can get from any random assortment of other trolls around here, and yours just isn't clever anymore.

Save what you think are your "serious responses" for someone else; you're now on ignore, kiddo.

 

[syrenn]

I'm not sure anyone really cares, wonker.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The ability of people to make shit up doesn't make it valid or meaningful. If you're going to discuss Christianity and what it teaches, then you're going to have to work with accepted Christian gospel and doctrine, not a fiction book you read somewhere and think would make a more interesting debate.

I cannot imagine what "shocking significance" it is supposed to have that people decided what was and wasn't valid to their beliefs, given that ALL beliefs are decided on by the people who believe them.

The Gospel of Thomas, are The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are part of the Gnostic Gospels. They exist as historical truths, not fiction.

Although, some say the entire Bible is fiction. It depends on how you look at it. Certainly, the Bible has been written in many different languages and is interpreted in many ways.

That's just it sky...

While I don't believe that the entire bible is fiction, I do believe that the Council of Nicaea may have kept the books of the bible that fit their culture and scrapped the rest. i am not saying that went down that way... but it may have been. The thing is.... if there are all these other Gospels that were banned from the bible, who's to say we are following a true path?

You are really hung up on the Council of Nicaea, aren't you? If one didn't know any better, one would assume from your posts that the history of Christianity began at that point.

As it happens, the Gnostics attempt to annex and warp Christianity for themselves was rejected before the Council of Nicaea. If you want to assume that the reason Christians rejected Gnosticism was "to fit their culture", that's your lookout. However, it shouldn't be too hard, even for you, to figure out the answer to the question, "With all these different teachings available, how do I decide which one to believe?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

The following are writings by Gnostics of the second century according to some scholars, although some others dispute this classification for writings such as the Gospel of Thomas.


Gnostic: The Gospel of Thomas
Gnostic: The Secret Book of James
Gnostic: Basilides
Gnostic: Naassene Fragment
Gnostic: Gospel of Mary
Gnostic: Dialogue of the Savior
Gnostic: Gospel of the Savior
Gnostic: Marcion
Gnostic: Epiphanes
Gnostic: Ophite Diagrams
Gnostic: Ptolemy
Gnostic: Gospel of Truth
Gnostic: Excerpts of Theodotus
Gnostic: Heracleon
Gnostic: Acts of Peter
Gnostic: Acts of Thomas

All of the above documents and more are presented on the Early Christian Writings web site.

And your point would be what? I don't believe anyone denied they existed.

And guess what? No matter how much time you spend trying to shoehorn this garbage into Christianity, it's STILL not going to be part of Christian doctrine, any more than the Qu'ran is just because Mohammed insisted he was getting new revelations from the Jewish and Christian God.

Any fuckwit can claim to have "new revelations" about Christianity and God, just like any fuckwit can come in here and start lecturing about how dogs and humans can interbreed (a fascinating conversation that once existed on this board, and which still boggles my mind). Doesn't make either one of them true, or the rest of us obligated to accept it as such.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If God is a trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then it's true that one part of God prays to another.

The Son prayed to the Father.

The Son talked with the Father.

He teaches us, with the Lord's Prayer of the Bible, how to pray to the Father

If the Son is God, and the Father is God, then he's talking to himself.

Assuming that you have decided, in your no-doubt infinite wisdom, that God is exactly like a human being, since that's all you're able to comprehend. Myself, I don't believe the possibilities of the universe begin and end with what I'm currently able to understand all by myself.

But then, I'm also not arrogant enough to try to preach and lecture to people about their beliefs, which I don't personally share, unlike some.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why are you associating with non-believers?

First of all, I'm not, dumbass. You don't see me going out for coffee with you ignorant jackwagons, do you?

Second of all, that verse doesn't say, "Don't associate with unbelievers". It says, "Don't associate with believers who are not following these instructions." It's bad enough that you feel qualified to tell Christians what Christianity is, what constitutes its sacred writings, and how it should be practiced. But now you want to do it without even being literate enough to read and understand direct quotes when they're all but slapping you in the face? No wonder the Bible enjoins us not to cast pearls before swine. Oink, oink, Porky.

 

[Cecilie1200]

your saying God was praying to a part of himself?.....GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK.....there is supposed to be ONE God....as such that one god would not be praying to himself or a part of himself....Jesus was not "God"......he was another distinct Being sent here by that "God" to do what he was supposed to do....for someone who is telling people off because they have not read the Bible......you sure as hell sound just as stupid as anyone here.....including me....

I didn't say He was praying. That was YOUR choice of words. He was talking to God the Father. If you define "praying" as "talking to God", then I suppose you can say He was praying, but I frankly think you're way too hung up on semantics at this point.

Who ever said there WASN'T one God? I didn't. Your imaginative difficulties and restrictions are not my problem or His, but I think we would both appreciate it if you would stop trying to impose your limitations on others as some objective standard of reality.

Speaking of sounding stupid, "I can't understand that, therefore it's not real, and if you believe it, then you're stupid for not agreeing with my worldview" pretty much defines that word in my book.

didn't say He was praying. That was YOUR choice of words. He was talking to God the Father. If you define "praying" as "talking to God", then I suppose you can say He was praying, but I frankly think you're way too hung up on semantics at this point.


yes it was my choice......and if you were paying attention to the flow of the Conversation.....someone earlier had said Jesus was God.....i was asking that individual (who never replied) if Jesus was God.....who was he praying too? .......you jumped in with your answer about the Godhead.....you said he was praying to the PART of the Godhead who stayed in Heaven......in other words it was like Spock reporting to Kirk on his progress with the Humans here.....Right?......since thats all the Bible is......one of the greatest stories of Man being visited by the Extraterrestrials who just may have seeded him here and were now trying to give them some Direction........

Yes, I answered that He was talking to God the Father. Note that I ALSO said that if you define "praying" as "talking to God", then you can say He was praying. And quite frankly, you were, and continue to be, way too hung up on the semantics of the word "praying". Get over it.

I will say this again. Your personal inability to imagine, or even consider, that the universe can contain anything bigger than or radically different from human beings and the way their personal individuality is configured is YOUR problem, not mine, and not God's. It would be polite, however, if you would discontinue setting up your incredibly limited imagination as an objective standard of reality for the rest of us to abide by. I don't want to live in a universe small and boring enough to be contained in and comprehended by MY mind, let alone one that fits into YOURS.

 

[Moonglow]

...how do you expect him to save you?

This seems like a fatal theological flaw if ever there was one.

Brian had the same problem


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Lc86JUAwwg]‪Monty Python's Life of Brian - I shall release Brian‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[AllieBaba]

No we're not. You are confusing Christ's message with your own political Ideology.

Luke 6:30...If someone takes your coat... offer him your shirt too(close enough without googling).

Matthew 25: 31-46....31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Those aren't "suggestions" they are demands of a Christian society.

Notice... in either of these passages does it say "people who can or cannot do for themselves", does it?

You guys need to stop cherry picking the bible and focusing only on "other people's sins" when there is plenty to go around for all of us.

"You are confusing Christ's message with your own political Ideology."

That's exactly what you're doing. Jesus commands us all to be charitable. He did not command us to request the government force us to be charitable.

It's part of the whole "free will" thing. A gift freely given is priceless. A gift given at gunpoint is worthless.

No, I am not. That's what YOU guys do... to homosexuals, with abortion(which I don't condone), to poor people, to people of different religions... it's so deeply embedded in your politics, that they are inseparable for MOST of you.

I've shown scripture after scripture that your way is not of Christ... but you want to be a "christian nation".

I'll tell you what... Show me a passage that tells people to amass incredible wealth and hoard it...that I cannot refute with a different passage, and I will convert to Tea Party politics.

And that is a problem...scripture doesn't contradict Christ.

And we're already a Christian nation. Nobody wants to *make* it anything. It already is.

 

[Moonglow]

the trinity is three, three, three Gods in one

 

[Moonglow]

"You are confusing Christ's message with your own political Ideology."

That's exactly what you're doing. Jesus commands us all to be charitable. He did not command us to request the government force us to be charitable.

It's part of the whole "free will" thing. A gift freely given is priceless. A gift given at gunpoint is worthless.

No, I am not. That's what YOU guys do... to homosexuals, with abortion(which I don't condone), to poor people, to people of different religions... it's so deeply embedded in your politics, that they are inseparable for MOST of you.

I've shown scripture after scripture that your way is not of Christ... but you want to be a "christian nation".

I'll tell you what... Show me a passage that tells people to amass incredible wealth and hoard it...that I cannot refute with a different passage, and I will convert to Tea Party politics.

And that is a problem...scripture doesn't contradict Christ.

And we're already a Christian nation. Nobody wants to *make* it anything. It already is.

this is not an offical Christian nation, but it is a nation with alot of christians.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

It's not that the story doesn't have a message, Emily. As you've shown, it does. It just doesn't hang together logically.

Can you explain which inconsistency in logic is really bothering you as unresolvable?

1. is it the conflict that if God's will is so perfect then why is this horrible thing required to happen to fix God's relationship with man that went astray

2. is it the conflict that if Jesus' will is one with God's will, as inseparable in spirit,
then why is he saying things that sound like he is struggling or "not wanting" it?
that indicate he is separated from or abandoned by God, he is not at peace with this.

which specific point do you find inconsistent?

I am wondering if it is similar to the dilemma that if God's will is absolute/all-knowing and supreme, in control of all things in the universe, then where is man's free will in that?

I believe reconciling these two levels of will is the driving force behind the human conscience, so we will not be fully satisfied until we are at peace with this issue:
the individual will and the collective will, how we connect or relate to greater society or humanity as a whole, this is a constant battle of finding balance and harmony.

How can we have BOTH things, what we want and what is best for the greater good of all?

Is your question related to this theme?
Thank you WP, I believe this is very deep, and your
question is more insightful and not as "dumb" as people might take it on the surface.

I believe this is the fundamental question that has driven humanity
since we became self-aware of our existence in relation to others in the world.

Everyone has a different way of asking it, the same basic question,
and that is why everyone comes to a different answer that brings them peace!

May I encourage you not to be content or complacent with just
"accepting there is something illogical here" but to pursue investigation
until you resolve what you see as the conflict.

I look forward to seeing what answer or understanding you come up with,
as I believe that will help many other people who are struggling with the same.

Thanks again for sharing your insightful perspective!

Sorry for the delay in replying, Emily. The above is one of the few posts on this thread that actually deserves closer examination.

Point 1, it seems to me, would have to rely on predestination if in fact God's will is perfect. As I understand it, most branches of Christianity don't believe in predestination, and neither do I.

That leaves Point 2. The concept of a holy trinity would seem to suggest that, in fact, Jesus would have to have at least been aware of God's will at all times, if not sharing it. Under these circumstances, abandonment would not have been possible.

From a logical standpoint, I'm not sure where that can be taken. However, I continue to be interested in any thoughts you have on this idea, as I would indeed like to pursue the investigation.

Thanks.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm not a christian, but according to the Bible it seems like he wanted to get in trouble (crucifixion) to absolve people of their sins.

According to the Bible, he had no interest in getting into THAT kind of trouble.

That's why he said "My Lord, my Lord, why have you abandoned me?" when he was on the cross.

I think maybe if you're on the verge of death and dying in such a harsh way, you might not be in your right mind either, Proving he was truly a man.

But wait! I thought he was god?

 

[shintao]

What trouble did Jesus get into???he was crucified for doing the Fathers will.it was the will of the Father that Jesus died for our sins!!!

Hmmm, that seems silly, because he didn't die.

Yes he did die. He was whipped and torchered horribly before he was even put on the cross....where he died, and rose again after 3 days, where many people saw him (in his new body)...then he went to Heaven where he's seated at the right hand of the Father (God). You would know this if you ever actually read the Bible.

death doesn't count if you come back to life. DUH! Oh boy! How do you know he went to heaven? The bible was written by a bunch of drugged out arabs for traveling shows on the Chinese trade routes. chapters = stage scripts. You speak of reading the Bible, well why the hell do you go for a book that is missing half the chapters you don't like and begins lying at genesis 1 ?

 

[shintao]

I'm not a christian, but according to the Bible it seems like he wanted to get in trouble (crucifixion) to absolve people of their sins.

According to the Bible, he had no interest in getting into THAT kind of trouble.

That's why he said "My Lord, my Lord, why have you abandoned me?" when he was on the cross.

I think maybe if you're on the verge of death and dying in such a harsh way, you might not be in your right mind either, Proving he was truly a man.

"I think maybe " And that sums up man and his Bible.................

Well we could add, "could be," "might have been," and "I believe," and "God told me."

 

[Harry Dresden]

I didn't say He was praying. That was YOUR choice of words. He was talking to God the Father. If you define "praying" as "talking to God", then I suppose you can say He was praying, but I frankly think you're way too hung up on semantics at this point.

Who ever said there WASN'T one God? I didn't. Your imaginative difficulties and restrictions are not my problem or His, but I think we would both appreciate it if you would stop trying to impose your limitations on others as some objective standard of reality.

Speaking of sounding stupid, "I can't understand that, therefore it's not real, and if you believe it, then you're stupid for not agreeing with my worldview" pretty much defines that word in my book.

didn't say He was praying. That was YOUR choice of words. He was talking to God the Father. If you define "praying" as "talking to God", then I suppose you can say He was praying, but I frankly think you're way too hung up on semantics at this point.


yes it was my choice......and if you were paying attention to the flow of the Conversation.....someone earlier had said Jesus was God.....i was asking that individual (who never replied) if Jesus was God.....who was he praying too? .......you jumped in with your answer about the Godhead.....you said he was praying to the PART of the Godhead who stayed in Heaven......in other words it was like Spock reporting to Kirk on his progress with the Humans here.....Right?......since thats all the Bible is......one of the greatest stories of Man being visited by the Extraterrestrials who just may have seeded him here and were now trying to give them some Direction........

Yes, I answered that He was talking to God the Father. Note that I ALSO said that if you define "praying" as "talking to God", then you can say He was praying. And quite frankly, you were, and continue to be, way too hung up on the semantics of the word "praying". Get over it.

I will say this again. Your personal inability to imagine, or even consider, that the universe can contain anything bigger than or radically different from human beings and the way their personal individuality is configured is YOUR problem, not mine, and not God's. It would be polite, however, if you would discontinue setting up your incredibly limited imagination as an objective standard of reality for the rest of us to abide by. I don't want to live in a universe small and boring enough to be contained in and comprehended by MY mind, let alone one that fits into YOURS.

geezus you are one dumb bitch.....and i do mean bitch.....im the one who just got through saying that "God" and Jesus are indeed Alien beings much different than we are (the bolded part at the top)......and you have the audacity to say what you said in the bolded part at the bottom?..........but dont worry i dont put Bitchy posters on ignore......oh and by the way...Jesus would love the way you try and say what he was about with your Bitchy mannerisms.....im sure he would tell you to go sit down and shut the fuck up.......

 

[ABikerSailor]

"You are confusing Christ's message with your own political Ideology."

That's exactly what you're doing. Jesus commands us all to be charitable. He did not command us to request the government force us to be charitable.

It's part of the whole "free will" thing. A gift freely given is priceless. A gift given at gunpoint is worthless.

No, I am not. That's what YOU guys do... to homosexuals, with abortion(which I don't condone), to poor people, to people of different religions... it's so deeply embedded in your politics, that they are inseparable for MOST of you.

I've shown scripture after scripture that your way is not of Christ... but you want to be a "christian nation".

I'll tell you what... Show me a passage that tells people to amass incredible wealth and hoard it...that I cannot refute with a different passage, and I will convert to Tea Party politics.

Being wealthy is NOT a sin.

BibleGateway - Quick search: wealth

And of course the Bible tells us to help the poor.....NOT to help the ones that don't want to help themselves.

No, there's nothing against being rich in the Bible.

However............Yeshua DID say "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven."

Not quite a sin, but it IS something to consider, at least.........if you want to get to Heaven.