What is the end of the world?
-
:laugh: Tell all of that to God when you meet Him, see how that goes. I actually agree with the David Stevens quote. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Apocalypse translates to Revelation, so all will be made known then, but Armageddon represents the ultimate battle revelation through the Apocalypse, for those with understanding. Now what is the mystical term for the real end of the world, not the end of Satan, but the complete destruction of the people of Earth, as in 28 Days, etc?
The Abrahamic religions are generally alone in that they believe there is some final end to things. Most religions believe in a cycle -- Birth -> Life -> Death -- that repeats endlessly. This is also a fairly scientific view to have as well, as all things ultimately started and will ultimately end (and begin again) with the Big Bang. If searching for a particular term steeped in common mysticism, one could say the end of the world (and consequently its new beginning) is Ragnarok. You might want to look into Eschatology. The wikipedia article for "End Time" is a pretty good spring board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time[^]
-
I am not sure I follow your logic, why would an antitheist care one way or another that the strawman he constructed bore any resemblance to something he doesn't believe in anyway?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
-
Apocalypse translates to Revelation, so all will be made known then, but Armageddon represents the ultimate battle revelation through the Apocalypse, for those with understanding. Now what is the mystical term for the real end of the world, not the end of Satan, but the complete destruction of the people of Earth, as in 28 Days, etc?
The world ended when Star Wars Episode 1 came out. This is just the after life.
-
I am not sure I follow your logic, why would an antitheist care one way or another that the strawman he constructed bore any resemblance to something he doesn't believe in anyway?
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
I believe that it really doesn't matter what happens to me after I die (or in other words transition from this physical universe and reality to whatever the next plane of existence is). What really matters, is how I lived. How did I use each moment of this life to live; to be aware; to strive to make the world around me better than it was when I got here; to leave others to carry on this ideal. If we put all our energy into that one focus; everything else in any theological discussion is unneeded. While all of this discussion is interesting and thought provoking (most of it anyway); the thing that stands out to me is this: One of you is arguing the point using quotes from some of history’s most acknowledged deep thinkers; or at least figures of history that we all know existed and had things to say. The other one of you is arguing the point using only one source, the bible. A collection of writings that is incomplete, partially indecipherable in its original scroll form, re-transmitted so many times by MEN who each had their own personal or political agenda, and pulled through the theological wringer by so many groups of religious councils throughout history where it was dissected, shuffled around, parts discarded because they posed a threat to the power base of the time, or because they presented an alternate view of the events from the accepted groups of text. I really don't see how a 'book' so far removed from its origin can possibly hold true to its original intent. Just the way I see it. I appologize if any of my opinions are hurtful; they are only intended to question. It is why I am here; to encourage all to question.
-
Seems you haven't studied the Bible any more than Mohammad did (even though he claimed to base Islam on the foundations of Judaism and Christianity). Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light, and no one comes to the Father except by me." John 3:16 tells us that Jesus is the "only begotten son of God" (that is, Jesus is half-human and half-God [or, more accurately, all-human and all-God]; hence, the virgin birth), and the Bible (Old and New Testaments) is rife with the concept of the Trinity, which establishes the deity of Jesus. And yet the Muslims revere Jesus only as a "great teacher" or as a prophet. How can Jesus be a prophet and a liar?? Either He was who He said He was (the Son of God, and the only means of salvation) or He wasn't... Not much middle ground there...
Sorry about the lateness of this reply but I work at a secure military facility and posting on sites like this has issues. But given the value of your souls I decided to stick my neck out a bit. You implied I didn’t know much about the Bible so lets review. A: I know that on the Cross Jesus reportedly said “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me”. Odd statement from “The God” but not so odd for a Christ, though I doubt you know what a Christ is, spiritually. Ironic that modern christans don’t teach what the parts of the christ complex are but then they would really have a hard time with their tritheism. B: in John 17 Jesus says “Glorify me that I may glorify you” The translations get a bit confusing with the pronouns but clearly Jesus considered himself separate from and dependent upon his God. C: in Aramaic just before Mathew 19:19 it reads “Thow shalt love the Lord, x” where x is the personal possessive form of Alaha. Not “Me”. So Jesus is telling you to love Alaha. And continuing “have no other God before God” Substitute the word “Alaha” there as well. D: in Aramaic One of the Beatitudes reads “tubrahum lavdae salama deanada d’alaha nitqurume.” The “d’” before the “alaha” is a prepositional prefix indicating the agent of the verb and while it is generally translated as “of” it is better translated as “by” meaning “blessed are the consistent in peace, called(plual) by Alaha children” Implying it is Alaha that calls them children. E: At the second trial of Jesus by the sanhedren he was accused of saying he was an offspring of God, I know his reply and since it wasn’t until the third trial that they pronounced blaspheme on him, Jesus obliviously denied the claim. You look it up, volumous. F: in the Vulgate, Presheta, Tora and even the King James, Psalm 2, 4-8 indicates there was another “begotten son of God”. Given that that person was around 40 at the time of being “begotten” the term means something different to God than it does to humans and human theorists. Many latter versions of the Bible have been redacted to fit which ever of the 3000 of so theologies each denomination champions so get out one of the ones I mentioned. Now, you can follow the teaching of Jesus and worship Alaha or you can follow the teachings of priests and redactors but then you might want to think about why Jesus had such a problem with the priests and such. Your soul, not mine, yet each death diminishes me. I also know proof by contradiction. To prove A assume not A and show that leads to a contradiction. To prove Jesus
-
Sorry about the lateness of this reply but I work at a secure military facility and posting on sites like this has issues. But given the value of your souls I decided to stick my neck out a bit. You implied I didn’t know much about the Bible so lets review. A: I know that on the Cross Jesus reportedly said “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me”. Odd statement from “The God” but not so odd for a Christ, though I doubt you know what a Christ is, spiritually. Ironic that modern christans don’t teach what the parts of the christ complex are but then they would really have a hard time with their tritheism. B: in John 17 Jesus says “Glorify me that I may glorify you” The translations get a bit confusing with the pronouns but clearly Jesus considered himself separate from and dependent upon his God. C: in Aramaic just before Mathew 19:19 it reads “Thow shalt love the Lord, x” where x is the personal possessive form of Alaha. Not “Me”. So Jesus is telling you to love Alaha. And continuing “have no other God before God” Substitute the word “Alaha” there as well. D: in Aramaic One of the Beatitudes reads “tubrahum lavdae salama deanada d’alaha nitqurume.” The “d’” before the “alaha” is a prepositional prefix indicating the agent of the verb and while it is generally translated as “of” it is better translated as “by” meaning “blessed are the consistent in peace, called(plual) by Alaha children” Implying it is Alaha that calls them children. E: At the second trial of Jesus by the sanhedren he was accused of saying he was an offspring of God, I know his reply and since it wasn’t until the third trial that they pronounced blaspheme on him, Jesus obliviously denied the claim. You look it up, volumous. F: in the Vulgate, Presheta, Tora and even the King James, Psalm 2, 4-8 indicates there was another “begotten son of God”. Given that that person was around 40 at the time of being “begotten” the term means something different to God than it does to humans and human theorists. Many latter versions of the Bible have been redacted to fit which ever of the 3000 of so theologies each denomination champions so get out one of the ones I mentioned. Now, you can follow the teaching of Jesus and worship Alaha or you can follow the teachings of priests and redactors but then you might want to think about why Jesus had such a problem with the priests and such. Your soul, not mine, yet each death diminishes me. I also know proof by contradiction. To prove A assume not A and show that leads to a contradiction. To prove Jesus
Good job... I can see you've got quite a well-developed theology going regarding the divinity (or lack thereof) of Jesus. But my assertion that you don't have an adequate knowledge of the Bible still stands. And since I'm a Christian, no theology is going to hold any relevance for me personally that does not line up 100% with the Bible (Old and New Testaments combined). This does not mean that I'm not completely open (and, in fact, study quite a bit) other sources, but if something is not in line with the Word of God, it simply does not hold validity for me... That said, I'll respond to each of your points: A. True. In fact, Jesus many times made statements that seemed to distinguish Him from God, rendering them two separate entities. At the same time, He made many other statements that seemed to indicate that they were one and the same. For example: John 14:5-11: Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. So, how can Jesus and God be One, and yet at the same time be separate and distinct? This is the mystery of the Trinity (i.e., Tri-Unity; that is, three and one simultaneously; the third being the person of the Holy Spirit). Admittedly, we can't comprehend this, as our brains are limited to this four-dimensional realm that we live in. God, on the other hand, in order to be able to create a four-dimensional Universe, must exist in a realm with additional dimensions (both space and time), so perhaps in His realm the concept of the Trinity is not so difficult to comprehend. Christianity is unique among the world's religions in that it (hypothetically) does not require a concept to be fully graspable by us in order to be considered true. Call us nutty, but reality just might not
-
Good job... I can see you've got quite a well-developed theology going regarding the divinity (or lack thereof) of Jesus. But my assertion that you don't have an adequate knowledge of the Bible still stands. And since I'm a Christian, no theology is going to hold any relevance for me personally that does not line up 100% with the Bible (Old and New Testaments combined). This does not mean that I'm not completely open (and, in fact, study quite a bit) other sources, but if something is not in line with the Word of God, it simply does not hold validity for me... That said, I'll respond to each of your points: A. True. In fact, Jesus many times made statements that seemed to distinguish Him from God, rendering them two separate entities. At the same time, He made many other statements that seemed to indicate that they were one and the same. For example: John 14:5-11: Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. So, how can Jesus and God be One, and yet at the same time be separate and distinct? This is the mystery of the Trinity (i.e., Tri-Unity; that is, three and one simultaneously; the third being the person of the Holy Spirit). Admittedly, we can't comprehend this, as our brains are limited to this four-dimensional realm that we live in. God, on the other hand, in order to be able to create a four-dimensional Universe, must exist in a realm with additional dimensions (both space and time), so perhaps in His realm the concept of the Trinity is not so difficult to comprehend. Christianity is unique among the world's religions in that it (hypothetically) does not require a concept to be fully graspable by us in order to be considered true. Call us nutty, but reality just might not
Surly you don’t believe Psalm 2 refers to Jesus. Is that a time warp or David channeling the unborn Jesus as God talks to the channeled spirit? Get real. You really got to twist both time and logic to accept that kludge. The Buddhist have a concept best translated as “the near evil”. It is the confuser’s job to get you to substitute the near evil for the true value. We have seen this in confusing the human concept of “begotten son of god” for God’s concept of begotten and son. In the spiritual arena it is a simple matter to get someone to confuse the literal interpretation of the spiritual similes. The spiritual dimension is so much different from corporeal creation that communication must all be allegorical. In communication theory you must encode based on the ability and context of the receiver and decode based on the intent of the transmitter. The Greek work “ology” can be variously translated as “discussion” or “word”, note the Socratic method of teaching. To understand the allegory of Jesus you must understand the original meaning of the word “religion”. To do this I must take you on a trip from the old testament to the newest testament. In Judaism “that small still voice” is called the bot quoi. (sp –5). In learning to listen to this small still voice you must learn to still your on voice. That is the original meaning of conscience, con – with, science – knowledge. Your conscience is the knowledge you share with Alaha. As you make that connection stronger you make your religion stronger, re –again, ligio –to bind. In the newest testament Alaha says: “I can not fit within the heavens and the earth but I can fit within the heart of my believing servant.” This is how Jesus became one with Alaha. This is how you become one with Alaha. Jesus’ soul, your soul, is breathed into your body from the essence of God and so is with God in the before, “the discussion”, Jesus’ allegory was with Alaha in the now and, most importantly, as all things pass away, your soul, given any success in religion, with be with Alaha in the after. It can be said that if you know the lamp shade you know the light. And conversely if you know the light you know the lamp shade. (substitute son and father here as you like) Now you could learn about Alaha from creation, though there are few people accomplished enough in all the ologies, biology, ecology, cosmology etc to truly appreciate The Supreme Intelligence that overlays the continuum. Further inanimate objects do not do it the justice a cognizant object can. If you have seen c
-
Surly you don’t believe Psalm 2 refers to Jesus. Is that a time warp or David channeling the unborn Jesus as God talks to the channeled spirit? Get real. You really got to twist both time and logic to accept that kludge. The Buddhist have a concept best translated as “the near evil”. It is the confuser’s job to get you to substitute the near evil for the true value. We have seen this in confusing the human concept of “begotten son of god” for God’s concept of begotten and son. In the spiritual arena it is a simple matter to get someone to confuse the literal interpretation of the spiritual similes. The spiritual dimension is so much different from corporeal creation that communication must all be allegorical. In communication theory you must encode based on the ability and context of the receiver and decode based on the intent of the transmitter. The Greek work “ology” can be variously translated as “discussion” or “word”, note the Socratic method of teaching. To understand the allegory of Jesus you must understand the original meaning of the word “religion”. To do this I must take you on a trip from the old testament to the newest testament. In Judaism “that small still voice” is called the bot quoi. (sp –5). In learning to listen to this small still voice you must learn to still your on voice. That is the original meaning of conscience, con – with, science – knowledge. Your conscience is the knowledge you share with Alaha. As you make that connection stronger you make your religion stronger, re –again, ligio –to bind. In the newest testament Alaha says: “I can not fit within the heavens and the earth but I can fit within the heart of my believing servant.” This is how Jesus became one with Alaha. This is how you become one with Alaha. Jesus’ soul, your soul, is breathed into your body from the essence of God and so is with God in the before, “the discussion”, Jesus’ allegory was with Alaha in the now and, most importantly, as all things pass away, your soul, given any success in religion, with be with Alaha in the after. It can be said that if you know the lamp shade you know the light. And conversely if you know the light you know the lamp shade. (substitute son and father here as you like) Now you could learn about Alaha from creation, though there are few people accomplished enough in all the ologies, biology, ecology, cosmology etc to truly appreciate The Supreme Intelligence that overlays the continuum. Further inanimate objects do not do it the justice a cognizant object can. If you have seen c
I absolutely believe that Psalm 2 is describing not King David but Jesus, centuries before His birth. What you call a "twisting of both time and logic" is referred to in Christianity and Judaism (and also Islam) as "prophecy"; that is, the foretelling of future events. Every book of the Bible contains prophecy, in some form or another (from very direct to very indirect/parabolic). Dude, instead of addressing even one of the quotes from the Bible that I offered you yesterday, you've gone off into Buddhism, maybe a little animism, and just plain old New Age gobbledy-gook. I'm usually pretty good at figuring out where someone is coming from, but I honestly can't tell if you're Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian, or who-knows-what. My best guess now is that you're hanging out with Tom Cruise. That's fine, but if you deny that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then we have nowhere left to go in our discussion. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inerrant, perfect Word of God. I know this point alone can stir up all sorts of debate, but as a Christian this must be my position. Also, after many decades of studying this and many other religions and religious texts, I've found the Bible to be the only source that is completely consistent with itself and with history, archaeology, biology, cosmology, etc., etc. That's where I'm at... Regarding your position, if you don't believe that the Bible is true (referring to your last paragraph), then why do you quote it at all (even in your last paragraph)? Talk about inconsistent!! Also, why do you invoke Jesus at all if you don't believe the only historical account that we have of Him (besides some brief mentions of Him in semi-contemporary works such as Josephus)? Where does all your "special knowledge" about Jesus come from? That said, I'm definitely going with Scientologist. (If I'm mistaken, please accept my apologies.) In any event, whatever your belief system, I recommend that you really ask yourself: Can what I believe about Jesus really be true if it directly contradicts everything that He said about Himself?
-
I absolutely believe that Psalm 2 is describing not King David but Jesus, centuries before His birth. What you call a "twisting of both time and logic" is referred to in Christianity and Judaism (and also Islam) as "prophecy"; that is, the foretelling of future events. Every book of the Bible contains prophecy, in some form or another (from very direct to very indirect/parabolic). Dude, instead of addressing even one of the quotes from the Bible that I offered you yesterday, you've gone off into Buddhism, maybe a little animism, and just plain old New Age gobbledy-gook. I'm usually pretty good at figuring out where someone is coming from, but I honestly can't tell if you're Buddhist, Muslim, Zoroastrian, or who-knows-what. My best guess now is that you're hanging out with Tom Cruise. That's fine, but if you deny that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then we have nowhere left to go in our discussion. I believe 100% that the Bible is the inerrant, perfect Word of God. I know this point alone can stir up all sorts of debate, but as a Christian this must be my position. Also, after many decades of studying this and many other religions and religious texts, I've found the Bible to be the only source that is completely consistent with itself and with history, archaeology, biology, cosmology, etc., etc. That's where I'm at... Regarding your position, if you don't believe that the Bible is true (referring to your last paragraph), then why do you quote it at all (even in your last paragraph)? Talk about inconsistent!! Also, why do you invoke Jesus at all if you don't believe the only historical account that we have of Him (besides some brief mentions of Him in semi-contemporary works such as Josephus)? Where does all your "special knowledge" about Jesus come from? That said, I'm definitely going with Scientologist. (If I'm mistaken, please accept my apologies.) In any event, whatever your belief system, I recommend that you really ask yourself: Can what I believe about Jesus really be true if it directly contradicts everything that He said about Himself?
Tom Cruise aye? ROTFL. No, I have read one of the novels by the guy that created scientology, well part of one, Blaaaaaaa, put it down and never went back. You clearly consider religion to be a noun signifying categories for the partitioning of humanity, thereby creating an opening for the confuser to keep you from learning from the wisdom of others. Whereas, as I explained it, in its original meaning it is a verb indicating a process to rebind man to man’s creator. Though I admit this is consistent with your concept of “no one comes to God except through me” whereas I consider him only one of many instances of an archetype. (Think instantiations of a class that is necessary and sufficient) And if you look closely I did address one of your quotes from the bible, I just put it into a form that removes the “mystery” from it. (Though, it seems to still be mysterious to you given the effectiveness of my efforts. LOL I beg your pardon given the shortness of my free time.) I consider that some of the text of the bible is the word of God, given that Jesus was a Christ. Something you would have noticed if you had of followed my terms in the afore mentioned biblical quote. But not all of it. When Jesus prays to The God he is expressing his personal context, and there are other instances. The “crumbs from the masters table” incident for one. It is not an all or nothing binary valuation, red letter bible or not., Now if: a: you believe the whole bible is God’s word and b: Jesus is God then I can understand you believing all the stuff written about Jesus by the unknown authors of the various books being Jesus saying something about himself as you have turned the whole bloody thing into a tautology, including the two different genealogies of Jesus. I also use your context as that is required under communication theory, also explained in my post. I note you have significant difficulty with my context given the brevity of my posts. Given the objectivity and rigor of your interpretations of the bible and assuming you are typical of Christians, which I assume is your contention, then you justify my original post. Lets us end this discussion with a summary for those that may read this. I consider that which created this “universe” (though I reserve that term for the outer most container, including the one that the energy of this verse came from) to be supremely intelligent and that that intelligence overlays the outermost verse, aka the continuum or the “universe” in my context. Everything contained within that verse
-
Tom Cruise aye? ROTFL. No, I have read one of the novels by the guy that created scientology, well part of one, Blaaaaaaa, put it down and never went back. You clearly consider religion to be a noun signifying categories for the partitioning of humanity, thereby creating an opening for the confuser to keep you from learning from the wisdom of others. Whereas, as I explained it, in its original meaning it is a verb indicating a process to rebind man to man’s creator. Though I admit this is consistent with your concept of “no one comes to God except through me” whereas I consider him only one of many instances of an archetype. (Think instantiations of a class that is necessary and sufficient) And if you look closely I did address one of your quotes from the bible, I just put it into a form that removes the “mystery” from it. (Though, it seems to still be mysterious to you given the effectiveness of my efforts. LOL I beg your pardon given the shortness of my free time.) I consider that some of the text of the bible is the word of God, given that Jesus was a Christ. Something you would have noticed if you had of followed my terms in the afore mentioned biblical quote. But not all of it. When Jesus prays to The God he is expressing his personal context, and there are other instances. The “crumbs from the masters table” incident for one. It is not an all or nothing binary valuation, red letter bible or not., Now if: a: you believe the whole bible is God’s word and b: Jesus is God then I can understand you believing all the stuff written about Jesus by the unknown authors of the various books being Jesus saying something about himself as you have turned the whole bloody thing into a tautology, including the two different genealogies of Jesus. I also use your context as that is required under communication theory, also explained in my post. I note you have significant difficulty with my context given the brevity of my posts. Given the objectivity and rigor of your interpretations of the bible and assuming you are typical of Christians, which I assume is your contention, then you justify my original post. Lets us end this discussion with a summary for those that may read this. I consider that which created this “universe” (though I reserve that term for the outer most container, including the one that the energy of this verse came from) to be supremely intelligent and that that intelligence overlays the outermost verse, aka the continuum or the “universe” in my context. Everything contained within that verse
Well, glad to hear you're not a Scientologist at least. I like you better already! LOL... My next guess (admittedly, less cynical than the first) is Buddhist. Whatever the case, I'm not sure that either of us is trying to convince the other of anything, as we're both probably smart enough to know that's not likely, and certainly not in the context of a discussion forum on a Web site that's supposed to be about coding. So, what are we doing? Killing time? Exercising our apologetics? My guess is that we're starting to annoy the other members here, if any of them are even bothering to follow along in our "conversation"... So, I'm with you: Probably about time to end this. But first (and, sorry, not trying to get the last word or anything), I have to respond to your final (?) "proof" that the Bible is errant. You make reference to "the two different genealogies of Jesus", which I assume is your way of showing that the authors of the Gospels somehow forgot to compare notes and therefore created an obvious contradiction. But here again I encourage you to go and actually study this out: In Matthew, (Matthew 1:1-17), the writer begins with Abraham (the first "legal" head of the Hebrews; God having established His covenant with him in Genesis 15) and works his way down through Joseph's bloodline to Jesus. Joseph was not Jesus' "biological" father (recall the virgin birth), but he was his "legal" father here on earth. Matthew's purpose here is to trace Jesus' bloodline through his "stepfather" back to King David in order to show Jesus' LEGAL right to the throne of Israel. In Luke, conversely, (Luke 3:23-38), the writer traces Jesus' bloodline backwards from His mother, Mary, (both very non-traditional, if not completely unheard of, ways of presenting a genealogy in Jewish culture), and he goes all the way back to Adam. Luke's purpose is to demonstrate Jesus' SPIRITUAL claim to the throne of Israel. (Mary's bloodline also includes King David.) The two genealogies taken together give us the most complete picture of Jesus' bloodline, both physical and legal, and rightly establishes Him as King of the Jews (including all those who are "grafted in"; i.e., Christians). Your views about "The Supreme Intelligence" and Jesus being just another teacher of some kind are interesting, but, again, IMO, completely baseless. Seriously, what is your source for this "special knowledge" you have about the "truth" of it all? Where did your revelations come from? Have you just given all of this an awful lot of thoug
-
On the first day, man created God. - Anonymous Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? - Anonymous The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image. - Ludwig Feuerbach Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. - Anonymous As far as I can tell from studying the scriptures, all you do in heaven is pretty much just sit around all day and praise the Lord. I don’t know about you, but I think that after the first, oh, I don’t know, 50,000,000 years of that I’d start to get a little bored. - Rick Reynolds And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes. - Gene Roddenberry Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? - Epicurus Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca the Younger When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life. - Sigmund Freud A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens I have no need for religion, I have a conscience. - Anonymous
"What if Jesus was gay? I'm not saying he was, but it wouldn't make him any worse. I mean, it could be -- he was a gentle guy, he never got married... every prayer ends with 'Ahhhh Men'." -- Bill Maher
Al Beback wrote:
Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. - Anonymous
Would you let people beat you (repeatedly), scorn you, spit on you, drive nails into your hands and feet to save people hated you without knowing you and having the ability to prevent or stop it? How many people do you know who would sacrifice like that? It wasn't about staying alive, it was about sacrificing for other's to be able to make a choice about their own spiritual life.
How many bytes of text have I typed in my lifetime??? Man, I wish I kept track...
-
Al Beback wrote:
Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. - Anonymous
Would you let people beat you (repeatedly), scorn you, spit on you, drive nails into your hands and feet to save people hated you without knowing you and having the ability to prevent or stop it? How many people do you know who would sacrifice like that? It wasn't about staying alive, it was about sacrificing for other's to be able to make a choice about their own spiritual life.
How many bytes of text have I typed in my lifetime??? Man, I wish I kept track...
Kenny McKee wrote:
It wasn't about staying alive, it was about sacrificing for other's to be able to make a choice about their own spiritual life.
I see... So God likes sacrifices. How noble of Him. And he likes sacrificing his son. How noble of Him. And his son is also God, but instead of using his Godly powers to squash his enemies and lead people to the right path, he chose to die like a miserable fag. How noble of him. Thanks for the offer, but there's better fiction out there.
"What if Jesus was gay? I'm not saying he was, but it wouldn't make him any worse. I mean, it could be -- he was a gentle guy, he never got married... every prayer ends with 'Ahhhh Men'." -- Bill Maher
-
Kenny McKee wrote:
It wasn't about staying alive, it was about sacrificing for other's to be able to make a choice about their own spiritual life.
I see... So God likes sacrifices. How noble of Him. And he likes sacrificing his son. How noble of Him. And his son is also God, but instead of using his Godly powers to squash his enemies and lead people to the right path, he chose to die like a miserable fag. How noble of him. Thanks for the offer, but there's better fiction out there.
"What if Jesus was gay? I'm not saying he was, but it wouldn't make him any worse. I mean, it could be -- he was a gentle guy, he never got married... every prayer ends with 'Ahhhh Men'." -- Bill Maher
That's what the whole point of his sacrifice was, for you and everybody else to make the choice to believe that he is fiction or truth. And it's obvious that you have made your choice by your words that you chose to believe he is fiction.
How many bytes of text have I typed in my lifetime??? Man, I wish I kept track...