Remember when you were a kid, and a moldy old uncle comes from out of down and gives you a present you didn't ask for? Your parents made you play with and fuss over the present because of the effort your uncle went to.

It's the same with Christianity. Jesus paid for our sins. And he paid a great deal, greater than asking price according to some Christians. So out of our enforced gratitude we must make his sacrifice worthwhile. It is our obligation to sin as much as possible. If we have a choice to sin or not sin, we must choose to sin. If we don't, Jesus' sacrifice was in vain.

Remember when you were a kid, and a moldy old uncle comes from out of down and gives you a present you didn't ask for? Your parents made you play with and fuss over the present because of the effort your uncle went to.

It's the same with Christianity. Jesus paid for our sins. And he paid a great deal, greater than asking price according to some Christians. So out of our enforced gratitude we must make his sacrifice worthwhile. It is our obligation to sin as much as possible. If we have a choice to sin or not sin, we must choose to sin. If we don't, Jesus' sacrifice was in vain.

If you want him, and know him you will share his values.

Irrelevant to the original question.

We have to endure, not stop. Good people sin, even though they desire otherwise. Build that desire. Our flesh will always be weak but it will eventually die.

Sinning lets us understand why we must be saved.

Lol, could of summed all this up with that..

Sinning lets us understand why we must be saved.

Lol, could of summed all this up with that..

"but why doesn't he just save us and show us what's right"

is your main arguement I think. Simple, in order to prevent another Lucifer. Now, in order for one to enter the kingdom of heaven he must first show he will not challenge his values.

We have to endure, not stop. Good people sin, even though they desire otherwise. Build that desire. Our flesh will always be weak but it will eventually die.

I refuse to accept ideology that tells me I am weak.

Jesus never existed and so you can sin if you want and not have to worry about hell. But doing the right secularly ethical thing at all times makes you a good person IMHO.

I refuse to accept ideology that tells me I am weak.



You cannot prove you are strong, but someone with a gun can prove you are weak.

scratch that, I think you mean as a whole and not just our flesh.

Jesus never existed and so But doing the right secularly ethical thing at all times makes you a good person IMHO.

Jesus did exist, we learned about him in history. Whether or not you accept him as your savior is a personal choice. You can't be a good person, atleast a perfect one.


"you can sin if you want and not have to worry about hell."

God gave Satan equal control over this earth, we consist of both good and evil, and as such we shall desire both.

Doing the right thing is something to be desired, you can't do it all the time but that's what you should try to do.

Jesus did exist, we learned about him in history. Whether or not you accept him as your savior is a personal choice. You can't be a good person, atleast a perfect one.


"you can sin if you want and not have to worry about hell."

God gave Satan equal control over this earth, we consist of both good and evil, and as such we shall desire both.

Doing the right thing is something to be desired, you can't do it all the time but that's what you should try to do.


WTF kind of history class did you have?

WTF kind of history class did you have?

"Still, to put to rest the notion that there is no historic and scientific proof of Jesus outside the Bible, we may look to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted."

WTF one of our teachers taught us this. I only assumed it was factual hearing it in a high school classroom.

Still, I answered all your other questions. Can't believe what I said if you don't believe Jesus, though.

You're not going to find an answer to why, you have to trust in something. So pick something or wait tell you're on your deathbed not trusting in something greater than yourself. And you'll be positive you don't know what's on the otherside, instead of trying to find it through morality instead of logic.

Not trying to be mean, just have to go to sleep and want to help you see what I see, not agree with it.

I am using Logic. And those two sources have been disproven. And there is no way anywhere at anytime religion should be tought in history class.. my god.. history is for things that can be proven.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and to Roman historian Carius Cornelius Tacitus - both well known and accepted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia lists the passage about Jesus in Josephus as a later insertion around 322AD. Tacitus' writings mention Christians, but no Jesus.

But even if those works explicitly and authentically mention Jesus, it wouldn't matter because they weren't contemporary historians.

I am using Logic. And those two sources have been disproven. And there is no way anywhere at anytime religion should be tought in history class.. my god.. history is for things that can be proven.

lol, I'm not argueing Jesus lived back then, in the factual sense. That quote disproved what I said. That in no way alters the shape or form of my belief system. History is observation, unique to the individual writing down the experience. Don't you remember, The Holocaust never happend..

contemporary historians.

they're open to positive and negative influence just like everybody else. You can't say they're anymore reliable than anyone who wrote the bible. I don't know who wrote most of the bible. So if I'm wrong, that's why I'm here is to discuss this.

Can't sleep..:wah:

And if you have credible proof that these contemporary historians are reliable, you're believing something someone else wrote about them. It's a big chain of he said she said. It's about what you say and think.

they're open to positive and negative influence just like everybody else.

Agreed.

You can't say they're anymore reliable than anyone who wrote the bible.

Reliability isn't the issue, time frame is. No contemporary 1st century historians in that area (and we have writings from around 20 of them) wrote about Jesus. The only writings about Jesus came later.

Say I write a book about how my grandfather did all these newsworthy things like created a horde of zombies that went on a rampage. Now you look back at the newspapers around the time I say he did these things and don't find anything.

Now that doesn't mean he didn't do those things, the newspapers could have just not recorded them. But if the claims are fantastic in nature and there's no corrobarative contemporary evidence then only the gullible would believe it on my testimony alone.

Agreed.



Reliability isn't the issue, time frame is. No contemporary 1st century historians in that area (and we have writings from around 20 of them) wrote about Jesus. The only writings about Jesus came later.

Say I write a book about how my grandfather did all these newsworthy things like created a horde of zombies that went on a rampage. Now you look back at the newspapers around the time I say he did these things and don't find anything.

Now that doesn't mean he didn't do those things, the newspapers could have just not recorded them. But if the claims are fantastic in nature and there's no corrobarative contemporary evidence then only the gullible would believe it on my testimony alone.

I'm not implying your testimony. Everything we see can only be spread by word of mouth is all I'm trying to say. Regardless of it's recorded time frame, doesn't change the time frame I believe it happend. To me, it obviously wasn't recorded correctly, but that's something impossible to prove. It's just all that takes away my spiritual concequences of sin. I wouldn't be a happy person without it. Didn't like myself before I became religion, I became religious because I didn't like what I had made of myself. I don't run around "oh praise jesus. How are you today! Have you found Jesus?! I honor him and let others know I do, and if they're cerious I'd love to talk about it with them.

It's the most logical way for me to comprehend existance. How this earth came to be and how we came to be is just seems too impossible without a creator.

Do you atleast see where I'm coming from? If I have any gaps in my faith, address them, I'd like to know to help myself further understand what I believe and why.

I've said it before but not here, factual evidence deletes the purpose of faith. Even to unbelievers faith is more than just a word. Faith is useless if you only believe factual evidence, and the fact that we haven't proven all facts at this stage of humanity means you need faith in facts.

Do you atleast see where I'm coming from? If I have any gaps in my faith, address them, I'd like to know to help myself further understand what I believe and why.

I think what you're saying is that all our recorded history is just heresay. Sure, I believe that. Lots of the stuff we routinely believe is probably wrong. I believe a guy called Isac Newton discovered the three laws of physics that are named after him. But who knows, perhaps his mistress discovered them and he's just taking the credit.

I think what you're saying is that all our recorded history is just heresay. Sure, I believe that. Lots of the stuff we routinely believe is probably wrong. I believe a guy called Isac Newton discovered the three laws of physics that are named after him. But who knows, perhaps his mistress discovered them and he's just taking the credit.

You have to see it to believe it. Or have faith. Lol, man has to interpret his surroundings logic is there whether we're able to comprehend it or not. the laws of physics were made by a man, as are the laws of anything else. we put what we see and think into words

Like I said earlier, you have to have faith in the logic of fact. Fact is merely what we observe and why we think what is, what we feel is not fact, it's observation. What we see and it's concequences are fact.

Like I said earlier, you have to have faith in the logic of fact. Fact is merely what we observe and why we think what is, what we feel is not fact, it's observation. What we see and it's concequences are fact.

That statement is contridicting. what I'm trying to say is feeling and knowing are different, and everything we know is based on what we feel.

You having a conversation with yourself?

if a soldier kills to protect his family and country has he sined? surly his victims family and country men would think so. for many centuries, the lending of money for profit was thought to be a sin yet many religious people use credit cards and work in banking with a clear conscientious. the concept of sin , like good and evil are relative terms and not absolutes.

You have to see it to believe it. Or have faith. Lol, man has to interpret his surroundings logic is there whether we're able to comprehend it or not. the laws of physics were made by a man, as are the laws of anything else. we put what we see and think into words

The laws of physics were named by man, not made by a man.

Remember when you were a kid, and a moldy old uncle comes from out of down and gives you a present you didn't ask for? Your parents made you play with and fuss over the present because of the effort your uncle went to.

It's the same with Christianity. Jesus paid for our sins. And he paid a great deal, greater than asking price according to some Christians. So out of our enforced gratitude we must make his sacrifice worthwhile. It is our obligation to sin as much as possible. If we have a choice to sin or not sin, we must choose to sin. If we don't, Jesus' sacrifice was in vain.

How did you know my Uncle molested me?

The laws of physics were named by man, not made by a man.

exactly, all I was trying to say is it's there regardless. Just because you give it a name doesn't mean it put itself in motion. Much like the cock spinning in my av..

also,

Tacitus was a Roman historian who reffered to "Christus" in a few sentances. Christus means the anointed. It could refer to one person or many people. And there is no mention of a first name.

Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.

The paragraph on Jesus was added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"


No one here can show historical evidence of Jesus Christ, yet so many of you believe in him.

Josephus was not a contemporary historian. He was born in the year 37 C.E., several years after Jesus' alleged death. There is no way he could have known about Jesus from is own personal experience. At best, he could have recorded the activities of the new cult of Christianity, and what they said about their crucified leader. So, even if Josephus wrote about Jesus, it is not a credible source.

The paragraph on Jesus was added to Josephus's work at the beginning of the 4th century, during Constantine's reign, probably by or under the order of Bishop Eusebius, who was known for saying that it was permissible for Christians to lie in order to further the Kingdom of God. This behavior is justified directly in the New Testament, where Paul writes in the 3rd Chapter of Romans: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also judged as a sinner?"




No one here can show historical evidence of Jesus Christ, yet so many of you believe in him.


you bring up an interesting point; that history is often altered to meet the social/political needs of the 'present'. Have you read 'Holy Blood Holy Grail'?
It was the book that started the historical conspiracy craze of the '90s.

http://www.thevesselofgod.com/Holy_Blood_Holy_Grail.jpg

Have you followed anything that has gone on with this book and it's author at all?

Dan Brown's Davinci Code was based on this book. So Ole Henry Lincoln attempted to sue Brown for 65 mil and since Lincoln stated it was historical fact and not fiction, that you cannot copyright history, so he lost!

In the meantime, Dateline NBC completely exposed the priori of sion as an utter fraudulent organization started by some kook that died in 1989. So ole' Henry Lincoln says "I refuse... to think... that I was duped" and he turns his nose up at the dateline guys. It was hilarious how his pride not only lost him 65 mil but also all the little amount of fame he had gotten which was really given to him by Dan Brown's popularity in the first place.

That's what I call PWNT!

yes I'm aware of some of the authors attempts to sue Dan Brown wihich I knew was doomed to fail. And In the book and more so in the sequel 'The Messianic Legacy' Micheal Baigent makes it pretty clear that the only modern role that the Priory de Sion played was that of antinazi propaganda. But I don't think any of that sullies any of the distinctions the authors' made regarding the conflict between the Essean based religion of which jesus was a member versus the roman cult of jesus mandated by Constantine.

I'm going to pick that book up tomorrow.

Also, why must we sin? Well since no one can prove Jesus ever existed, we sin because people are reckless and emotional.

yes I'm aware of some of the authors attempts to sue Dan Brown wihich I knew was doomed to fail. And In the book and more so in the sequel 'The Messianic Legacy' Micheal Baigent makes it pretty clear that the only modern role that the Priory de Sion played was that of antinazi propaganda. But I don't think any of that sullies any of the distinctions the authors' made regarding the conflict between the Essean based religion of which jesus was a member versus the roman cult of jesus mandated by Constantine.

Amazing how you can pick and choose. Fortunately the Bible we don't have to, because it's all true and can be relied upon always. God said that Heavens and earth will fall away before one word is destroyed in His Word. That's awesome! And it's still true today, because we stiill have the Bible, complete, inerrant, and proof for all that a Christian believes. What do you have?

I'm going to pick that book up tomorrow.

Also, why must we sin? Well since no one can prove Jesus ever existed, we sin because people are reckless and emotional.

Why are people reckless and emotional? Bet you don't know why that is?

It says why in the Bible. Bet you didn't know that either. Go look it up.

One thing I thought was cool for all the science followers is that Isaac Newton was a Christian who founded more in science than anyone I can think of.

One thing I thought was cool for all the war followers is that Adolf Hitler was a Christian who killed more people than anyone I can think of.

One thing I thought was cool for all the war followers is that Adolf Hitler was a Christian who killed more people than anyone I can think of.

corruption exists in all walks of life. "thou shalt not kill"

He was on more meth and mdma than Rick James and Jim Morrision put together.

"thou shalt not kill"

That's part of the old testament law that Jesus abolished. It doesn't apply any more.

That's part of the old testament law that Jesus abolished. It doesn't apply any more.

Sweet, there's acouple people I need say hi to..

There's still right and wrong. All that was abolished was what was needed for forgiveness.

Leave it to the Jew to bring up Hitler... Good job! Oh and Hitler did not live as a Christian at all. He didn't have Christ as his personal savior. You are mistake AGAIN!

Which means...


wait for it..

yes, I think so!


PWNED!

Why are people reckless and emotional? Bet you don't know why that is?

It says why in the Bible. Bet you didn't know that either. Go look it up.

Because we all live in a fishbowl right? or is it an Ant farm? Which does the bible describe?

Leave it to the Jew to bring up Hitler... Good job! Oh and Hitler did not live as a Christian at all. He didn't have Christ as his personal savior. You are mistake AGAIN!

Which means...


wait for it..

yes, I think so!


PWNED!


Leave it to the jew? Hitler murdered millions that effects all of us. Christians love all people but never think twice at talking down to others because of their "one true god".. Christians should be described as Muslims are on Fox News, it's more honest that way.

Leave it to the jew? Hitler murdered millions that effects all of us. Christians love all people but never think twice at talking down to others because of their "one true god".. Christians should be described as Muslims are on Fox News, it's more honest that way.

exactly, christians are so overly proud to be christian. i've even seen shirts that say, "proud follower of christ." isn't pride a sin?

all christians are going to hell, only mormons will be saved.

exactly, christians are so overly proud to be christian. i've even seen shirts that say, "proud follower of christ." isn't pride a sin?

all christians are going to hell, only mormons will be saved.

yeah man.

when the world ends all the mormons are going to party on another planet with strippers and black jack.

all christians are going to hell, only mormons will be saved.


Too much southpark for you.

Too much southpark for you.

one can never have too much south park.

that's like saying one is having too much sex... or to some degree.

one can never have too much south park.

that's like saying one is having too much sex... or to some degree.

War Southpark!

War Southpark!

finally, a corner of yours i can stand on.

finally, a corner of yours i can stand on.

*high five