Deism

[reznwerks]

Re: reason

So when we die we all go to heaven and do what?
[ I don't know you tell me. As I said if I have to stand around all day and maybe sing etc I may ask to leave.

And in your opinion its open to everybody, just consider this if we all should go to heaven and being the same old sinner then we would be doing the same stuff up there as we did down here wouldn't we?
I didn't say everyone is going to heaven. I said that if heaven exists it is open to one and all alike. I don't know what the criteria is for getting in but I certainly can bet it is not in belonging or believing or reciting a certain set of dogma.

And thats when you count me out I DECLINE TO GO AND SE PEOPLE DO THE SAME WICKED THINGS OVER AGAIN. do realize what your saying? In your heaven there will be rapist, pedophiles, murder, and GOD knows what else and then it wouldn't heaven would it? It would be hell all over for some people that have lived a hellish life down go use your GOD given brain that's why GOD gave you one
That just might be the case if you are correct. Remember Jesus will be the ruler ,correct? The fact you need a ruler implies you will have dissent or disagreement at the very least. Now if as some have claimed we will all be of like mind then you won't mind having all those undesirable up there with you because they won't be involved in the same problems on earth.

I think that the bible is pretty clear in that the Jews are the chosen people. If you read your bible and understand it you will discover the reason Jesus (if he existed) used parables. To save you some time I will tell you now but you can verify it with your pastor. Jesus used parables to hide the truth from the GENTILES. Jesus came for the Jew not the gentile.

Not so fast my friend Jesus did say that He had other sheeps as well and that was the Gentiles it couldn't have been the Jews HE was talking about since HE was talking to the Jews when HE said it.
Then you are saying that Jesus plainly contradicted what he said about using parables.

John 10

 

[Imagican]

Re: reason

I don't entirely understand why anyone would want to be a deist.

Deism is not something you join. Deism is something you become based on your reasoning and evidence. Thats the difference and shortcoming of revealed religions. You are either born into it ,or convinced by others to join. Your are either approached or you become interested in what you see and inquire about it for one reason or another. Either way someone else has to convince you and teach you how and what to think and accept when you join.

You are totally ignorant of Christianity it is the Holy Spirit that convince a person of the truth not me or anybody else for that matter. You have all together missed the mark and by the look of it your totally lost and don't even know it. And as for teaching some one of morale behavior what is wrong with that?
Shalom and love in the name of YESHUA
chana

This post is not about Christiainty nor your prosylizing. The "Holy Spirit" doesn't convince anyone of anything. One has to "want" to be convinced on order to be convinced. I'm afraid it is you that has missed the mark and not been able to follow and or read the link. I am not lost as I who was a Christian at one time saw the evidence of the claims or rather the lack of evidence and have left it. Many others have as well and the more that investigate and try to prove the evidence they leave as well.You believe in spite of the evidence not because of it.

This is a Christian forum. If you don't want Christianity introduced into your postings then perhaps some other venue would be in order.

The Holy Spirit doesn't convice ANYONE of ANYTHING that it isn't allowed to do so. This IS true. If you refuse a desire for the truth then NOTHING will convince you of anything. One certainly has to want to be convinced of something or there can be no understanding. But all this is but a beginning of understanding.

God on the other hand can and does offer proof of his existence to those that he finds it prudent to do so. This is His will however and not up to us to question. Paul certainly didn't believe in Christ when he was approached on the road to Damascus. His life was changed however.

Obviously you weren't REALLY a Christian but you were just claiming to be one as you now claim to be a deist. You cannot BE a Christian and then change to something else. It is very clear that you are confused and whipped to and fro by every wind of doctrine. It is certainly easy to 'claim' to be anything. But if you had ever TRULY recieved Christ into your heart and accepted him as your savior then you could not deny him as you do.

I challenge you to offer honest prayer to God, offering your repentance and asking for his forgiveness. If He is to be your God and Christ your savior, ask him for a sign of some sort to prove his existence. If your heart is true and your desire righteous he will offer you the proof that you seek. You still have to WANT to see it though.

And hey, not everyone was meant to understand God or accept the offering of his Son. If you were not meant to understand this then nothing I or anyone else has to say will convince you otherwise, for:

There will be those that choose to follow a lie, I Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

A little piece of friendly advice to all those that don't know any better. Just because someone 'claims' to be a Christian doesn't make them one. The anti-christ will 'claim' that he is Christ but that won't make it so. The Catholics who murdered those that wouldn't accept Christ 'claimed' to be Christians, but let their fruit prove who they were really following. The biggest cause of the distruction of the modern Church as we know it now is the fault of the false claims of Christianity. True Christians are those that follow Christ not just use his name.

There are those that claim that Christianity is a bad thing because of the acts of those that 'claimed' to be Christians. Many that believe in Christ don't know how to oppose such statements. The truth is that those that murdered in the name of Christ were not 'true' Christians but simply using the name of Christ to justify their bloody deeds. True Christians forgive and serve. They do not murder and take. So let this be your guide in the future: True Christians don't even have to use a name like Christian to do what Christ asks of us. He states that there will be many in the end that will come to him and say, "Look at all the wonderful things that we've done in your name." And his reply to them, "Go away from me for I know not who you are." Not only was the Spirit of Christ not dwelling in them but Christ doesn't even know who they are.

 

[Chupacabra]

Why do you consider yourself a deist rather than an agnostic?

To a degree, I am agnostic. I personally don't see how the big bang could have occurred without an extra-universal impetus. As I've pointed out before, I believe in a "god" in the loosest sense-- it could be cognizant or not, it could be a force or a being. All I really think is that some extra-universal something-or-other acted to cause the big bang. As you can see, my reasoning is far from airtight and it really wouldn't surprise me too much if I were wrong, but I feel that there's is a slightly greater chance that I am correct.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: reason

[

This is a Christian forum. If you don't want Christianity introduced into your postings then perhaps some other venue would be in order.

.

This forum is for Christianity AND other religions thank you very much.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: reason

[

The Holy Spirit doesn't convice ANYONE of ANYTHING that it isn't allowed to do so. This IS true.
The arguement is circular.If the Holy Spirit doesn't come to you its because the Holy Spirit didn't want to.

If you refuse a desire for the truth then NOTHING will convince you of anything. One certainly has to want to be convinced of something or there can be no understanding. But all this is but a beginning of understanding.
This "wanting" to believe leads to false and mistaken assumptions especially when what is expected to be "proof" can only be experienced by the believer.

God on the other hand can and does offer proof of his existence to those that he finds it prudent to do so. This is His will however and not up to us to question. Paul certainly didn't believe in Christ when he was approached on the road to Damascus. His life was changed however.
Another circular arguement. If God doesn't offer proof to someone it's because he doesn't want to. Yet no one has ever seen anothers proof.

Obviously you weren't REALLY a Christian but you were just claiming to be one as you now claim to be a deist. You cannot BE a Christian and then change to something else. It is very clear that you are confused and whipped to and fro by every wind of doctrine. It is certainly easy to 'claim' to be anything. But if you had ever TRULY recieved Christ into your heart and accepted him as your savior then you could not deny him as you do.
I never claimed to be a deist but I have no problem with those that adopt this belief. I can't prove there is no God but there is no evidence that one exists and even less proof that the God of the bible is real.

I challenge you to offer honest prayer to God, offering your repentance and asking for his forgiveness. If He is to be your God and Christ your savior, ask him for a sign of some sort to prove his existence. If your heart is true and your desire righteous he will offer you the proof that you seek. You still have to WANT to see it though.
Been there done that. No God.The same with prayer. Three possible answers to prayer are yes no or not now but whateve the answer its always Gods will. Take a guess at a number between 1 and ten and pray to God for the answer and let me know what it was. I will guarantee you that you guessed the right number.

And hey, not everyone was meant to understand God or accept the offering of his Son. If you were not meant to understand this then nothing I or anyone else has to say will convince you otherwise, for:
To WHOM did God offer his son? AND why? I thought God wanted a relationship with his creation. Then why isn't everyone meant to understand God?

There will be those that choose to follow a lie, I Thessolonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.
What else would the bible say? This is cutting them off at the pass. They knew the stories would be doubted if told so they said if you hear it we told you they would say that.

A little piece of friendly advice to all those that don't know any better. Just because someone 'claims' to be a Christian doesn't make them one. The anti-christ will 'claim' that he is Christ but that won't make it so. The Catholics who murdered those that wouldn't accept Christ 'claimed' to be Christians, but let their fruit prove who they were really following. The biggest cause of the distruction of the modern Church as we know it now is the fault of the false claims of Christianity. True Christians are those that follow Christ not just use his name.
Well that would rule out just about most of Christianity in its present form since much of the N/T is from Paul that contradicted much of what Jesus supposedly said.

quote]

 

[nuhmmie]

My religious backround: I suppose I didn't really believe in or care about a god until about seventh grade or so (I'm a junior in high school now). At that point, I arbitrarily decided to study the Bible. I read it every day and purchased a several books to aid me with me study. About six months later, I became "saved" and began attending church regularly. During this period, I was the biggest fundamentalist you could ever imagine. ooph, young age, admittedly, I was agnostic until college. wasn't saved then, but, the "something" became more of a someone if you read me. man, you sure move quickly when your focused. don't get a sports car. I'll worry :wink: but becoming a "fundi" is quite typical for the newest of the newbies. it happened to me and probably the better of a percentage of this board. seriously, nothing strange about anything you've said so far. :smt053


When I reached high school, however, my brain got in the way and I began seriously questioning what I believed and why I believed it. At this point, I made the segue from fundamentalist Christianity to what I referred to as "rational Christianity"; I no longer believed in Young Earth Creationism and stopped feigning anger towards homosexuals, among other things. you feigned anger toward homosexuals? as in, you pretended to feel or believe to what? fit in or something? that can't be easy to pretend you feel a way you don't. but we've all done it. especially when you are as young as you were. young earth creationism, okay. it seemed irrational to you? just making sure I'm with you. that aspect of your "belief" didn't jive with your rationalle. if I may ask, you started in the very beginning doing this on your own, did most of the trouble begin when you went to church? or when? or maybe, with whom? I'm wondering if at that time you stayed solitary or were glued to the hip, so to speak, with the congregation, etc. just trying to picture the scene. What I bolded and changed color on the first line jumped out at me. but it can wait till later.


Last spring, I began yet another period of pondering until I reached that conclusion that I believe that some being or force that I call god created the super condensed ball of matter that would become the universe and served as an impetus for its explosion. I don't believe god has interferred with the universe since.
what other evidence did you find that aided you in being convinced that God had not interferred with the universe since? just askn. I mean is it that you moved away from creationism but not exactly all the way toward evolution. say, some mixture of both?

What Deism is to me: Whereas English Deists still do contend that god does care about and at least to a degree interferes with the events of the universe, French-style Deists like myself disagree. Quite simply, we believe god created the universe and that's the whole of the supernatural.
so, the basic difference between the english and french you've found say, most distinctive is english says "still cares and is involved" and french say "ambivelent and non interactive"? for all intents and purposes, would that be a fair statement? what made the difference for you? as in, what made you come to the conclusion of the french persuasion vs. the english? seriously, I'm interested in understanding the basic route you took from point A to point B. oh, sorry, that last part, God creating the universe was it as far as the supernatural goes. say, no spirits or "unseen forces". just after the universe was created, no more supernatural, just natual now? *again, just making sure I'm on the same page, or atleast within the same chapter. *

Deism is by no means a worldview, as Humanism is. Humanism refers to a gargantuan group of philosophies, most of which are barely related. (LOL)For example, nearly every Renaissaince painter drew upon a Humanist tradition. To this day, Christian Humanists exist. Thomas Aquinas and his scholasticism movement were both of a religious Humanist nature. I'll assume that by "Humanist" you were speaking of Secular Humanism. I'll also assume you were joking or being sarcastic by saying Humanists worship the brain (worship is just being on your knees or lighting candles, ya know?!.) Like Humanists, I emphasize the individual and believe reason and empathy, instead of faith or dogma, should guide belief systems .
this is where I think too many eggs are being put into the same basket. this would be a good discussion subject.


While I respect their freethought, I disagree with many of their theories on self-esteem. While some self-esteem is essential to happiness and the courage to think for oneself, the practices promoted by Rogers and others lead can lead to narcissism. (quite perseptive) I also feel that his diagnosis that most social problems arise from low self-esteem in individuals is severely flawed. I also differ with Maslow's hierchy of needs-- while it is a good idea, it is ridiculous to suggest that someone without security cannot love or that someone cannot be happy unless he or she achieves all of his or her dreams in the self-actualization phase. (this I figure is where you may differ with the emphasis of the individual?) Perhaps one of the things that I disagree with humanists the most about is the potential of mankind. I see all humans as having a potential for great intelligence, compassion, creativity, and goodness. I also feel that a large if not preponderant number of human beings over the years have been ostentatious, ignorant, intolerant, malicious, and misguided. (I agree, man has gotten worse, not better and will continue to get even worse then what we see now) For such an optimists' creed as Humanism, that last sentence is a hard pill to swallow and is almost never conceded.

So as you can see, Humanism and Deism can coincide, but do not have to.

well, your post is just chuck full of discussion topics. I leave it up to you to decide where you'd like to take it from here regarding my reply. I am sorry that I couldn't respond to everything that I would have like, but I'll get booted for taking so long in the reply screen. LOL

 

[Chupacabra]

you feigned anger toward homosexuals? as in, you pretended to feel or believe to what

Feigned is probably too harsh a word. Parrotted is more accurate, really. I read a number of Christian books, many of which had sections on the "homosexual agenda" and I really was a fanatic at this point. Of course, I "hated the sin but loved the sinner", but I really somewhat believed that homosexuals and the ACLU were trying to uproot American freedom. By implying that I didn't really believe it, I suppose I'm more or less saying that I didn't really consider what I was saying at the time. The whole homosexuality issue was probably one of the first to impel me to question Christianity. The Bible's restrictions against it seem so arbitrary and ridiculous-- it almost makes humans out to be child-producing machines, with reproduction as a primary purpose for a marriage and love as a secondary one.

young earth creationism, okay. it seemed irrational to you?

Indeed it did. The more I read on evolution, the more I realized that "creation scientists" didn't really know their material very well.

if I may ask, you started in the very beginning doing this on your own, did most of the trouble begin when you went to church? or when? or maybe, with whom? I'm wondering if at that time you stayed solitary or were glued to the hip, so to speak, with the congregation, etc. just trying to picture the scene.

As I first began to study the Bible, it was a very personal thing. While I continued to study it on my own, I eventually became quite a churchgoer, though I never attended more than two times a week like some members of this board do and some people at my church did. Going to church in no way damaged my faith. As I said, I merely began to doubt what I believed. This doubt was fed by my reading of Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson. From there, I supplemented my Christian reading with the reading of non-Christian websites to gain a more broad perspective. Despite such sites, it was ultimately my own reasoning that began to bring me out of Christianity.

what other evidence did you find that aided you in being convinced that God had not interferred with the universe since? just askn. I mean is it that you moved away from creationism but not exactly all the way toward evolution. say, some mixture of both?

Currently, I believe god created the universe but did not directly create mankind or any form of life. While I don't claim to have the answer to every paranormal phenomenon, I do think most seem far-fetched. Without realizing it, I had become an adherent to the principle of parsimony-- the solution requiring the fewest assumptions is probably the correct one. Making the jump to a personal god seems like quite a substancial one to me and there just doesn't seem to be enough evidence to back it up.

so, the basic difference between the english and french you've found say, most distinctive is english says "still cares and is involved" and french say "ambivelent and non interactive"?

Essentially, yes, that's the main difference.

what made the difference for you? as in, what made you come to the conclusion of the french persuasion vs. the english? seriously, I'm interested in understanding the basic route you took from point A to point B.

Nothing really made the difference between the two for me because I never really considered English Deism strongly. While I frequented many atheist websites, when I drifted away from Christianity and tried to find out what beliefs seemed the most rational to me, I felt the big bang did require a cause, so I doubted the correctness of atheism. Because of this, I came to the conclusion that a god or other extra-universal force exists, but saw no reason to believe that it interacted with mankind. So prior to really learning what Deism was or researching its history, my religious beliefs mirrored those of French Deists. It was only later that I would realize my beliefs were in fact Deism. Several months ago I read the Age of Reason and some of Paine's other works and found myself in agreement with most of them.

oh, sorry, that last part, God creating the universe was it as far as the supernatural goes. say, no spirits or "unseen forces". just after the universe was created, no more supernatural, just natual now? *again, just making sure I'm on the same page, or atleast within the same chapter. *

Well, I don't see how the universe's creator could be "dead" a la Nietsche, but I don't see it as interacting with the universe. Most reports of miracles can be explained and most ancient religions are somewhat fanatical and puerile and it is much more rational in my opinion to assume that they are not based on fact. I don't believe in spirits, demons, faries, monsters, or a devil.

this is where I think too many eggs are being put into the same basket. this would be a good discussion subject

It would probably make a good discussion topic. But I really can't see any error with allowing reason, empathy, and experience guide one's beliefs.

(this I figure is where you may differ with the emphasis of the individual?)

To a degree. I believe an individual can be happy with or without others. While it is rare for someone to be achieve their goals and find fulfillment without the aid of friends and family, Maslow's hierchy of needs fails to account for individuals who can and do. In addition, the general concepts of the sequencial pyramid and self-actualization are flawed.

(I agree, man has gotten worse, not better and will continue to get even worse then what we see now)

I'm not entirely sure I agree. In the United States, barbarism remains strong, but many European countries have well-educated societies that employ moderate socialism to improve lives, are tired of war after WWI and WWII and are by and large quite tolerant. Even in the United States, tolerance is one theater where we've made great strides. I'd also like to not that the genocides of the twentieth century do not necessarily represent that man is getting worse, but rather had better technology to act out his darker side than before.

 

[Imagican]

Chupacabra,

My young friend. I remember myself fumbling and struggling so at about your age. Do not dispair my friend, for there is doubt in all of us at one time or another. If you will continue to seek the truth then I can promise you that you will find it. Try not to create your own truth though and constantly strive to find the ultimate truth and this will be done.

This search will always lead back to the same conclusion, and no matter how many questions you can raise as to it's being impossible to prove, the truth is the truth no matter how hard one runs to avoid it.

Acceptance is the first step towards true understanding. Your biggest obstacle at the present is self and the desire to control. Understanding that you are but a babe in the scope of creation will do much to curb ambition that hinders understanding.

I do not offer argument here. I only offer understanding, for I was once much like yourself; determined to control through understanding. Then I began to soften with age and allow the truth to reveal itself rather than try and force it's understanding. At this point I became capable of allowing a 'true' relationship to develope, and through that relationship, the truth began to shine through without turmoil.

Faith is needed in the understanding and acceptance of anything. Do not loose this gift, for without it one becomes a 'rolling stone', and nothing can grow on a rolling stone.

We are each and every one of us 'special'. Accepting that is crucial to peace of mind and peace of spirit. Unfortunately we often have difficulty feeling special and tend to act out in order to achieve that which we desire most.

I challenge you to an experiment: Seek within yourself the one thing that you would change if you could, but have found that you have not the power yourself to do so. Offer this up in prayer and admit to God that you can't do anything about it and ask him to remove or change this one thing. Let it go and turn it over to him in prayer and see if he has the power that you don't to change it. I know of no better way to understand and accept the love of God than this. Once one has been 'touched' in this way, much doubt is released and much understanding and acceptance is created. Once one has experienced this power, then there is no longer room for doubt.

And Chupacabra, one thing that you should learn and never forget: the Church is full of MUCH confusion. Don't let their ignorance or confusion turn you away from the 'truth'. Their time-line is incorrect and understanding of the evolutionary process is false. Don't blame them for their falling short for they are but men. They are still stuck following traditions of a time more uninformed than that in which we live today. Read the Bible without their influence and you will find the truth. It's in there and unmistakable when encountered.

 

[YESHUA]

Re: acts

.

Yeshua, Paul wrote Acts. Acts is accepted in he N/T as well as much of other books Paul wrote. Don't you get it? I clearly left a link that showed how Paul contradicted or should I say hi jacked Christiainity.

Yeah I got a long time ago but your still wandering in the dark. Your oh so lost I really fell sorry for you, and I pray that one day you will wake up and face the truth along with a number of others so-called Christians. Your so ignorant and arrogant that is hurts and believe me it really hurt that you can be so ignorant of not only Jesus but also Paul. And to tell you the truth I could care less about the link and Paul did not hi jacked Christianity go read your bible and this time ask the Holy Spirit to guid you so you can understand what your reading. And yes only the Holy Spirit can lead you to the truth.
Shalom and love in the name of YESHUA
chana

 

[reznwerks]

Re: acts

[quote="YESHUAYeah I got a long time ago but your still wandering in the dark. Your oh so lost I really fell sorry for you, and I pray that one day you will wake up and face the truth along with a number of others so-called Christians.
I'm not lost , I got here based on what I found.

Your so ignorant and arrogant that is hurts and believe me it really hurt that you can be so ignorant of not only Jesus but also Paul.
It's not me that is afraid to look at what is there.You haven't looked at the link. Why is that?

And to tell you the truth I could care less about the link and Paul did not hi jacked Christianity go read your bible and this time ask the Holy Spirit to guid you so you can understand what your reading. And yes only the Holy Spirit can lead you to the truth.
Shalom and love in the name of YESHUA
chana
Somehow anyone that knows anything about Christianity admits it is more inspired by Paul than Jesus but the funny thing is you don't need an expert to come to that conclusion.

[/quote]

 

[Chupacabra]

This search will always lead back to the same conclusion, and no matter how many questions you can raise as to it's being impossible to prove, the truth is the truth no matter how hard one runs to avoid it.

I disagree here. Many people searched for the truth and found different paths than Christianity. Think of all the ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers who tried to find meaning but came up with different religions and schools of thought than Christianity. To be a Christian, one must first have a good understanding of Christianity which they typically acquire from someone else. Deism, which is frequently called a "natural religion", can indeed be arrived at without first hearing of it. When I came to forge my current beliefs on god I hardly knew what Deism was and I certainly didn't consider myself a Deist, but just came upon my beliefs from my own reasoning.

Acceptance is the first step towards true understanding. Your biggest obstacle at the present is self and the desire to control. Understanding that you are but a babe in the scope of creation will do much to curb ambition that hinders understanding.

It seems to me that first accepting something as fact and then trying to rationalize it is not a valid source for finding truth. Do some research on St. Anselm and his ontological argument and you can see a comical example of the sort of logical finagling that results from presupposing such things as the validity of the Bible and Platonic forms.

I challenge you to an experiment: Seek within yourself the one thing that you would change if you could, but have found that you have not the power yourself to do so. Offer this up in prayer and admit to God that you can't do anything about it and ask him to remove or change this one thing. Let it go and turn it over to him in prayer and see if he has the power that you don't to change it. I know of no better way to understand and accept the love of God than this. Once one has been 'touched' in this way, much doubt is released and much understanding and acceptance is created. Once one has experienced this power, then there is no longer room for doubt.

Sorry, but I really can't think of much I'd like to change about me. I'm not perfect by any means, but I like who I am. I suppose I'd like a bigger attention span or to be better at calculus, but something tells me that's not the sort of thing you were thinking about.

And Chupacabra, one thing that you should learn and never forget: the Church is full of MUCH confusion. Don't let their ignorance or confusion turn you away from the 'truth'. Their time-line is incorrect and understanding of the evolutionary process is false. Don't blame them for their falling short for they are but men. They are still stuck following traditions of a time more uninformed than that in which we live today. Read the Bible without their influence and you will find the truth. It's in there and unmistakable when encountered.

I agree with you here. Most organized religions (or philosophies like Objectivism for that matter) frequently slip into wild dogma. While I did use the church and Bible commentaries as a guide, I both entered and left Christianity largely based on my own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible.

 

[nuhmmie]

Re: acts

Somehow anyone that knows anything about Christianity admits it is more inspired by Paul than Jesus but the funny thing is you don't need an expert to come to that conclusion.

who was Paul inspired by?

 

[nuhmmie]

I both entered and left Christianity largely based on my own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible.

[i wrote this exensive post and realized i didn't have to say so much LOL, so I deleted it]

in anycase, you think what you think now as we all do. and ten years down the road, you may think the same, you may not. it all depends on what happens. so, just look forward. not back. :D

when everything fails you, He won't. You'll see. You'll understand what I mean when you're there. :smt054

 

[YESHUA]

Re: reason

Of course I don't know him. If God presented himself to you then fine. He has not presented himself to me. Until then it is Gods fault if I do not believe.

Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Romans 1
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
As you can se salvation is not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles.
And my friendship with Jesus is not a make believe as you seems to think and the bible does tell us about being a child of GOD only being as a child can we enter the KINGDOM of GOD so spare me/us your untimely sarcasms. Children have make believe friends that helps them adjust to their surroundings and psycologists say this is healthy. I didn't know they extended this thinking into adulthood. Doesn't the bible say something about when I was a child I did things as a child and now that I am an adult I put away childish things.
And the day I stop behaving like a child of GOD, MY GOD CAN CALL ME HOME BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE DOWN HERE WITH OUT MY CHILD LIKE FAITH, haven't you ever felt like doing something childish?
Shalom my friend in the name of YESHUA coming soon and you will be judge accordingly to you own words remember that
chana

 

[reznwerks]

Re: acts

Somehow anyone that knows anything about Christianity admits it is more inspired by Paul than Jesus but the funny thing is you don't need an expert to come to that conclusion.

who was Paul inspired by?

Who knows? It certainly wasn't Jesus. As I said before Paul made claims that only he was witness too since no one can witness anothers vision.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: reason

And the day I stop behaving like a child of GOD, MY GOD CAN CALL ME HOME BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE DOWN HERE WITH OUT MY CHILD LIKE FAITH, haven't you ever felt like doing something childish?

chana

When I was a child, I
spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child;
when I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
--- 1 Corinthians 13

 

[nuhmmie]

Re: acts

Who knows? It certainly wasn't Jesus. As I said before Paul made claims that only he was witness too since no one can witness anothers vision.[/b]

how many people need to witness or be privy to something? just one other, atleast 1/2 the population or just you? :P

Paul wasn't the only one to have visions. John had visions. who was john inspired by? and if you say "I don't' know", they just make an educated guess.

 

[Chupacabra]

how many people need to witness or be privy to something? just one other, atleast 1/2 the population or just you?

Paul wasn't the only one to have visions. John had visions. who was john inspired by? and if you say "I don't' know", they just make an educated guess.

We don't know that any of these people had visions inspired by any supernatural force. In my opinion, it is more rational to believe that these people were lying, were delusional, developed confabulations, or had dreams which they superstitiously misinterpreted as visions from god. While we technically cannot know for certain, it is a long stretch to assume they had contact with supernatural beings. Now let's say they did really have visions. In that case there is no way of determining who they recieved these visions from. It could have been aliens, angels, faries, demons, Satan, or god. There is no way of determining which.

 

[nuhmmie]

We don't know that any of these people had visions inspired by any supernatural force. In my opinion, it is more rational to believe that these people were lying, were delusional, developed confabulations, or had dreams which they superstitiously misinterpreted as visions from god. While we technically cannot know for certain, it is a long stretch to assume they had contact with supernatural beings. Now let's say they did really have visions. In that case there is no way of determining who they recieved these visions from. It could have been aliens, angels, faries, demons, Satan, or god. There is no way of determining which.

you think it was the ever so potent Galilean shrooms? :

why would lying, confabulation or misenterpreted dreams be more rational? it doesn't even seem rational to think that's rational. LOL.

no one is assuming they had contact with the supernatural. they are saying it happened so there is no need to assume anything.

there is a way of determining from whom they received the visions. if you research God's attributes and those things He's done in the past regarding visions and dreams, you can compare them and determine if they are from the same origin.

we are infact encouraged to search and make such determinations. if you don't know what the real guy "looks like" then you can't discern an imposter. ya know what I'm sayn'?

 

[Quath]

My personal guess is that Paul heard the Gnostics talking. However, Paul wasn't really invited to their club. So he took their story of a godman like Horus and expanded upon it. So of the 4 major books of the Bible, 3 are based on Paul, who never met Jesus. John was written 60 years after the "events." A lot of this stuff was not written down because they believed Jesus was going to come back within a generation like he promised in places like Luke 21:32. However, when people started dieing off and the Gnostic Christians started to organize a Bible, the other Christians quickly jumped in and started to make a book. You can see the progression of urban legends as the newer stories had wilder stories than the previous stories. The virgin birth is ignored in the first 2 books, but appears in the 3rd and 4th. The resurrection of Lazarus also appears later on.

So personally, I think it was all made up. But this is my take on how I guess it happened. It seems to be the simpliest explanation.

Quath