Debate here if you doubt Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[jusplay4fun]

As for JimBoston's assertion of the "Gospel" of Mary, its authorship and its reliability are in real doubt. It is not a Gospel and there is no complete record or copy of it. The so-called "Gospel" of Mary is one of some 40 Fake (non-Canonical) Gospels. I will let JimB read and discover that for himself. His assertion of why Constantine adopted and accepted Christianity is an over-simplification of what likely occurred. Again, discover the truth for yourself, if you dare, JimB.

The same Adams quote applies to JimB, too.

JimBoston never mentioned the “Gospel of Mary”. That someone else, Apatheist likely. Please pay attention before you comment.

JimBoston’s comments about Constantine is obviously an oversimplification BY DEFINITION. I typed a summery in like 2-3 sentences… the process of Constantine’s “conversion” and the acceptance of Christianity in the Roman Empire occurred over a matter of decades if not centuries. I couldn’t a non-simplified version of this ‘event’ unless I wrote a whole book about it. There are already a ton of books on the subject by people more educated than I on the subject, so that’s not likely to happen. How and why it happened is clearly debated. I’ve read books about it and listens to poscasts about it… I think my “oversimplification” is pretty solid for any description of 2-3 sentences or less.

Yes, Gospel of Mary comment should have been in response to Apatheist; my mistake. However, what I said about the Gospel of Mary still stands; no refutation there.

JimB's oversimplification of Constantine’s conversion is that, TOO simple and LEAVE out much of the truth and thus, at best, half correct, which means it is half WRONG. You missed the point, AGAIN, JimB. For someone who claims to be so knowledge on this topic, your summary omits LOTS and is misleading, at best. It is NOT SOLID, not even "pretty solid ." More Simply, it is NOT TRUE.

Also, you do not need a book to express the truth. Look into the conversion of Constantine. One can summarize it in 3-4 sentences and does NOT require a BOOK. JimB again misses another point. You totally ignore that Constantine DID (likely) convert to Christianity for also PERSONAL Reasons.

Like I said, the how and why of Constantine’s conversion is debated. There are some facts that support my summary.

I’m glad however you seem to have great insight in the heart of this Roman Emperor. LOL
So great that you can state with confidence as a “FACT” that my statements were just WRONG. LOL

JimBoston is WRONG. Here is what he said and he must have forgotten:

by jimboston
Sun Aug 02, 2026 9:02 am
The only reason it was “settled” was the Roman Empire / Constantine decided to use Christianity as a glue to hold the Empire together.

In the SAME quote yesterday, JimB also mentions more than 4 Gospels, IMPLYING that the Gospel of Mary may be valid. Who confuses facts? Who gave a poor and INACCURATE summary? Who fails to admit mistakes?

I think they were lucky to get it to 4. There were a lot of variations in early Christian beliefs. Many wars and many died fighting over the “right” way to believe in Jesus. The only reason it was “settled” was the Roman Empire / Constantine decided to use Christianity as a glue to hold the Empire together.

That is what I responded to, not the correction after I pointed out JimB's oversimplification.

Here is a better simplification that does not require a book:

Emperor Constantine decided to legitimize Christianity as a religion. He decided this for more than ONE reason, including his possible personal coversion and as a means to accept a growing movement within his Empire. Accepting Christianity as a religion allowed unification of his diverse Empire and allowed him to consolidate his power.

Note, too, that JimBoston never mentioned the conversion of Constantine. I challenge him to show me where he did make such a post; perhaps I missed it.

Further, you did NOT characterize your comments as a simplification (or oversimplification); I did. Your initial comment on Constantine that I quoted is stated as FACT and I showed it to be WRONG.

[Dukasaur]

Some of my major problems with “God” as described by any major religion…

*Why would an omnipotent and ever living God care about mundane bullshit?
-> I could be convinced God would care about how we treat people, or even how we “treat the Earth”. I can not be convinced “God” would let us eat beef but not want us to eat pork… or he’d be fine with beef but not on Friday. (Just one example of an arbitrary “rule”.)

*If God existed and he wanted people to follow him, then why wouldn’t he make his presence known in an obvious manner and on a consistent basis? Some will say you can “see” or “feel” his presence if you “open your heart” but that’s mumbo-jumbo. Some might say you see his work in the birth of a child or a flower growing. Maybe, but I think any God who wanted us to worship him would not be subtle about it.

*Why would an all-powerful God let people do evil shit in his name? Almost every major religion has perpetrated some evil shit, or at least condoned evil shit. You can’t convince me God would allow this to happen in his name.

*I mean while we are at it… why allow evil shit at all?

*We’ve got documented cases of religions (or sect or cults) forming, and the ridiculous / unbelievable BS they spew, yet they still manage to suck in people. Often people who are otherwise intelligent. Small cults form all the time, and the only reason they don’t get larger is because they are most often squashed by “society”… really just gov’t and other religions who don’t want competition. Seeing how religions have formed, one might question the initial formation of their own religion. The best example for this is the Mormon religion. The history of how this came to be is well documented. Like many cults they were persecuted and if someone tried to do the same thing today they’d have been squashed. They almost were squashed, but were able to avoid this fate because they fled west. By the time the US Govt. was powerful enough to squash them, things had changed and instead they’ve been slowly folded into the greater “Christian” belief system. Their Founding Myth is just ridiculous.

There are probably other ‘objections’ or thoughts I could write to describe my views against major religions… but this is a good summary.

+1

The "why is there evil" is most often answered by religionists with the line "You couldn't know the Light if you didn't know the Darkness" or some variation thereof. That may be true, but is it necessary to have quite so much Darkness? Do we need to have murders and rapes every day to know that it's possible to get through life without murdering or raping anyone? Shouldn't witnessing one evil act be sufficient to make you crave goodness? Are people so thick that they need daily reminders? Do we need a universe that is overwhelmingly dominated by death and destruction just to know that we prefer life and creation?

Even in modern court cases with the help of security video each witness has a different memory and perspective.

Sure, that is true. But those are human witnesses. If your Bible is "the unerring word of god" why would it be full of these human errors? Are you admitting that people just made it up?

[Apatheist]

In the SAME quote yesterday, JimB also mentions more than 4 Gospels, IMPLYING that the Gospel of Mary may be valid. Who confuses facts? Who gave a poor and INACCURATE summary? Who fails to admit mistakes?

I raised the Gospel of Mary. Who are you to say it's not valid? I saw a theological historian (who was a Christian) on tv who was of the opinion that the gospel of Mary was simply left out because she was a woman.

On a side note:
There are mentions in the bible of dragons (35 of them, according to this chap: https://russellmckinney.com/2021/11/23/ ... the-bible/). This, as always, may be a translation issue:

The Hebrew word the K.J.V. [King James Version] renders as “dragon” or “dragons” is tanniyn. It’s a word that translators have always struggled to convey into English. For example, Strong’s Concordance defines it as “a marine or land monster, i.e. a sea-serpent or jackal — dragon, sea-monster, serpent, whale.”
...
Personally, I think Dr. Henry Morris had the right idea about the word tanniym. In his book, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science, he suggested that the word should always be translated as “dinosaur” (or “dinosaurs”).

Is this evidence of a four-footed, winged, fire-breathing lizard that we see on the flags of Wales and Malta? Or that humans co-existed alongside dinosaurs that the rest of us think died out 65 million years ago (give or take a Tuesday)? Or even that jackals used to live in the sea?

Or, perhaps, that people in the pre-scientific world did not have the information and the words to describe what they saw around them, and as such, one can't trust anything that they claim to have witnessed? I tend towards this explanation.

[jimboston]

I never mentioned or implied anything about the Gospel of Mary… I’d never even heard of it till this thread.

I do know that the contents of the Bible were (and are) much disputed. JP4 mentioned some 40 gospels that were “fake”… I don’t know how one could prove what is or isn’t fake. I could write a 5th Gospel tomorrow and claim it was projected into my Heart by God via the Arch Angel Saxitoxin. The only thing that would “determine” if it was “fake” or “real” would be my ability to get a significant number of people to believe in it. So yeah we could’ve had many more Gospels.

Look at The Book of Mormon… now found in many hotel rooms right next to the Gideon’s Bible. Mormons believe it to be the Word of God. How can you prove them wrong?

JP4 is getting hung up on my throw-away summary of Constantine’s conversion / adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Neither of can ever know what was in his heart at the time… but we can look at a couple key facts…
*His conversion was not a “miraculous” overnight event that happened because of a battle as the Catholic Church would like you to believe. It was a slow process over time, and he apparently ‘tested the water’ or explored several different faiths over his life.
*He did not appear to really care about the details of Christian Doctrine or Orthodoxy… his main focus was getting the various Bishops to AGREE so that there would be uniformity, and religion persecutions and in-fighting would be quelled.

These facts are interpreted by many scholars to conclude that he was less a true convert and more interested in using this growing religion to help him control the vast Roman Empire in a more orderly fashion.

You can have your own interpretations, but my summary above is just that… a quick summary of the prevailing academic thought on this subject.

[Apatheist]

There's also the angle that persuading people that having one person at the top was a good idea, and would cement his authority as emperor. He hung around for 30 years, which was pretty good going in those days (and puts him 4th on the all-time list), so perhaps it helped.

[jusplay4fun]

I never mentioned or implied anything about the Gospel of Mary… I’d never even heard of it till this thread.

I do know that the contents of the Bible were (and are) much disputed. JP4 mentioned some 40 gospels that were “fake”… I don’t know how one could prove what is or isn’t fake. I could write a 5th Gospel tomorrow and claim it was projected into my Heart by God via the Arch Angel Saxitoxin. The only thing that would “determine” if it was “fake” or “real” would be my ability to get a significant number of people to believe in it. So yeah we could’ve had many more Gospels.

Look at The Book of Mormon… now found in many hotel rooms right next to the Gideon’s Bible. Mormons believe it to be the Word of God. How can you prove them wrong?

JP4 is getting hung up on my throw-away summary of Constantine’s conversion / adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire. Neither of can ever know what was in his heart at the time… but we can look at a couple key facts…
*His conversion was not a “miraculous” overnight event that happened because of a battle as the Catholic Church would like you to believe. It was a slow process over time, and he apparently ‘tested the water’ or explored several different faiths over his life.
*He did not appear to really care about the details of Christian Doctrine or Orthodoxy… his main focus was getting the various Bishops to AGREE so that there would be uniformity, and religion persecutions and in-fighting would be quelled.

These facts are interpreted by many scholars to conclude that he was less a true convert and more interested in using this growing religion to help him control the vast Roman Empire in a more orderly fashion.

You can have your own interpretations, but my summary above is just that… a quick summary of the prevailing academic thought on this subject.

I would NOT TRUST YOUR written "5th Gospel tomorrow." What JimBoston fails to grasp is that the 4 Canonical Gospels have a good deal of Authority; the REJECTED (and thus non-Canonical) Gospels were later written, beyond the First Century and have VERY QUESTIONABLE Authorships. We have good evidence that the Four Gospels are written by firsthand witnesses (meaning that they LIVED during the time Jesus was on Earth) and saw and heard the events and words recorded. The usual interpretation is that as the Apostles started to die and Jesus the Christ did NOT return in their lifetimes, some decided to RECORD (i.e., put into WRITING) these events and words. Each Gospel has a different perspective. Mark is "just the facts" and Mark is believed to be a key assistant to Simon Peter. Matthew's audience (besides those who later read the Gospel) are the Jews of that period; Luke is aimed at the Gentile converts. John, whom Duk gives a token of possible credit to, spent a lifetime reflecting on the Life of Jesus and is his attempt to answer the Question "Who is this Jesus, the Christ." It is different from the other 3 synoptic Gospels, does not reflect a timeline, and is much more theological, using long discourses and dialogues.

What Duk and others fail to realize is that BECAUSE we CANNOT PROVE who wrote the 4 Canonical Gospels, that there is MUCH FAITH needed to accept the Gospels for what they CLAIM to be. My reading and study of the Gospels and the rest of the Bible have affirmed what I have been taught and started to BELIEVE many years ago. People do not die for a LIE; the first Christian Martyrs is PROOF of that, on their face value. The fact that people hold on their faith for many years despite persecution is further evidence. As I discussed and posted previously, the fact that the Irish held on to their Catholic faith, despite persecution and horrible discrimination and recrimination of the Protestant Brits, those damned Limeys.

I decided, rightly I THINK, that I could not intellectually PROVE the claims of Jesus via Science and Logic and Reasoning, that I needed to RELY on FAITH. One can try to prove, as Apatheist has tried futilely and valiantly, that Christianity is fake. True Christians reject such silliness. Anyone can accept or reject Jesus; that is called Free Will. It often takes a "Leap of Faith" to accept Jesus. Due to many reasons, some outlined in this Forum, many do not take that Leap.

Without getting into specifics, JimB has offered some reasons why he rejected Christianity. Of what I recall, many of the questions he posed are the same Fundamental Questions offered by skeptics AND by thinking Christians and some Theologians over MANY Years. THERE ARE NO EASY Answers to most of those Fundamental Questions. Again, I think Faith is needed to overcome some of that skepticism. If one wants to TRY to RELY ONLY on Science, Logic, and/or Reasoning, ONE will really NOT FIND God nor Jesus, imo.

I recently saw a news segment on the Papal Gardens. The Priest in the interview while walking the Grounds said that the Beauty of those Gardens is due to a cooperation between God, Nature, and Man. The Garden cannot take on its Beauty without all Three participants. The same is true for true Christian Belief. Faith, Love, Hope, AND Logic are needed to fully grasp the meaning and significance of the Truths of Jesus. One needs more than Science and Logic to fully comprehend God and Jesus, his only Begotten Son. One can see with one eye; two eyes give us perspective. The Heart and Faith gives Humans a different way to experience God; Logic and Science ALONE cannot affirm His reality.

I generally AGREE with JimB that Constantine wanted uniformity. One can read more, here, among other sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
In the above source, I learned that

Constantine did join in the debates of the council (in Greek), but did not see himself as a voting member as he was not a bishop.[46]

This statement strongly disputes JimB's allegation that

He [Constantine] did not appear to really care about the details of Christian Doctrine or Orthodoxy.

ALSO, JimB continues to dodge the matter of his Credibility, whether it is about the Gospels, Constantine, Apatheist, or ANYTHING ELSE.

And the Book of Mormons?? Really, JimB??? Do you KNOW anything about the Claims of the Mormons as to HOW that book came to be? Talk about a Leap of Faith. Mormons (or more correctly, the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) have to leap many Light Years. JimB asked

How can you prove them wrong?

Easily.

I will wait for JimB to ACTUALLY read and LEARN about the origins about the Book of Mormon; then we can discuss if he chooses. And to add a layer here, I visited Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah. That visit did not change my views, despite the efforts of some lovely young ladies there. After my visit, I did MORE RESEARCH on Mormons and my skepticism of their faith was intensified.

And lastly, at least for now, I did not copy and paste ANY of this (I later added the point and quote about the Council of Nicaea); nearly ALL of this post are my original thoughts and ideas and words.

[jusplay4fun]

In the SAME quote yesterday, JimB also mentions more than 4 Gospels, IMPLYING that the Gospel of Mary may be valid. Who confuses facts? Who gave a poor and INACCURATE summary? Who fails to admit mistakes?

I raised the Gospel of Mary. Who are you to say it's not valid? I saw a theological historian (who was a Christian) on tv who was of the opinion that the gospel of Mary was simply left out because she was a woman.

Who am I to say such? I am someone who studies these matters, not as a Professor of Religion, Theology or Christianity, BUT as a thinking, learning, and educated person. I view Apatheist as another such person; however, unlike you, Apatheist, I do not INTERJECT disbelief or skepticism as a reflex reaction.

The Gospel of Mary has dubious authorship, no complete copy of it exists, and someone as knowledgeable as JimBoston NEVER HEARD of it. I put the Gospel of Mary on the same level as the discredited Gospel of Philip from the movie and book The Davinci Code. I believe both are Gnostic Gospels, and again, I will wait to see if JimB or Apatheist want to discuss THAT aspect.

Let me offer these tidbits, to encourage the discussion:

The Gnostic Gospels are ancient religious writings not included in the Bible because they contradict core Christian teachings about Jesus, creation, and salvation. Early church leaders rejected them as untrustworthy and inconsistent with apostolic truth.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible ... bible.html

and from AI Summary:
Gnostic Gospels Overview

The Gospels of Mary and Philip are part of a collection of early Christian texts discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.
These texts are characterized by their emphasis on secret knowledge (gnosis) and often present alternative views of Jesus and his teachings.

The "secret knowledge" in the Bible as it stands and is printed NOW, NOT on some hidden truth or Gospel or on the Davinci Code. One needs to read the Bible with an Open Mind and Open Heart.

Bastante para ahora.

[Apatheist]

The Gnostic Gospels are ancient religious writings not included in the Bible because they contradict core Christian teachings about Jesus, creation, and salvation.

An early version of cancel culture, perhaps?
Given that the main 4 gospels say different things, why should these be excluded just for being different?
Maybe, just maybe, these were right and the others were wrong?

For those who haven't followed the link, or didn't know - there's also a gospel according to Judas, which proposes he was in on it (much like Snape was when: SPOILER ALERT: he killed Dumbledore).

[jusplay4fun]

The Gnostic Gospels are ancient religious writings not included in the Bible because they contradict core Christian teachings about Jesus, creation, and salvation.

An early version of cancel culture, perhaps?
Given that the main 4 gospels say different things, why should these be excluded just for being different?
Maybe, just maybe, these were right and the others were wrong?

For those who haven't followed the link, or didn't know - there's also a gospel according to Judas, which proposes he was in on it (much like Snape was when: SPOILER ALERT: he killed Dumbledore).

such silliness.

different things? As has already been posted here, Apatheist, these are SLIGHTLY different accounts by eyewitnesses. Some want to make MOUNTAINS out of molehills of slight differences. And as I said, there are some 40 "gospels" that did NOT make into the Bible and become Canon, especially those that are of QUESTIONABLE authorship and written LONG after Jesus died. The "gospel" of Judas is another Gnostic document, and these ideas were rejected early as HERESY.

Gnosticism was a second-century religious movement claiming that salvation could be gained through a special form of secret knowledge.

Adherents believed that the material world was created by a lesser divinity, and only through this esoteric wisdom could one transcend this flawed reality. Central to Gnostic thought was the idea that the true "divine spark" resided within individuals and could be liberated through spiritual enlightenment.[1]
"Gnostics." The Westminster Dictionary of Theologians (First edition, p. 152).

Early Christian church fathers such as Origen, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, and Eusebius of Caesarea condemned gnostic teachers and beliefs as heretical.

https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is- ... ism-700683

and:

A treasure trove of Gnostic documents found at Nag Hammadi includes several works representing a sour, blasphemous Jewish Gnosticism that takes a perverse delight in saying spiteful things about God as He is revealed in the Old Testament.(...)

With the deaths of the apostles and their immediate successors, falsehood found it easier to take root. There were no eyewitnesses left to repudiate false claims. (...)

the "Christian Gnostic" movement and its writings date from the middle of the 2nd century AD or later. By then, most, if not all, of the writings that became our New Testament were 80 to 100 years old. Consequently, various Gnostic writings quote from or allude to almost every one of them.

https://www.christianity.com/church/chu ... 29621.html

Such ideas were renounced as heresy and could be called "cancel culture" to avoid the spread of such silly and FALSE ideas. These are some of the things debated and discussed at the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD. That is why the concept of "uniformity" or the desire to avoid heresy became important. Look at the History of the Nicene Creed.

enough of this silliness

[jimboston]

JP4 you truly are a world class idiot.

1) Scholarly consensus places the authorship of the four Gospels between 65 and 100 AD. nThe stories were likely told earlier than that, but they do not appear to have been written immediately. That’s fine, but that means maybe 1 or 2 were written by people alive when Jesus was alive, and the other 2 written by 2nd generation followers.

2) I think the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Faith is a joke. I am well aware of the origin myth of that Church. You COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. The point is that Mormon’s faith in that book / believe system is as valid and as real as any Christian’s Faith. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO WAY for you to prove that their foundation myth is any less accurate or real than the foundation myth of Christianity.

3) The idea that martyrdom somehow PROVES Christianity and the Gospel as being real is an absolute joke. True, I agree people won’t knowingly toss away their lives for a lie… but people die for FALSE BELIEVES / LIES THEY BELIEVE all the time. Christian’s have been martyrs sure… but so too are there Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Mormon martyrs. People have given their lives for political beliefs too… Communist martyrs and Nazi martyrs…. I’m sure people can cite other examples.

You need to get out of your bubble bro.

I think the only true statement in your diatribe was your comment about acknowledging you can’t prove the truth Christianity. That believe in Christianity (or any religion) requires FAITH. So I wonder why you are arguing and trying to prove others here WRONG. You can’t prove the truth of Christianity and neither can you (or I) disprove Christianity or any other organized religion. If you pay attention you’ll note that at no point have I tried to argue the truth of anyone’s faith… I’ve only talked about how/why I lost MY faith and also argued against statements of faith (made by you or others) that are made as statements of fact. You convolute your Faith as being Fact while acknowledging you can’t scientifically prove your faith… it’s hypocritical.

[jusplay4fun]

JP4 you truly are a world class idiot.

1) Scholarly consensus places the authorship of the four Gospels between 65 and 100 AD. nThe stories were likely told earlier than that, but they do not appear to have been written immediately. That’s fine, but that means maybe 1 or 2 were written by people alive when Jesus was alive, and the other 2 written by 2nd generation followers.

I agree with most of 1). So the first thing you cite to "prove that I am an idiot" is something I never disputed. Terrible debate technique; try harder, JimB. In the Court of Public Opinion, you lost the debate with your first line and point.

2) I think the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Faith is a joke. I am well aware of the origin myth of that Church. You COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. The point is that Mormon’s faith in that book / believe system is as valid and as real as any Christian’s Faith. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO WAY for you to prove that their foundation myth is any less accurate or real than the foundation myth of Christianity.

I agree with the the silliness of the Mormon Faith. They believe that an angel spoke to their founder in a language that only he can translate, gave him a book, that no longer existed after his translated it, and that ONLY he was given this sacred knowledge. Talk about an untenable basis. So what point did I MISS? Sacred knowledge reminds me of the Gnostics; ONLY THEY have it.

Christianity is not built on such a flimsy foundation. It is based on eyewitness accounts that were later written down as these eyewitnesses started to die off or were martyred. NOTE that at the time, eyewitness account were more highly regarded than something written, as would be your 5th "gospel." A written page cannot be questioned; a person can. THAT is the standard of TRUTH at the time.

3) The idea that martyrdom somehow PROVES Christianity and the Gospel as being real is an absolute joke. True, I agree people won’t knowingly toss away their lives for a lie… but people die for FALSE BELIEVES / LIES THEY BELIEVE all the time. Christian’s have been martyrs sure… but so too are there Jewish martyrs, Muslim martyrs, Mormon martyrs. People have given their lives for political beliefs too… Communist martyrs and Nazi martyrs…. I’m sure people can cite other examples.

You need to get out of your bubble bro.

I think the only true statement in your diatribe was your comment about acknowledging you can’t prove the truth Christianity. That believe in Christianity (or any religion) requires FAITH. So I wonder why you are arguing and trying to prove others here WRONG. You can’t prove the truth of Christianity and neither can you (or I) disprove Christianity or any other organized religion. If you pay attention you’ll note that at no point have I tried to argue the truth of anyone’s faith… I’ve only talked about how/why I lost MY faith and also argued against statements of faith (made by you or others) that are made as statements of fact. You convolute your Faith as being Fact while acknowledging you can’t scientifically prove your faith… it’s hypocritical.

I don't need to constantly prove or demonstrate your fallacies; you do so with nearly every post you make. (See above for one such example.) I do not offer PROOF here, not in the Scientific or Legal sense.** You cannot see the difference between such "Proof" vs. Faith. My Faith is enough Proof for me; I have already said that I discovered such a LONG time ago. If you are offended by my Faith, so be it. You are the one with the Credibility problem here, JimB.

**I doubt you will find my statement to that effect. (Well, I may have said the death of the early Martyrs is Proof of the legitimacy of Christianity, or similar words, as I reflect on this matter.)

I challenge you to show us where I posted that my

Faith as being Fact

Remember, JimB, you have the credibility problem here, as identified by Apatheist; I don't.

I have already been:

acknowledging you can’t scientifically prove your faith

I have posted such for a long time, before this current round of discussion on theological matters in this very thread. One cannot believe in God and Jesus relying ONLY on Science, Logic, and Facts. These Beliefs must be supported by Scripture, Faith and the yearning in one's Heart. I figured this out while in College; this is not something that came to me in recent years.

I present what my Faith tells me. I point out obvious errors, fallacies, and incorrect conclusions. I point out biased perspectives and conjectures. If you find my Faith, the strength of my Faith, and what I post on THIS TOPIC offensive, that is ON YOU.

I am fine in my Christianity Bubble, bro ; I do not need to leave it and my discussions here with you, Apatheist, HitRed and others is my "proof" of the depth and strength of my Christian Faith. It seems that you are the one suffering from a crises of Faith, bor .

Let me offer something that JimB LOVES, to support my assessments of the Mormon Faith, from AI Summary:

The legitimacy of the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination is a subject of ongoing debate.
Mormonism, officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), incorporates many elements of traditional Christianity but also includes unique beliefs and scriptures, such as the Book of Mormon, which are not recognized by mainstream Christian denominations.

Key Points:

Distinct Beliefs: Mormons believe in modern revelations and additional scriptures, which set them apart from traditional Christian doctrines.

Christian Identity: Mormons identify themselves as Christians, emphasizing their belief in Jesus Christ as the Savior.

Scholarly Perspectives: Some Christian scholars argue that while Mormons share a belief in Christ, their theological differences—particularly regarding the nature of God and the Trinity—lead others to classify them outside of traditional Christianity

[jusplay4fun]

JimB, go back to 2023 and read some of this:

viewtopic.php?t=239517&start=25

N.B., from Duk:

Re: Who is the “Greatest Man Who Ever Lived”?
Post by Dukasaur » Wed May 17, 2023 11:07 am

jimboston wrote:
Why do you argue over “what is cannon” from a work of fiction like the Bible?

It’s like a bunch of geeks in a comic book store arguing over the “right” depiction of Batman.

Meanwhile, DC Comics will Retcon everything once a decade to refresh the product for a new generation.

The ‘One True Faith’ retcons itself as well… just not as frequently… and not everyone goes along with it.
I mean the whole New Testament is retconning Judaism/The Old Testament.
Even just post-Christ the “Church” has retconn’d itself several times to adapt to changing times.
jimboston wrote:
You idiots can get hung up on my typo… but none of you replied to the point.

I had to scroll up to find the alleged point.

I didn't reply to it because I didn't think it needed a reply. Your lack of attention to detail is far more memorable to me than anything else in this thread.

and, in that SAME thread, I responded to Duk:

Re: Who is the “Greatest Man Who Ever Lived”?
Post by jusplay4fun » Fri Aug 11, 2023 3:04 am

Duk,

I think that you want historical, scientific, and objective basis that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Anointed, the Christ. I doubt that you find any such evidence to allow you to believe that. One, instead, must believe with the heart and not the head (mind, brain).

At least JimB learned to spell biblical CANON.

[jimboston]

[jusplay4fun]

That is your only response? rather silly

[jusplay4fun]

Well, a DEEP subject.....LoL

And some are stuck in a silo, and a few are in a very deep silo.

and: Terrible debate technique; try harder, JimB. In the Court of Public Opinion, you lost the debate with your first line.

[jimboston]

Well, a DEEP subject.....LoL

And some are stuck in a silo, and a few are in a very deep silo.

and: Terrible debate technique; try harder, JimB. In the Court of Public Opinion, you lost the debate with your first line.

Dude… or should I say Dud?

I listed my main objections to why I don’t believe in organized religions. You completely ignored that post and then confused me the Apatheist.

There’s no debating matters of faith, but if you want to call this a debate you need to respond to my post and explain what I’ve gotten wrong.

If you can’t do that I can’t reply.

[jusplay4fun]

Talk about lacking reading comprehension, here are SOME of my many recent responses. You are wrong AGAIN, JimBoston.

Well, a DEEP subject.....LoL

And some are stuck in a silo, and a few are in a very deep silo.

and: Terrible debate technique; try harder, JimB. In the Court of Public Opinion, you lost the debate with your first line.

Dude… or should I say Dud?

I listed my main objections to why I don’t believe in organized religions. You completely ignored that post and then confused me the Apatheist.

There’s no debating matters of faith, but if you want to call this a debate you need to respond to my post and explain what I’ve gotten wrong.

If you can’t do that I can’t reply.

As you ignored mine; two can play the same game. YOU LOST that argument.

Why should I tell you what you got wrong?

And to what did I not respond? I said that you asked FUNDAMENTAL Questions that have been asked BY MANY through MUCH of History. Do you think you have a UNIQUE Perspective, that NO ONE ELSE ever asked such Questions? NO.

Since you have NOT IDENTIFIED to what I refused to respond, I will share and reiterate ONE of my MANY responses:

by jusplay4fun » Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:09 am

jimboston wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2026 8:31 am
JP4 you truly are a world class idiot.

1) Scholarly consensus places the authorship of the four Gospels between 65 and 100 AD. nThe stories were likely told earlier than that, but they do not appear to have been written immediately. That’s fine, but that means maybe 1 or 2 were written by people alive when Jesus was alive, and the other 2 written by 2nd generation followers.

I agree with most of 1). So the first thing you cite to "prove that I am an idiot" is something I never disputed. Terrible debate technique; try harder, JimB. In the Court of Public Opinion, you lost the debate with your first line and point.

Re: Debate here if you doubt Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh
Post by jusplay4fun » Tue Aug 04, 2026 9:38 am

JimB, go back to 2023 and read some of this:

and MORE, where I said:

I don't need to constantly prove or demonstrate your fallacies; you do so with nearly every post you make. (See above for one such example.) I do not offer PROOF here, not in the Scientific or Legal sense.** You cannot see the difference between such "Proof" vs. Faith. My Faith is enough Proof for me; I have already said that I discovered such a LONG time ago. If you are offended by my Faith, so be it. You are the one with the Credibility problem here, JimB.

You have the credibility issue here, JimB, and that analysis is NOT by me.

Unless you want to show and demonstrate to what I did NOT respond, I have answered your weak and nearly non-existent response. You could NOT respond adequately, so you posted a series of 4 emojis, ALL the SAME. I gave you a LENGTHY response and here is your ONLY "comment" and my response to that pathetic response.

by jusplay4fun » Wed Aug 05, 2026 2:23 am

jimboston wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2026 5:51 pm

That is your only response? rather silly

and ANOTHER response by me to you;

by jusplay4fun » Tue Aug 04, 2026 2:45 am
Without getting into specifics, JimB has offered some reasons why he rejected Christianity. Of what I recall, many of the questions he posed are the same Fundamental Questions offered by skeptics AND by thinking Christians and some Theologians over MANY Years. THERE ARE NO EASY Answers to most of those Fundamental Questions. Again, I think Faith is needed to overcome some of that skepticism. If one wants to TRY to RELY ONLY on Science, Logic, and/or Reasoning, ONE will really NOT FIND God nor Jesus, imo.

NOTE that the above was because Duk did offer some support for the questions JimB raised; otherwise, JimB IGNORED these questions and matters until THEN.

Also note that this is not just a dialogue between JimB and me; at least 3 others are offering worthy input and to which I responded. If JimB does not advance his OWN arguments, such points will often "get lost in the shuffle" of discussions. That is what happened here, it seems. In desperation, JimB tries a "Hail Mary" Pass by accusing me of ignoring his points. Again, I showed him to be WRONG.

I show that JimB is WRONG, or at least offers only a partial valid point about Constantine, and here is his response:

my throw-away summary

So which is it, JimB, do you make valid points? or are they only "throw-away" or a joke? You cannot have it both serious and NOT at the same time. Admit your mistakes; I did admit to one error in this entire discussion these past several days.

During much of this discussion in recent days, you want to discuss the "gospel" of Mary (who raised the issue) and Emperor Constantine. You never even went back to what I referred to as

the same Fundamental Questions offered by skeptics AND by thinking Christians and some Theologians over MANY Years

Here is another "worthy" point by JimB:

by jimboston » Tue Aug 04, 2026 8:31 am
The idea that martyrdom somehow PROVES Christianity and the Gospel as being real is an absolute joke. True, I agree people won’t knowingly toss away their lives for a lie… but people die for FALSE BELIEVES / LIES THEY BELIEVE all the time. Christian’s have been martyrs sure…

It is

an absolute joke.

But in the VERY NEXT sentence, he acknowledges that it is VALID, for Christians and others. Which is it, JimB? an absolute joke? or is it valid? AND he said:

Christian’s [sic] have been martyrs sure…

To Summarize:
1) JimBoston is wrong here;
2) I have demonstrated that I responded to every worthy point that he attempted to make.
3) Comments that I ignored were not deemed worthy of a response, and that is by JimB, anyone else, and/or by me.

[jusplay4fun]

I already responded to some of this already, and I showed that I did do to JimBoston's challenge. Let me respond to some of JimB points here in a more detailed manner.

The fact that it's not clear, is subject to subjective interpretation, and no-one knows, is for me a HUGE reason to doubt it all. If it were genuine, there should be one, incontrovertible answer. For example:
Matthew: States that Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem in a house where wise men (Magi) visited the young child guided by a star [Ap: which we know to be a normal comet, if the behaviour of it was as described], followed by a flight to Egypt to escape King Herod.
Luke: States they lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem for a census, where Jesus was born in a stable; they later presented him at the Temple in Jerusalem and returned straight to Nazareth without a flight to Egypt.

John: Suggests Jesus was crucified on the day before the Passover meal, right as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered.
Mark: Implies the crucifixion took place the day after Jesus had already eaten the Passover meal with his disciples.

The Tomb Visitors: Vary in how many women or men/angels went to or appeared at the empty tomb (e.g., one angel sitting on the stone in Matthew versus two inside in Luke/John).
They also differ on where Jesus first appeared to his disciples after rising, showing distinct regional emphases between Galilee and Jerusalem.

Feel free to read more here: https://sites.google.com/site/errorsint ... s-fictions

Disagreements or inconsistencies in the writings or memories of people who lived about 2000 years ago is not a big reason why I lost my faith. People disagree with what happened last week.

I would like to believe in a “GOD”, some sort of universal higher power. I’m leaving this possibility open… but I don’t think this “GOD” would be anything like the “God” of any major religion.

So what kind of God do you want? I think the God of the Jews and the God of Christians (the SAME GOD, really) meets most of what JimB seeks. His objections are the same as stated through much of History for the past 2,000 years or so.

Some of my major problems with “God” as described by any major religion…

*Why would an omnipotent and ever living God care about mundane bullshit?
-> I could be convinced God would care about how we treat people, or even how we “treat the Earth”. I can not be convinced “God” would let us eat beef but not want us to eat pork… or he’d be fine with beef but not on Friday. (Just one example of an arbitrary “rule”.)

*If God existed and he wanted people to follow him, then why wouldn’t he make his presence known in an obvious manner and on a consistent basis? Some will say you can “see” or “feel” his presence if you “open your heart” but that’s mumbo-jumbo. Some might say you see his work in the birth of a child or a flower growing. Maybe, but I think any God who wanted us to worship him would not be subtle about it.

My God is a caring and loving God. He cares about me and my concerns. (This is what JimB dismissively calls "mundane bullshit.") If God is as Awesome as I believe him to be, he cares about what happens to me. Let me offer Scripture here:

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” – Matthew 6:26

“He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call.” – Psalm 147:9

What JimB labels as "mumbo-jumbo" is key; it is not mumbo-jumbo, but God trying to reach him and reach his heart. JimB wants to ignore God attempting to reach him.

I do see God in the birth of a child (I watched the birth of my 2 children and was around for the birth of my 4 grandchildren); a flower growing (I grow them in pots and in several flower beds); and I see the awesomeness of my God in the Heavens (I often post in the Astronomy thread and I have a telescope and often go outside at night to view the Heavens) and in Nature all around me nearly each and every day (btw: that is one of the Main Reasons I went out to the Western US in 2023 to see and experience FIVE of our Great National Parks). I see Science opening my eyes to the Wonders of His Creation, in something as simple as a drop of water or a handful of earth (as some call merely DIRT).

I think any God who wanted us to worship him would not be subtle about it

Let me respond, again with Scripture:

1 Kings 19:11-13
New International Version
11 The Lord said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the Lord, for the Lord is about to pass by.”

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.

I have cited this verse from Scripture before, so let me augment that with AI Summary:

The concept of God speaking to Elijah in a whisper highlights His intimate and personal nature. This moment, found in 1 Kings 19:11-13, illustrates that God often communicates in subtle ways rather than through grand displays of power like fire or earthquakes. Elijah, feeling overwhelmed and alone, encounters God not in the dramatic but in a gentle whisper, which signifies a deep, personal connection and reassurance

Let's move to the question of Evil:

*Why would an all-powerful God let people do evil shit in his name? Almost every major religion has perpetrated some evil shit, or at least condoned evil shit. You can’t convince me God would allow this to happen in his name.

*I mean while we are at it… why allow evil shit at all?

I will let JimB research this himself. I have already answered this as one of those FUNDAMENTAL Questions that many have asked for a long time and especially by Christians and believers for the past 2,000 years. I am sure others before then wondered about the existence of evil, too, but I will not go there at this time. I said that there are NO easy answers. I posted already:

by jusplay4fun » Tue Aug 04, 2026 2:45 am
Without getting into specifics, JimB has offered some reasons why he rejected Christianity. Of what I recall, many of the questions he posed are the same Fundamental Questions offered by skeptics AND by thinking Christians and some Theologians over MANY Years. THERE ARE NO EASY Answers to most of those Fundamental Questions. Again, I think Faith is needed to overcome some of that skepticism. If one wants to TRY to RELY ONLY on Science, Logic, and/or Reasoning, ONE will really NOT FIND God nor Jesus, imo.

Cults: I discussed Scientology and the Mormons already.

*We’ve got documented cases of religions (or sect or cults) forming, and the ridiculous / unbelievable BS they spew, yet they still manage to suck in people. Often people who are otherwise intelligent. Small cults form all the time, and the only reason they don’t get larger is because they are most often squashed by “society”… really just gov’t and other religions who don’t want competition. Seeing how religions have formed, one might question the initial formation of their own religion. The best example for this is the Mormon religion. The history of how this came to be is well documented. Like many cults they were persecuted and if someone tried to do the same thing today they’d have been squashed. They almost were squashed, but were able to avoid this fate because they fled west. By the time the US Govt. was powerful enough to squash them, things had changed and instead they’ve been slowly folded into the greater “Christian” belief system. Their Founding Myth is just ridiculous.

I think people join cults because they are looking ANSWERS, answers to Fundamental Question such as
*Why am I here?
*What is my purpose for and in Life?
*What happens once I die?

I think these are so important, once Human needs for Food, Air, Water, Shelter and Clothing are met. Even when hungry, people ask these questions, but their needs for basic existence takes precedence. I once heard the term self-actualization for such needs. Note that MANY never get to this stage or level. I suggest that JimB read about Maslow's Hierarchy. I would normally add it here, but then folks want to criticize my "cutting and pasting." OKAY, figure it for yourself. I offer the notion; you explore it if you want or dare.

I think that humans want to Find GOD; that is a "gap in their heart." The reason that many turn to VICES is that they attempt to fill that which their heart lacks. Many turn to alcohol or illegal and/or recreational drugs, or sex or power or pleasure, PARTLY in ther attempt to fill that gap. Some realize that such physical pleasures only offer a temporary fleeting relief and filling. Some then turn to God. Augustine and President G. "W" Bush are only TWO examples of persons who turned to God after realizing their life was going NOWHERE without Him.

Why are cults often squashed by “society”? Because they offer FALSE answers by False "prophets" and cult figures. They most often bring in Young folks LOOKING for Answers. Parents get alarmed when their most precious thing, THEIR CHILDREN, go in a WRONG path that usually rejects the parents and their past. They basically "brain wash" or indoctrinate the child or young person. The Internet now DOES that to an alarming level; witness some mass killers and extemists and those who try to kill the President or school children.

So yes, I think MOST Cults should be opposed and squashed. If my son or daughter had joined one, I think I would have spent much time and effort and money to GET THEM OUT. JimB already admitted that the Mormon Cult is basically "ridiculous" or at least their beliefs are. And if their beliefs are ridiculous, what does that say about the Cult itself?

One of the reasons the Mormons were opposed was their insistence on Polygamy. Most mainstream Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as they prefer) now reject polygamy. There are still Mormons who practice this idea; btw, I think there is at least one "reality show" about Mormon Sister wives.

I think that the reasons Mormons are now accepted are that they are hard-working, family oriented, patriotic, and live in areas where many do not want to live (such as the deserts of Utah and desolate areas of Idaho). Many work hard as farmers; in my travels I met one Mormon Family in Idaho growing...POTATOES of course. They grew NOT Idaho Russet potatoes, but red skinned potatoes instead. I have also taught some Mormon students and they are and were Good students and good citizens.

There are probably other ‘objections’ or thoughts I could write to describe my views against major religions… but this is a good summary.

Bring 'em.

[jimboston]

Let me offer Scripture here:

Let me respond, again with Scripture:

I have cited this verse from Scripture before, so let me augment that with AI Summary:

You’re quoting Scripture to argue for the existence or God and/or Christianity.

In some ways that makes sense… but you fail to realize that I believe “scripture” is just BS written by people. I don’t believe there was any divine inspiration here. Some parts of the Bible were written by incoherent, evil, racist/xenophobic, and misogynistic idiots… other parts were written by very intelligent and kind hearted people. Everyone using bible verse to argue for the existence of God/Christianity only ever quotes the good parts. What about all the parts of the bible that’s filled with horrible shit?

If the Bible is writings INSPIRED by God… then what about all the horrible shit. You can’t claim the Bible is the Word of God and then claim that the bad parts aren’t and were somehow snuck in or misinterpreted.

Many modern Christians basically ignore the Old Testament because that’s where the majority of the evil shit is. That fails the logic test… like building a house, then ripping out the foundation and expecting the house to still stand. It can’t.
—-

You say “your God is a loving God”. That’s an invention of the 20th Century and limited to people in the West. For all of history God was a pretty evil motherfucker…. very willing to destroy cities, commit genocide, kill unicorns, and wipe off everyone on the planet except for one lucky family. An eye-for-and-eye was supported… and he’d kill your firstborn son if you f*ck with his Chosen people.
—-

Using AI to help “augment” your argument in the existence of God. That’s classic.
—-

You did ignore a few key points…

*Like what makes the Christian Bible more valid than any other sacred text? How is it more valid than the Book of Mormon, The Koran, The Shruti and Smriti, or the Tripitaka?

*Why can only Christians go to Heaven? Why can’t a really devout Hindu who’s kind and peaceful and never did anything bad to anyone? Why can’t some native Sentinelese woman who’s done nothing but raise her children and has never even heard of Jesus?

*You completely ignored the question about why an Omnipotent Being would care what I believe or MORE IMPORTANTLY what I eat?

*Are you Catholic or some other Christian? Why do Catholics need to go through a priest to commune with God and get forgiveness? That seems like an Organization just trying to maintain control and collect their tithe. No?

*You claim Mormon faith is silly… their Foundation Myth is no more ridiculous than the Story of Adam and Eve. Their Foundation Myth is no less possible or realistic than the idea that someone can be killed then brought back to live 3 days later and then “ascend to heaven”. How can you call their foundation story “unrealistic”.

*Yet in the next breath you acknowledge that faithful Mormons are generally good hardworking folk. So can these good hardworking folk go to Heaven?
—-

I have a piece of Sacred Text I’d like you to consider…

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Ah

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin' life in peace

You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

If you believe in a Higher Power it’s hard to think such word were NOT inspired by said Higher Power.

If you don’t believe in a Higher Power it’s easy to see how if one human could write this, then another human could write the most inspiring Bible verse.

Point ended… “debate” ended. Go give your nonsensical reply and claim “victory” again. I’m done with you, you’re a broken record.

[HitRed]

I spend a lot of time pondering God. Trying to square the circle of the Old Testament and The New Testament. It hasn't shaken my faith at all. Maybe one day He will make a message explaining it.

[Apatheist]

I spend a lot of time pondering God. Trying to square the circle of the Old Testament and The New Testament. It hasn't shaken my faith at all. Maybe one day He will make a message explaining it.

Ah, so you admit you've not heard from him yet, and you made up all those other "quotes"?

Tell me, do you believe in astrology?

[HitRed]

Read it again.

HitRed

[Apatheist]

Read it again.

HitRed

Read it, my question stands.
I'll move the astrology question to a separate thread.

[jusplay4fun]

Let me offer Scripture here:

Let me respond, again with Scripture:

I have cited this verse from Scripture before, so let me augment that with AI Summary:

You’re quoting Scripture to argue for the existence or God and/or Christianity.

In some ways that makes sense… but you fail to realize that I believe “scripture” is just BS written by people.

A) I do realize that you believe such; NO suprise, so please don't make it seem otherwise. Just more JimBo silliness.

I may deem the rest of your post as worthy of any further response. I responded to EVERY ONE of your recent posts and you basically ignore them. Again, NO Suprise. If you cannot offer any more to the discussion or debate, you will basically act as if I posted nothing. I found a bit more time to offer some degree of discussion and refutation. Let us continue:

B) This is RICH: you lost the debate and now you want to take your marbles and go home and pout, as you say

Point ended… “debate” ended. Go give your nonsensical reply and claim “victory” again. I’m done with you,

C)

you’re a broken record.

Then you quote a song be a Beatle and THEN CLAIM that I am the broken RECORD. What IRONY. I think you MISSED THAT one, too, JimB.
you’re a broken record, JimB.

D) You said about the Mormon beliefs:

I think the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Faith is a joke. I am well aware of the origin myth of that Church. You COMPLETELY MISS THE POINT. The point is that Mormon’s faith in that book / believe system is as valid and as real as any Christian’s Faith. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO WAY for you to prove that their foundation myth is any less accurate or real than the foundation myth of Christianity.

BUT then you TRY to defend as invalid as other Christian Faiths. You are so ignorant here that it is almost worth NO reply.

Let me offer this bit to SHOW how ridiculous their beliefs are:

In 1830 Smith published the Book of Mormon which he claimed to have translated from ancient writings found on golden plates. He said an angel first showed him the location of the plates in 1823, buried in a nearby hill. After obtaining the plates in 1827, Smith began dictating the text of the Book of Mormon in April 1828 with the assistance of Martin Harris and later Oliver Cowdery. After several interruptions, Smith completed the manuscript in June 1829.[13] Smith said the plates were returned to the angel after he finished the translation.

So there is NO way to authenticate his translation of this "Secret Knowledge" since Joseph Smith returned these plates....RIGHT.

and more, same source:

The Book of Mormon claims to be a chronicle of early Israelites who left the Near East and traveled to the Americas. The book begins c. 600 BC with the departure from Jerusalem of the family of a prophet named Lehi, and their sailing to the Americas.

Do you want to DEFEND any of this, JimB? And you say this is on parallel with Mainstream Christianity? I have some good farm land in the desert of Nevada and the Mojavi to sell you, JimB, since you appear to be so gullible.

Did I tell you that most Christians believe that most of these Mormon ideas are simply NOT valid? BUT continue to make excuses for them, JimB. Afterall, you have NO credibility issues here, RIGHT?????????

Two articles:

Mormons are not considered Christians based on their disbelief in two primary doctrines of Christianity - the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Why are these differences important, and how is their Jesus different from ours?

https://www.christianity.com/church/mor ... 28184.html

and #2

https://mormonismexplained.org/are-morm ... olars-say/

So, unlike what you IMPLIED, I did NOT ignore the matter of Mormons. I will NOT call that a lie as instead you were badly organized in your poorly executed refutation of what I posted.

E) Catholics and Confession:
JimB asks

Are you Catholic or some other Christian? Why do Catholics need to go through a priest to commune with God and get forgiveness? That seems like an Organization just trying to maintain control and collect their tithe. No?

Jesus said: whose sins you (Apostles) forgive are forgiven, those you you do not are NOT forgiven. Here is the quote:
John 20:23, where

He states, "If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you don’t forgive them, they aren’t forgiven"

Start reading from John 20:19, JimB, to get the FULL account.

From that the Catholic Church establishes the Sacrement of Confession (or Penance).

also see
Matthew 16:19 and
Matthew 18:18 and
Mark 2:5

F) JimB posted:

Why can only Christians go to Heaven?

It is one of those FUNDAMENTAL Questions posed by many who think about such matters and have done so over many centuries. I already said many such questions have NO EASY answers. I will let you, JimB, research the matter and I continue to await your discoveries. Research and then Post; then we can discuss, if you do so.

and more, from my Previous post:

by jusplay4fun » Tue Aug 04, 2026 2:45 am
Without getting into specifics, JimB has offered some reasons why he rejected Christianity. Of what I recall, many of the questions he posed are the same Fundamental Questions offered by skeptics AND by thinking Christians and some Theologians over MANY Years. THERE ARE NO EASY Answers to most of those Fundamental Questions. Again, I think Faith is needed to overcome some of that skepticism. If one wants to TRY to RELY ONLY on Science, Logic, and/or Reasoning, ONE will really NOT FIND God nor Jesus, imo.

So, NO, I did not ignore your question(s), I challenged YOU to come up with answers, JimB. Otherwise, there is no point in me trying to solve YOUR PERSONAL Crisis of FAITH.

G) JimB simply LIES here:

You completely ignored the question about why an Omnipotent Being would care what I believe or MORE IMPORTANTLY what I eat?

jimboston wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2026 9:00 am

Some of my major problems with “God” as described by any major religion…

*Why would an omnipotent and ever living God care about mundane bullshit?
-> I could be convinced God would care about how we treat people, or even how we “treat the Earth”. I can not be convinced “God” would let us eat beef but not want us to eat pork… or he’d be fine with beef but not on Friday. (Just one example of an arbitrary “rule”.)

*If God existed and he wanted people to follow him, then why wouldn’t he make his presence known in an obvious manner and on a consistent basis? Some will say you can “see” or “feel” his presence if you “open your heart” but that’s mumbo-jumbo. Some might say you see his work in the birth of a child or a flower growing. Maybe, but I think any God who wanted us to worship him would not be subtle about it.

I responded to this by JimB:

My response, posted LESS than 24 hours ago:

by jusplay4fun » Fri Aug 07, 2026 2:01 am

I already responded to some of this already, and I showed that I did do to JimBoston's challenge. Let me respond to some of JimB points here in a more detailed manner.

My God is a caring and loving God. He cares about me and my concerns. (This is what JimB dismissively calls "mundane bullshit.") If God is as Awesome as I believe him to be, he cares about what happens to me. Let me offer Scripture here:

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?” – Matthew 6:26

“He provides food for the cattle and for the young ravens when they call.” – Psalm 147:9

What JimB labels as "mumbo-jumbo" is key; it is not mumbo-jumbo, but God trying to reach him and reach his heart. JimB wants to ignore God attempting to reach him.

There is MORE (and eloquently made, imho), but I aleady proved that JimB LIED; there is no further need of any more proof. Is it a simple LIE or LACK of Reading Comprehension? Read more carefully before making such blatant and FALSE accusations, JimB; otherwise you appear the FOOL.

Try harder JimB; your lack of credibility worsens with Each Post. SAD

[jimboston]

It’s like trying to explain algebra to a 3 year old.