Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Lets look at Jesus' entire message.You can only gain salvation through accepting him as your saviour.
Paul's entire message.
You can only gain salvation through accepting Jesus as your saviour.
However, after accepting Jesus there are still things that he would like you to do- such as love your neighbour, forgive each other, etc etc.
Again there is no discrepancy.
Good job at rationalizing that inconsistency.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There isn't one though...that person has taken ONE line from something Jesus said and ONE line from something Paul said and decided they conflict...really they don't.I didn't need to rationalize. I looked at the entire message of Jesus and the message of Paul and found they were the same.
How is what that person did any different then what you did? All you are doing is saying that your interpretation is better then someone else. That would be fine if Christianity did not claim divinity, or absolute truth.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How is what that person did any different then what you did? All you are doing is saying that your interpretation is better then someone else. That would be fine if Christianity did not claim divinity, or absolute truth.
No I am not. I am taking everything Jesus and Paul said into account. That writer is taking only a few lines into account and ignoring what he doesn't like.
You however are just relying on his word and don't actually have a leg to stand on.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No I am not. I am taking everything Jesus and Paul said into account. That writer is taking only a few lines into account and ignoring what he doesn't like.You however are just relying on his word and don't actually have a leg to stand on.
What I am doing is just showing how people take a book that was written ~2000 years ago and comes up with all kind of things. This is were you get what you believe, and this is were JIA gets what he believes. This has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with opinion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I am doing is just showing how people take a book that was written ~2000 years ago and comes up with all kind of things. This is were you get what you believe, and this is were JIA gets what he believes. This has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with opinion.
No, you are attempting to expose difference where none exists, you failed. Now you are pretending its all part of a greater point about interpretation.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
No, you are attempting to expose difference where none exists, you failed. Now you are pretending its all part of a greater point about interpretation.
No pretending on my part, that was my goal. However, it was directed to peejayd and not you, but you took the bait. 😉
You can't tell me what my intentions are. You don't know that. I think you are just a little unnerved by my point.
You dont have a point though, you thought you had struck gold with that wee website but really it was just misquoting.
Its very easy to do...I imagine I could take a quote from Buddha and make it contradict with something he said at another time just by removing it from context.
I am not unnerved, perhaps a little annoyed yes but not unnerved.
However, I have been a bit techty since the surgeon's knife...and haven't slept much so perhaps your not far wrong. 😛
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You dont have a point though, you thought you had struck gold with that wee website but really it was just misquoting.Its very easy to do...I imagine I could take a quote from Buddha and make it contradict with something he said at another time just by removing it from context.
I am not unnerved, perhaps a little annoyed yes but not unnerved.
However, I have been a bit techty since the surgeon's knife...and haven't slept much so perhaps your not far wrong. 😛
I'm sorry that you are not feeling well, and I will chant for your recovery.
The web site does not matter. I find it all to be the same. There is no one correct interpretation of the bible, in my opinion.
And about misquotes from Buddha, it happens all the time. However, Buddha was just a man. He was a great teacher, but just a teacher. Even the best teacher can be wrong.
Jesus was a man, nothing more, nothing less.
He was a delusional sociopath and pedophile.
To spread his 'gospel' or pervertedness, he made a fairytale book that we call Bible.
Don't take it personal, but the Bible is just a book, nothing more, nothing less.
What makes you think it's different with the Vedas of the Hindus? (a very well-written fairytale book)
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Jesus was a man, nothing more, nothing less.
He was a delusional sociopath and pedophile.
To spread his 'gospel' or pervertedness, he made a fairytale book that we call Bible.Don't take it personal, but the Bible is just a book, nothing more, nothing less.
What makes you think it's different with the Vedas of the Hindus? (a very well-written fairytale book)
I'd like to see some evidence behind these claims, or is name-calling just a way to rebel against the establishment that you mistakingly think is Christian for you?
Nothing about the Gospel is perverted. It's main ideas are to love other people more than yourself, to be less selfish and try to make the world a better place, which is God's Will. Even if you don't believe in it, what is perverted about that? It's a much better doctrine than a lot of other ones out there that demand an eye for an eye and human sacrifice.
Originally posted by willofthewisp
I'd like to see some evidence behind these claims, or is name-calling just a way to rebel against the establishment that you mistakingly think is Christian for you?Nothing about the Gospel is perverted. It's main ideas are to love other people more than yourself, to be less selfish and try to make the world a better place, which is God's Will. Even if you don't believe in it, what is perverted about that? It's a much better doctrine than a lot of other ones out there that demand an eye for an eye and human sacrifice.
To say that Jesus was a man is reasonable and does not require any more evidence then the account of his death. The idea that he was divine and rose from the dead is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence, and there is none.
As far as the other stuff, no one knows, with the exception of the bible. Jesus never wrote anything.
Originally posted by willofthewispWhile the Bible does preach peach it also preaches violence as well.
I'd like to see some evidence behind these claims, or is name-calling just a way to rebel against the establishment that you mistakingly think is Christian for you?Nothing about the Gospel is perverted. It's main ideas are to love other people more than yourself, to be less selfish and try to make the world a better place, which is God's Will. Even if you don't believe in it, what is perverted about that? It's a much better doctrine than a lot of other ones out there that demand an eye for an eye and human sacrifice.