Logic dictates that there is a God!

[mr. incrediball]

what i really hate about christianity is that:

some christians believe that god gave us free will and let us choose what to do with our lives

some christians believe that everything happens to god's design

^notice how these two things completely contradict each other? and jay called judaism an incomplete faith...

[Knight of Orient]

well, they dont believe in praying in tounges, and also, very importantly, dont believe Jesus has come yet.

[jay_a2j]

what i really hate about christianity is that:

some christians believe that god gave us free will and let us choose what to do with our lives

some christians believe that everything happens to god's design

^notice how these two things completely contradict each other? and jay called judaism an incomplete faith...

They are two different things. You need to define "God's design". Everything does not happen because God wills it. But everything is in His control, apart from free will. Which is given to us.

[vtmarik]

well, they dont believe in praying in tounges, and also, very importantly, dont believe Jesus has come yet.

No, they acknowledge that Jesus was around. They just don't believe that he is the messiah.

I tend to agree with them. Why? Well, not only is Christianity a splinter off of Judaism (which is evidenced by the presence of the Old Testament in the Bible), but it is also the more believable of the two.

Plus there's this little list that, while it doesn't prove anything outright, raises some questions that some might find interesting.

[jay_a2j]

well, they dont believe in praying in tounges, and also, very importantly, dont believe Jesus has come yet.

No, they acknowledge that Jesus was around. They just don't believe that he is the messiah.

I tend to agree with them. Why? Well, not only is Christianity a splinter off of Judaism (which is evidenced by the presence of the Old Testament in the Bible), but it is also the more believable of the two.

Plus there's this little list that, while it doesn't prove anything outright, raises some questions that some might find interesting.

That "list" is laughable. I do not have the time or patience to refute the whole list. But I'll try to respond to some proving the "list's" unfactual basis.

Jesus in John 14:12 & Mark 16:17-18 said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth in me, the works that I do shall he also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." This implies that Jesus’ true followers should be able to routinely perform the following tricks: 1) cast out devils, 2) speak in tongues, 3) take up serpents, 4) drink poisons without harm, and 5) cure the sick by touching them and MANY other of Jesus’ "works". Curiously I have yet to see a Christian that can do any of the above on demand.

1. "cast out devils" or demons. Followers of Christ have done this. (Although the skeptic will deny it)

2. "speak in tounges" you can hear this every Sunday morning at my church.

3. "Take up serpants" although I personally am not familiar with this, I remember seeing this exact thing on a news program (20/20 or something) Where these people handled snakes in their services.

4."drink poisons without harm" I don't remember this in scripture. Regardless I am unfamilar with anyone who has done this.

5. "cure the sick by touching them" Happens all the time (again the skeptic will say things like "It was a set up or show" )

In John 14:13-14 Jesus stated: "And whatsoever ye ask in my name I do, that the Father may be glorified in the son. If ye ask any thing in my name, I will do it." In reality, millions of people have made millions of requests in Jesus’ name and failed to receive satisfaction. This promise or prophecy has failed completely.

LOL This is complete ignorance of scripture. Anything that is asked for in Jesus' name:

a) Prayer must be made by a believer (He does not hear the prayers of anyone else)

b) The prayer request must be IN GOD'S WILL. (We cannot pray for a million dollars and expect God to give it to us....unless it is in His will to do so)


Someone else want to continue picking apart the "list". Be my guest.

[stinkycheese]

Jaaaaaay, where did you go to college?

[OnlyAmbrose]

and jay called judaism an incomplete faith...

How does THAT have anything to do with it? Jay says Judaism is incorrect. You say Christianity is incorrect. What's wrong with Jay's point as opposed to yours?

[mr. incrediball]

jay says that judaism was incomplete, i just pointed out that christianity has some seeeeerious problems to work out as well, so maybe jay and all of you who think judaism is wrong can think about what you say before you spray rubbish at us

[jay_a2j]

jay says that judaism was incomplete, i just pointed out that christianity has some seeeeerious problems to work out as well, so maybe jay and all of you who think judaism is wrong can think about what you say before you spray rubbish at us

Judaism follows the OT. Christianity follows the OT and NT. Hence Judaism is incomplete. They rejected Jesus as the Messiah. No rubbish here.

[vtmarik]

Judaism follows the OT. Christianity follows the OT and NT. Hence Judaism is incomplete. They rejected Jesus as the Messiah. No rubbish here.

Doesn't Christianity pay more attention, on the whole, to Jesus and the NT?

From what I've experienced, the OT seems to be more a preamble in Christianity than an integral part. Sort of the "Last Time On The Bible" section of the book. Then we get to the NT which is the "And now, the conclusion" section. Yes, Christianity adheres to the OT (or else it wouldn't be in the book) but the focus is on the NT.

Is it accurate to say that the NT is the more discussed and crucial section regarding Christianity, or is the OT given equal time and weight?

[jay_a2j]

Judaism follows the OT. Christianity follows the OT and NT. Hence Judaism is incomplete. They rejected Jesus as the Messiah. No rubbish here.

Doesn't Christianity pay more attention, on the whole, to Jesus and the NT?

From what I've experienced, the OT seems to be more a preamble in Christianity than an integral part. Sort of the "Last Time On The Bible" section of the book. Then we get to the NT which is the "And now, the conclusion" section. Yes, Christianity adheres to the OT (or else it wouldn't be in the book) but the focus is on the NT.

Is it accurate to say that the NT is the more discussed and crucial section regarding Christianity, or is the OT given equal time and weight.

The OT is incomplete without the NT. Likewise the NT is incomplete without the OT. Both are the word of God in its completeness.

[vtmarik]

The OT is incomplete without the NT. Likewise the NT is incomplete without the OT. Both are the word of God in its completeness.

So before the NT was written, the OT was complete or was it always incomplete?

I'm not challenging you, i'm just trying to clarify this in my mind.

[OnlyAmbrose]

The OT is incomplete without the NT. Likewise the NT is incomplete without the OT. Both are the word of God in its completeness.

So before the NT was written, the OT was complete or was it always incomplete?

I'm not challenging you, i'm just trying to clarify this in my mind.

Just about everything was incomplete before Jesus.

[mr. incrediball]

Just about everything was incomplete before Jesus.

so, moses was incomplete when he split a sea, adam and eve were incomplete, god himself was incomplete before jesus?

i'm finding it harder and harder to believe what the christians are saying, seriously.

[jay_a2j]

"without the sheding of blood, their can be no remission of sin"

In the OT the Jews sacrificed certain animals for remission of sin. Jesus came (as the final sacrifice once and for all) in the NT. It like a Webster's Dictionary. The OT is A-N, and the NT is O-Z. You need both to have the complete Word of God.

[2dimes]

I just can't leave it alone.

Just about everything was incomplete before Jesus.

According to the bible there is no "before Jesus". Has anyone here read the thing?

I know it's really long and kind of tough to go in one direction like a normal book.

Just open it and read where ever you land is the best way I've found to read it, you wern't going to get through it any way so why worry about the parts you may miss by skiping around.

John 1

1 In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.

2 From the very beginning the Word was with God.

3 And with this Word, God created all things. Nothing was made without the Word. Everything that was created

4 received its life from him, and his life gave light to everyone.

5 The light keeps shining in the dark, and darkness has never put it out.

6 God sent a man named John,

7 who came to tell about the light and to lead all people to have faith.

8 John wasn't that light. He came only to tell about the light.

9 The true light that shines on everyone was coming into the world.

10 The Word was in the world, but no one knew him, though God had made the world with his Word.

11 He came into his own world, but his own nation did not welcome him.

12 Yet some people accepted him and put their faith in him. So he gave them the right to be the children of God.

13 They were not God's children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children.

14 The Word became a human being and lived here with us. We saw his true glory, the glory of the only Son of the Father. From him all the kindness and all the truth of God have come down to us.

The old testament, or the law is complete but impossible to obey. Jesus provides the out so you don't get sent down because you can't keep the law. A pharisee guy named Saul changed his name and wrote a bunch of stuff about it but it's really long.

[gavin_sidhu]

http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm

I believe in God, just not the Christian version of it.

[reverend_kyle]

Judaism follows the OT. Christianity follows the OT and NT. Hence Judaism is incomplete. They rejected Jesus as the Messiah. No rubbish here.

Doesn't Christianity pay more attention, on the whole, to Jesus and the NT?

From what I've experienced, the OT seems to be more a preamble in Christianity than an integral part. Sort of the "Last Time On The Bible" section of the book. Then we get to the NT which is the "And now, the conclusion" section. Yes, Christianity adheres to the OT (or else it wouldn't be in the book) but the focus is on the NT.

Is it accurate to say that the NT is the more discussed and crucial section regarding Christianity, or is the OT given equal time and weight.

The OT is incomplete without the NT. Likewise the NT is incomplete without the OT. Both are the word of God in its completeness.

What about the book of mormon.. couldnt mormons make the same contention that catholics left out a book as catholics do about jews?

[2dimes]

Yeah they do.

I've read some of it, pretty weak, the parts that make sense are paraphrased from the gospels in my opinion. Sermon on the mount sort of thing.

[2dimes]

Oh you're leaving out the gnostics also. They say there are several gospels left out of the cannonical (did I make up a word?) bible too. One by Thomas, and another by Judas.


I think there's more but those are the only two that immedeatly come to mind.

[lesnud]

yup..I think phillip had one too. Supposedly. Does anyone know when these ones were written?

[vtmarik]

yup..I think phillip had one too. Supposedly. Does anyone know when these ones were written?

No, Radiocarbon dating is unreliable for documents of that age (under 5000 years), and they're mostly deteriorated through poor handling and time itself.

Really, if we analyze the type of 'paper' used and the chemical properties of the ink, we can come to some conjecture about when it was written, but that won't happen for a few dozen years.

That kind of stuff is delicate work, and it takes time.

[mandalorian2298]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

No, acctualy science had shown that it is possible to produce the "primemordial soup" (mass of very simple organizams) if chemical components (non-organic) are treated with eletricity. I think that is how the experiment went, but if there is somebody here who remembers science better then me (or who stayed awake while the teacher tlaked ) please feel free to correct me. Anyhow science has NEVER (at least since the Middle Ages) said: "Life cannot come from non-life".

[jay_a2j]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

No, acctualy science had shown that it is possible to produce the "primemordial soup" (mass of very simple organizams) if chemical components (non-organic) are treated with eletricity. I think that is how the experiment went, but if there is somebody here who remembers science better then me (or who stayed awake while the teacher tlaked ) please feel free to correct me. Anyhow science has NEVER (at least since the Middle Ages) said: "Life cannot come from non-life".

Please demonstrate how life can come from something that has no life in it?

[Stopper]

First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.

Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.

No, acctualy science had shown that it is possible to produce the "primemordial soup" (mass of very simple organizams) if chemical components (non-organic) are treated with eletricity. I think that is how the experiment went, but if there is somebody here who remembers science better then me (or who stayed awake while the teacher tlaked ) please feel free to correct me. Anyhow science has NEVER (at least since the Middle Ages) said: "Life cannot come from non-life".

The experiment you're talking about is the Miller/Urey experiment. It never finally proved you could get life from non-life or anything like that (and nor was it meant to), but they did get amino acids surprisingly quickly. At any rate, organic chemicals have been recently been found throughout the Solar system and the universe.

As to what you said, jay - "Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life." - where'd you get that? Such a dogmatic statement doesn't sound very scientific, for a start. I don't know of any scientific theory which states that, though I'm aware that there are some which does propose life came from non-life - though I'd need to re-read The Blind Watchmaker to remember the relevant names...