Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Could you say that you know for a fact that Christianity doesn't have Pagan roots and that the scriptures included in the Bible are the right ones? There are many other scriptures from James, Paul, and of course we know about Thomas..If all the other writings were included, they would contradict each other. Why do you think certain ones were chosen and others were left out?

Also, I like what Windancer posted on the PBS show concerning What Jesus thought and taught and what others taught about Him..

I think the original scriptres of christianity - the original bible would be very very thick. I think as times went on people added and taken out bits they suited best, which they thought would be in their favour.

And no, you cannot say anything for certain.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And no, you cannot say anything for certain.


Open minded and true..

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I think the original scriptres of christianity - the original bible would be very very thick. I think as times went on people added and taken out bits they suited best, which they thought would be in their favour.

And no, you cannot say anything for certain.

That's very true, I know that there were several books that were removed from the bible for various reasons.

Originally posted by debbiejo


Also, I like what Windancer posted on the PBS show concerning What Jesus thought and taught and what others taught about Him..

Glad to be of service.

The Bible definitely has Paganistic roots, not to mention that several of the Bible's stories have been around for thousands of years in different forms, (and part of different Religions, ex. Gilgamesh vs. Noah, and the recently discovered Babylonian version pre-dating both Bible Noah and Gilgamesh....).
Heck, the belief in a "one God" only came into existence not long around the fall of the Babylonian "Empire"....before that time, practically all peoples believed in "Pagan" Religions.

Allow me to clear up a few bits and pieces of the big puzzle. The bible has had improvements, both positive and negative. Now were the gossip starts pouring is why they made such improvements. The improvement for removal is because it no longer fitted with the time, or it contradicted earlier/later parts of the bible. A reason why it wasn't removed was to suit the benefit of the catholics. A reason for addition to parts was either unclarity, misinterrpretation, or just to modify it because it had good moral values but didn't consist with the modern laws.

Originally posted by DCLXVI
The Bible definitely has Paganistic roots, not to mention that several of the Bible's stories have been around for thousands of years in different forms, (and part of different Religions, ex. Gilgamesh vs. Noah, and the recently discovered Babylonian version pre-dating both Bible Noah and Gilgamesh....).
Heck, the belief in a "one God" only came into existence not long around the fall of the Babylonian "Empire"....before that time, practically all peoples believed in "Pagan" Religions.

You are refering to Utnapishtim of the Sumerian/Babylonian Flood
myth found int the Epic of Gilgamesh.

As I have said in another thread, some Christians may argue
that Utnapishtim is Noah, and that his flood is the one
of the Bible, but that the Mesopotamians, being ignorant of the
One true God, instead interpreted the flood as the work of their
god Ea.

http://www.mysocialstudiesclass.com/Flood.html

http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm
(Other flood myths.)

But the Hebrews, with knowledge and inspiration from God, knew
the truth.


As for monotheism, it made an unsual first-and-only appearance
with the Pharoah Akhenaten, in the 14th century BC. And some
allege influence (certainly considering the universality of
polytheism, monotheism would have been quite an innovation,
and that it would appear independantly in two adjacent areas like
Egypt and Pelistine/Sinai is indeed difficult to believe). But this
theory ignores two things, first that this Pharoah luved atleast
two centuries after Abraham, and that he lived over two centuries
before Moses, And that after his death most traces of him were
destroyed, so that it is doubtful that the Hebrews would have
known about him without access to top level documents and
written sources (which is how modern historians found out about
him).

And even if there was influence, it does not necessarily negate
the fact that there is a One true God, and that, despite getting
the idea of monotheism from Egypt, the ancient Israelites
ended up finding the true nature of that One God.

http://atheism.about.com/library/islam/countries/bl_EgyptAkhentaten.htm


http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/akhenaten.html
(Argues against the influence theory.)

the ancient Israelites have ended up finding the what they BELIEVED to be true nature of that One God

There are a lot of books and epistles that were supposed to be included in our present Bible. Yet, I still believe, as a Christian, that the Holy Writ is still complete and still a reliable source to correct errors.

I believe in God. I believe in what He can do. If it is His will to save mankind through the aid of the Holy Scriptures, then He must have protected the Bible. Divine intervention matters. Who knows, God might have sent somebody or group of people who were destined to keep away the rest of the books and not to include them in the Bible... because they were simply unnecessary, uninspired, and contradicitng.

Originally posted by Jury
There are a lot of books and epistles that were supposed to be included in our present Bible. Yet, I still believe, as a Christian, that the Holy Writ is still complete and still a reliable source to correct errors.

I believe in God. I believe in what He can do. If it is His will to save mankind through the aid of the Holy Scriptures, then He must have protected the Bible. Divine intervention matters. Who knows, God might have sent somebody or group of people who were destined to keep away the rest of the books and not to include them in the Bible... because they were simply unnecessary, uninspired, and contradicitng.

Ever so faithful.

ever so fooled

Originally posted by finti
ever so fooled

never moved.

Originally posted by Jury
There are a lot of books and epistles that were supposed to be included in our present Bible. Yet, I still believe, as a Christian, that the Holy Writ is still complete and still a reliable source to correct errors.

I believe in God. I believe in what He can do. If it is His will to save mankind through the aid of the Holy Scriptures, then He must have protected the Bible. Divine intervention matters. Who knows, God might have sent somebody or group of people who were destined to keep away the rest of the books and not to include them in the Bible... because they were simply unnecessary, uninspired, and contradicitng.

The other writing of Paul would be contradicting...He believed, along with James and Thomas that you could find God from within...They believed in reincarnation and they didn't believe in a "Head" of the church. Infact in their meetings people drew lots and took turns on who would speak...The Roman Church didn't like that...THEY wanted to be the HEAD of the church. So, of course it would make since that they would burn all the Gnostic scriptures...and such.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could you say that you know for a fact that Christianity doesn't have Pagan roots and that the scriptures included in the Bible are the right ones? There are many other scriptures from James, Paul, and of course we know about Thomas..If all the other writings were included, they would contradict each other. Why do you think certain ones were chosen and others were left out?

Also, I like what Windancer posted on the PBS show concerning What Jesus thought and taught and what others taught about Him..

I am pretty opened mined about the bible even through I only read it once.And some stuff I do not understand even through I try too.JM

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could you say that you know for a fact that Christianity doesn't have Pagan roots and that the scriptures included in the Bible are the right ones? There are many other scriptures from James, Paul, and of course we know about Thomas..If all the other writings were included, they would contradict each other. Why do you think certain ones were chosen and others were left out?

Also, I like what Windancer posted on the PBS show concerning What Jesus thought and taught and what others taught about Him..

How did they decide which books to include in the New Testament?

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3481/biblejerif7.jpg

There are solid reasons for trusting in today's list of New Testament books. As previously mentioned, the Gospel writers Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were close followers of Jesus. The other authors were considered trustworthy as well: James and Jude (half-brothers of Jesus, who initially did not believe in him), Peter (one of the 12 apostles), and Paul (whom Jesus made an apostle after his death and resurrection).

The church knew about these men and their association with Jesus. Moreover, what they reported was consistent with what people had heard and seen themselves regarding Jesus, and had passed on to their children. So, when other books were written and appeared hundreds of years later (e.g., the Gospel of Peter, though Peter had long since died), it wasn't difficult for the church to spot them as phonies.

Another example is the Gospel of Thomas (which Mohammed references in the Quran). The Gospel of Thomas was written around 140 A.D., long after Thomas had died. Though it bore some similarities to the New Testament's authentic Gospel of Matthew, it also contained wildly different messages. The descriptions of Jesus did not fit anything the early church knew to be true of him.

For example, throughout the Gospels, Jesus treats women with dignity. He taught women as well as men, spoke against unfair divorce laws, and first appeared to women after his resurrection, entrusting to them the message that he was alive. This respect toward women countered the culture of his day, which typically viewed women as possessions. Yet the Gospel of Thomas attests the following to Jesus: "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life."16 And: "For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven."17

So, as books were written and circulated among the early church, it was not difficult for people to discern the forgeries. False writings countered the known teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament, and often contained historical and geographical errors.18

At some point an official list of New Testament books became necessary: 1) Christians were being martyred and books were being destroyed; 2) in translating the books into Syriac and Old Latin, a listing of authoritative books was important; 3) false books and false teachings were always challenging the church; and 4) God may likely have been moving the church to formulate an official list. In A.D. 367, Athanasius formerly listed the 27 New Testament books (the same list that we have today). Soon after, Jerome and Augustine circulated this same list.


http://www.everystudent.com/za/features/bible.html

Originally posted by debbiejo
The other writing of Paul would be contradicting...He believed, along with James and Thomas that you could find God from within...They believed in reincarnation and they didn't believe in a "Head" of the church. Infact in their meetings people drew lots and took turns on who would speak...The Roman Church didn't like that...THEY wanted to be the HEAD of the church. So, of course it would make since that they would burn all the Gnostic scriptures...and such.

Don't speak of being open minded while you are so closed minded about your (Ridiculous)opinion of Paul that you cannot see the truth.
And by the way, God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (the BIble) out of our thouhts (mind) and that it should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritualy to what He intended us to be. So to me, being open minded (open to false interpretations and doctrines) is against the word of God and exactly how Satan get people to turn their backs on the TRUTH.

Originally posted by sonnet
Don't speak of being open minded while you are so closed minded about your (Ridiculous)opinion of Paul that you cannot see the truth.
And by the way, God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (the BIble) out of our thouhts (mind) and that it should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritualy to what He intended us to be. So to me, being open minded (open to false interpretations and doctrines) is against the word of God and exactly how Satan get people to turn their backs on the TRUTH.

I think you are the one with the closed mind. You should read the gospel of Thomas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you are the one with the closed mind. You should read the gospel of Thomas.

I have but do not support false doctrine. It has been time dated and it was impossible for Thomas to have written it unless he wrote it after he died. I believe in God and HIS WORD only, no need for ading any corupting literature to my life. I do not give Satan any part in my life.

"TRUTH"

Originally posted by sonnet
I have but do not support false doctrine. It has been time dated and it was impossible for Thomas to have written it unless he wrote it after he died. I believe in God and HIS WORD only, no need for ading any corupting literature to my life. I do not give Satan any part in my life.

That is true for all the gospels.

PS. There is no Satan.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true for all the gospels.

PS. There is no Satan.

Every man and woman must believe for themselves that is why we shall all stand before God and be judged. I have accepted His offering of salvation (i.e. His Son Jesus Christ). You have already made your decision.

Originally posted by sonnet
Don't speak of being open minded while you are so closed minded about your (Ridiculous)opinion of Paul that you cannot see the truth.
And by the way, God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (the BIble) out of our thouhts (mind) and that it should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritualy to what He intended us to be. So to me, being open minded (open to false interpretations and doctrines) is against the word of God and exactly how Satan get people to turn their backs on the TRUTH.

Originally posted by sonnet
Every man and woman must believe for themselves that is why we shall all stand before God and be judged. I have accepted His offering of salvation (i.e. His Son Jesus Christ). You have already made your decision.

Why do you have to be judged if you are already saved? Seems like a waste of time - obviosuly God already knows, why not go directly to where you are meant to?

Originally posted by sonnet
I have but do not support false doctrine. It has been time dated and it was impossible for Thomas to have written it unless he wrote it after he died. I believe in God and HIS WORD only, no need for ading any corupting literature to my life. I do not give Satan any part in my life.

God is well-pleased with you. Keep on believing the Word of God and telling others the gospel.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Why do you have to be judged if you are already saved? Seems like a waste of time - obviosuly God already knows, why not go directly to where you are meant to?
Why am I not surprised that you should see being judged only as negative. God's children will stand before God and will still give reconing for their actions and what they have done with their lives and acording to that the Bible says we shall receive crowns. The rest of the world who rejected the Truth, (Jesus Christ) , will be judged for that and for what they have done in their lives. But to understand the occurances of what will happen when Jesus returns you need to read Revalation and the sermons of Jesus in the Gospels. But understanding the Word of God comes through the Spirit of God inside you.

Originally posted by sonnet
Why am I not surprised that you should see being judged only as negative. God's children will stand before God and will still give reconing for their actions and what they have done with their lives and acording to that the Bible says we shall receive crowns. The rest of the world who rejected the Truth, (Jesus Christ) , will be judged for that and for what they have done in their lives. But to understand the occurances of what will happen when Jesus returns you need to read Revalation and the sermons of Jesus in the Gospels. But understanding the Word of God comes through the Spirit of God inside you.

We would be souls, about to spend all eternity in heaven, and one assumes see God often, yet we are given crowns and have to tell God about what we did with our lives, despite him already knowing exactly what we did with them?

Seems vaguely narcissistic.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
God is well-pleased with you. Keep on believing the Word of God and telling others the gospel.

JIA knows the will of god and speaks for him in his sinful existance!

Originally posted by sonnet
Every man and woman must believe for themselves that is why we shall all stand before God and be judged. I have accepted His offering of salvation (i.e. His Son Jesus Christ). You have already made your decision.

I have good news for you, there is no judgment day.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have good news for you, there is no judgment day.
NO it is actually your own created good news. I do not fear judgement day, for I know that I will be with God because I accepted the Truth.

Originally posted by sonnet
NO it is actually your own created good news. I do not fear judgement day, for I know that I will be with God because I accepted the Truth.

There is nothing to be afraid of a myth.

Originally posted by Alliance
JIA knows the will of god and speaks for him in his sinful existance!
Actually he is taking words from God's Word, it says that God is pleased when we have faith, that is faith in God and HIs Word.

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually he is taking words from God's Word, it says that God is pleased when we have faith, that is faith in God and HIs Word.

I am sure he looses points for all the name calling.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
We would be souls, about to spend all eternity in heaven, and one assumes see God often, yet we are given crowns and have to tell God about what we did with our lives, despite him already knowing exactly what we did with them?

Seems vaguely narcissistic.
It is called taking responsibility or your actions. It is acknowledging the truth about yourself. But we do not expect you to understand this.

Why, because you have a monoply on understanding oh denier-of-fact?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am sure he looses points for all the name calling.
I fail to see what you are referring to. But we are encouraged in the Bible to speak out the name of God (and Jesus) when we pray, worship, give testamony, and in our daily walk with God. We should not use it in vane or for mockery though.

Originally posted by Alliance
Why, because you have a monoply on understanding oh denier-of-fact?
No because you have already indicated that you do not believe in "myths".

Originally posted by sonnet
It is called taking responsibility or your actions. It is acknowledging the truth about yourself. But we do not expect you to understand this.

We?

It has been made clear all the good acts in the world aren't going to help one get to heaven, because God doesn't recognise people doing good things with good intentions, only people who believe in Jesus.

Yet for some reason on death we get to go to judgement, and go on about what we have done for our lives? Is it so God can laugh at all the good people that will be going to hell?

Or the people who found there to be many valid reasons why there is no God (clearly taken in by God's tricky nature?)

And my goodness, it has been implied God would be sad to see a single person go to hell, yet he is going to personally look billions in the eye and tell the majority:

"Sorry, you didn't believe/believed wrongly. You get an eternity in hell" -

And then he hands out crowns?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
We?

It has been made clear all the good acts in the world aren't going to help one get to heaven, because God doesn't recognise people doing good things with good intentions, only people who believe in Jesus.

Yet for some reason on death we get to go to judgement, and go on about what we have done for our lives? Is it so God can laugh at all the good people that will be going to hell?

Or the people who found there to be many valid reasons why there is no God (clearly taken in by God's tricky nature?)

And my goodness, it has been implied God would be sad to see a single person go to hell, yet he is going to personally look billions in the eye and tell the majority:

"Sorry, you didn't believe/believed wrongly. You get an eternity in hell" -

And then he hands out crowns?

They chose to go to Hell by virtue of choosing to reject salvation that is available only through Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by sonnet
No because you have already indicated that you do not believe in "myths".

Thats correct. I cant wait. "Judgement day will come." Well, we're still waiting.

Originally posted by sonnet
I fail to see what you are referring to. But we are encouraged in the Bible to speak out the name of God (and Jesus) when we pray, worship, give testamony, and in our daily walk with God. We should not use it in vane or for mockery though.

I don't know about you, but I know from experience that JIA can be really nasty when he gets mad. He is not the kind of person I would imagine having the Holy Spirit in him, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
They chose to go to Hell by virtue of choosing to reject salvation that is available only through Jesus Christ.

They go to Hell regardless of what is really in there hearts, based upon a summery definition that in no way defines a person.

I bet he has Jesus in him

(insert Urizen's droolio)

Originally posted by Alliance
I bet he has Jesus in him

(insert Urizen's droolio)

droolio

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
We?

It has been made clear all the good acts in the world aren't going to help one get to heaven, because God doesn't recognise people doing good things with good intentions, only people who believe in Jesus.

Yet for some reason on death we get to go to judgement, and go on about what we have done for our lives? Is it so God can laugh at all the good people that will be going to hell?

Or the people who found there to be many valid reasons why there is no God (clearly taken in by God's tricky nature?)

And my goodness, it has been implied God would be sad to see a single person go to hell, yet he is going to personally look billions in the eye and tell the majority:

"Sorry, you didn't believe/believed wrongly. You get an eternity in hell" -

And then he hands out crowns?
No He is going to say" Go away from me I do not know you, for you name is not written in the Book of Life. " That will be because you have rejected His Son and not accepted Him as the Saviour.

Thats a pretty concrete quote from somone who's never gotten any proof of the place.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
They go to Hell regardless of what is really in there hearts, based upon a summery definition that in no way defines a person.

Imperial Samura, how would you like to have eternal life? Jesus Christ loves you so much that He went through intense pain and suffering (prior to His crucifixion and during His suffering on the cross) so that you could go to Heaven. He would have done this just for you if you were the only person on the planet. Will you this day accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?

Originally posted by sonnet
No He is going to say" Go away from me I do not know you, for you name is not written in the Book of Life. " That will be because you have rejected His Son and not accepted Him as the Saviour.

How quickly God can turn his back on the ones he loves so.

Tell me, wouldn't it be maddening, to be God, and to have to live with the knowledge of so many children lost?



If I didn't earn it? Not much. Even less if I was a party to so many good people being let fall simply because they didn't have faith in something that there is no proof for.



And it shouldn't be like that. Free will means nothing if I can be damned by the actions of Adam and Eve, and made feel responsible for the sacrifice of Jesus.



No. No with the problems I have with Biblical doctrine. Not with the injustice I see in it.

Originally posted by Alliance
Thats a pretty concrete quote from somone who's never gotten any proof of the place.
But there is proof, God said so and I believe Him without any doubt in my heart. His spirit in me gave me all the proof I needed.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How quickly God can turn his back on the ones he loves so.

Tell me, wouldn't it be maddening, to be God, and to have to live with the knowledge of so many children lost?


Not quickly,... God has given you all this time since His Son died on the cross and rose again from the dead, to accept Jesus and you still have untill time runs out for mankind. God was even "polite" enough to warn us about it in His Word. So you realy will not have any excuse when you stand infront of Him. And yes if you turn your back on God , He will in the end turn His back on you

Originally posted by sonnet
Not quickly,... God has given you all this time since His Son died on the cross and rose again from the dead, to accept Jesus and you still have untill time runs out for mankind. God was even "polite" enough to warn us about it in His Word. So you realy will not have any excuse when you stand infront of Him. And yes if you turn your back on God , He will in the end turn His back on you

Wisdom has spoken.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
How quickly God can turn his back on the ones he loves so.

Tell me, wouldn't it be maddening, to be God, and to have to live with the knowledge of so many children lost?



If I didn't earn it? Not much. Even less if I was a party to so many good people being let fall simply because they didn't have faith in something that there is no proof for.



And it shouldn't be like that. Free will means nothing if I can be damned by the actions of Adam and Eve, and made feel responsible for the sacrifice of Jesus.



No. No with the problems I have with Biblical doctrine. Not with the injustice I see in it.

What ?!? You just analyzed something that did not need to be analyzed. I am very concerned for you. I have told you this before that you try to rationalize EVERYTHING. Samura, all things do not require analysis. You don't have to parse and analyze every word or phrase that is giving to you to understand and respond to it. (Man, I wonder what you were like as a kid. Nobody should be that uptight).

Originally posted by debbiejo
Could you say that you know for a fact that Christianity doesn't have Pagan roots and that the scriptures included in the Bible are the right ones? There are many other scriptures from James, Paul, and of course we know about Thomas..If all the other writings were included, they would contradict each other. Why do you think certain ones were chosen and others were left out?

Also, I like what Windancer posted on the PBS show concerning What Jesus thought and taught and what others taught about Him..
I exercise my critical thinking skills, and call into question the common assumptions and beliefs.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What ?!? You just analyzed something that did not need to be analyzed. I am very concerned for you. I have told you this before that you try to rationalize EVERYTHING. Samura, all things do not require analysis. You don't have to parse and analyze every word or phrase that is giving to you to understand and respond to it. (Man, I wonder what you were like as a kid. Nobody should be that uptight).


Yes, not everything can be understood by reason. However, one must not be irrational on the basis of faith. Just like while the Buddha's enlightenment(the TRUTH he attained) may transcend the realm of reason, it is not irrational, nor does it resist rational examination. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is in fact the basis for a mode of intellectual examination which enlists not only analytical capacities but also seeks to develop the intuitive wisdom found in the deepest spiritual strata of the human being. Learning and knowledge can serve as the portal to wisdom; but it is wisdom that enables us to use knowledge in the most humane and valuable way. The confusion of knowledge and wisdom, arguably, is at the root of our societal distortions.

What is called for now is new unification of belief and reason encompassing all aspects of the human being and society, including the insights achieved by modern science. This must be an attempt to restore wholeness to human society, which has been rent asunder by extremes of reason artificially divorced from belief and irrational religious fanaticism.

We are after all in the Age of Acquarius. Let's get nekkie and sing and dance to that very song!!! Who's with me?!?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I'm at work, I have to keep my cloths on. Oh. Right. Some civility is after all required. What would the ladies think if they saw a bunch of men dancing naked with their pecker dangling about like so many....uh, ok.

Originally posted by mahasattva
Yes, not everything can be understood by reason. However, one must not be irrational on the basis of faith. Just like while the Buddha's enlightenment(the TRUTH he attained) may transcend the realm of reason, it is not irrational, nor does it resist rational examination.

True. In my view, a divine truth must transcend the realm of reason, this is... it must contain and extend beyond the realm of reason, not resist it. It must be compatible with the realm of reason.

If something fails completely when subjected to intellectual analysis, then it does not have any hope of transcend reason.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What ?!? You just analyzed something that did not need to be analyzed. I am very concerned for you. I have told you this before that you try to rationalize EVERYTHING. Samura, all things do not require analysis. You don't have to parse and analyze every word or phrase that is giving to you to understand and respond to it. (Man, I wonder what you were like as a kid. Nobody should be that uptight).

When you preach at me, rhetorical or not, I am going to respond (if I feel like it) with problem I see in the preaching.

You asked if I wanted eternal life? Clearly you think everybody says "Yes" and thus it would qualify as a question that needn't be answer.

This just shows the failing of you rationalising abilities - things are not as black or white as you make out, and your claims are not perfect. I am sorry if you dislike me questioning you gnomic summery, but it deserved it.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
When you preach at me, rhetorical or not, I am going to respond (if I feel like it) with problem I see in the preaching.

You asked if I wanted eternal life? Clearly you think everybody says "Yes" and thus it would qualify as a question that needn't be answer.

This just shows the failing of you rationalising abilities - things are not as black or white as you make out, and your claims are not perfect. I am sorry if you dislike me questioning you gnomic summery, but it deserved it.

But I just asked you a question. I did not ask you to write a treatise or thesis on how to achieve world peace, balance the national budget, eradicate A.I.D.S. and cancer, annihilate racism, poverty, and crime.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But I just asked you a question. I did not ask you to write a treatise or thesis on how to achieve world peace, balance the national budget, eradicate A.I.D.S. and cancer, annihilate racism, poverty, and crime.

Wait... what is you definition of answering a question? Where you expecting me to just go "Yes/No"?

Such an answer would have failed to posses any meaning. I say yes and you probably would have labelled me a hypocrite - as it is I wouldn't say yes under the conditions implied.

I say no and you would probably think me mad - once again such an answer would fail to have any shred of meaning of the intetions behind it.

And if you think that is a thesis, well, I fear you haven't seen many. Best never to visit my home, the pages and pages of typing I do might be a bit over whelming.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Wait... what is you definition of answering a question? Where you expecting me to just go "Yes/No"?

Such an answer would have failed to posses any meaning. I say yes and you probably would have labelled me a hypocrite - as it is I wouldn't say yes under the conditions implied.

I say no and you would probably think me mad - once again such an answer would fail to have any shred of meaning of the intetions behind it.

And if you think that is a thesis, well, I fear you haven't seen many. Best never to visit my home, the pages and pages of typing I do might be a bit over whelming.

I think you just think "debate" 24/7. Bruh, is there a possibility to have a non-debate conversation with you?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I think you just think "debate" 24/7. Bruh, is there a possibility to have a non-debate conversation with you?

Ok, I am confused... you post this:



Logically I assume, since it is directed at me, I would have the right to answer, which I did thus:



Seems simple to me, simply giving my view. Nothing complex. But you respond:



How that was overanalyising I don't know - I read it, and offered my thoughts on it, but apparently I didn't answer in the way you thought I should. I responded by saying that when you post like that I will debate it (and since you were directing it to me I believed I had the right to.) You thought that was to "thesis like" despite being rather simple. I responded on that and you respond:



So please tell me, please do, what would have been the correct way for me to respond? What exactly were you expecting from me? Would the correct approach have simply been to agree with you? You asked a question, I answered. That happens in a conversation.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Ok, I am confused... you post this:



Logically I assume, since it is directed at me, I would have the right to answer, which I did thus:



Seems simple to me, simply giving my view. Nothing complex. But you respond:



How that was overanalyising I don't know - I read it, and offered my thoughts on it, but apparently I didn't answer in the way you thought I should. I responded by saying that when you post like that I will debate it (and since you were directing it to me I believed I had the right to.) You thought that was to "thesis like" despite being rather simple. I responded on that and you respond:



So please tell me, please do, what would have been the correct way for me to respond? What exactly were you expecting from me? Would the correct approach have simply been to agree with you? You asked a question, I answered. That happens in a conversation.

I have a habit of quoting posts and then responding to them whether it relates to what I am posting or not.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a habit of quoting posts and then responding to them whether it relates to what I am posting or not.

Like this post here? It doesn't seem in any way related to what is going on.

You criticise my post in response to a post you directed at me while failing to specify what exactly you were expecting.

"Do I want to be saved?"

Not in the manner you describe. Simply enough? Not to thesis like?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a habit of quoting posts and then responding to them whether it relates to what I am posting or not.


Yes you do, please stop doing that.

Originally posted by sonnet
Don't speak of being open minded while you are so closed minded about your (Ridiculous)opinion of Paul that you cannot see the truth.
And by the way, God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (the BIble) out of our thouhts (mind) and that it should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritualy to what He intended us to be. So to me, being open minded (open to false interpretations and doctrines) is against the word of God and exactly how Satan get people to turn their backs on the TRUTH.

Here is the problem, however.

What you are telling me, is that God does not want you to use your brain, because using your brain leads you to Satan.

Which would then, logically lead me to believe, that the so called Satan is the truth and so called God is a lie, because God is trying to cover up the truth.

Do you know how wise people get other people to understand them? By educating them on everything.

pray

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Here is the problem, however.

What you are telling me, is that God does not want you to use your brain, because using your brain leads you to Satan.

Which would then, logically lead me to believe, that the so called Satan is the truth and so called God is a lie, because God is trying to cover up the truth.

Do you know how wise people get other people to understand them? By educating them on everything.

Well said.

Originally posted by sonnet
And by the way, God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (the BIble) out of our thoughts (mind) and that it should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritually to what He intended us to be. So to me, being open minded (open to false interpretations and doctrines) is against the word of God and exactly how Satan get people to turn their backs on the TRUTH. You should verify to what God was referring. I think that this sounds more reasonable:

God tells us in the Bible to never let HIS WORD (Christ) out of our thoughts (mind) and that he should always be in out hearts and thoughts because then only can we grow spiritually to what He intended us to be.

Also, God has never suggested that his people be idiots enslaved to the Bible at the expense of other knowledge. Daniel, Shadrak, Meshak, and Abednego all learned the science that had been gathered in Babylon. One must study the information at hand, God will not lie through nature to man. Science discovers many truths, unless God lies through nature. Since God does not lie, science should be studied thoroughly, because nature is evidence of God, is it not? Man must learn everything possible.