Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[comic boy]

You are all wrong. It says so here in my very old book, written by very old people...and it is always right.

Please read these passages:

• Asshattery 8:2
• Beer II 11:15
• Sexos 2:9
• Arrogance & Flatulence 16:2

There....you see now?

I have that book. Talks about a giant and a beanstalk and it must be correct.

hahahahahahahahah funny

What you don't get is that the Bible wasn't taken down from heaven with clouds and trumpets and angels, the material within it was chosen by the Council of Nicea based on what could be ontologically or empirically proved.

Providing of course it all fitted in nicely with the doctrine of the Holy Roman Church, otherwise it was dismissed and anybody choosing to believe in such material branded a heretic.Dont get me wrong it was a sound business decision but these things are based on practicality not piety or devotion to the truth.

[Napoleon Ier]

Providing of course it all fitted in nicely with the doctrine of the Holy Roman Church

exactly. doctrine which is...ontologically proved by Church Fathers

[MelonanadeMaster]

You are all wrong. It says so here in my very old book, written by very old people...and it is always right.

Please read these passages:

• Asshattery 8:2
• Beer II 11:15
• Sexos 2:9
• Arrogance & Flatulence 16:2

There....you see now?

I have that book. Talks about a giant and a beanstalk and it must be correct.

hahahahahahahahah funny

What you don't get is that the Bible wasn't taken down from heaven with clouds and trumpets and angels, the material within it was chosen by the Council of Nicea based on what could be ontologically or empirically proved.

I've agreed with most of your posts, but the council of Nicea didn't affirm the Canon of Scripture. However the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome did. The council of Nicea's purpose was primarily discussing whether Arianism (spell?) was Christian, and if Easter should be celebrated instead of Passover. It also changed the Sabath to Sunday.

[MR. Nate]

Providing of course it all fitted in nicely with the doctrine of the Holy Roman Church, otherwise it was dismissed and anybody choosing to believe in such material branded a heretic.Dont get me wrong it was a sound business decision but these things are based on practicality not piety or devotion to the truth.

You fell like practicality and piety should conflict? Perhaps they went with what they knew they could defend because they were confident it was the truth. And the NT was well decided on at least 75 years prior to Nicea. Nicea was in 325, and dealt with primarily the person of Christ.

Beastly, I wasn't questioning the principle of scripture supporting scripture, I think it's an important part of the hermeneutical process. But I don't think you can have "2 or 3 witnesses" as a hard fast rule.

[THORNHEART]

yes thats true...though most who met at the cuncil of niccea cant be considered atcually christian in the sense of christ dieing for sin and belief in him is what is required for salvation ...they were more like catholics

[MR. Nate]

Care to offer evidence for that?

[Napoleon Ier]

You are all wrong. It says so here in my very old book, written by very old people...and it is always right.

Please read these passages:

• Asshattery 8:2
• Beer II 11:15
• Sexos 2:9
• Arrogance & Flatulence 16:2

There....you see now?

I have that book. Talks about a giant and a beanstalk and it must be correct.

hahahahahahahahah funny

What you don't get is that the Bible wasn't taken down from heaven with clouds and trumpets and angels, the material within it was chosen by the Council of Nicea based on what could be ontologically or empirically proved.

I've agreed with most of your posts, but the council of Nicea didn't affirm the Canon of Scripture. However the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome did. The council of Nicea's purpose was primarily discussing whether Arianism (spell?) was Christian, and if Easter should be celebrated instead of Passover. It also changed the Sabath to Sunday.

Ok, Canon wasn't closed til Trent, but the basic point still stands, and Nicea was where the main outlines of the Bible as we know it wer drawn up.

[Napoleon Ier]

yes thats true...though most who met at the cuncil of niccea cant be considered atcually christian in the sense of christ dieing for sin and belief in him is what is required for salvation ...they were more like catholics

You need to sort out your definition of Christian there

[muy_thaiguy]

yes thats true...though most who met at the cuncil of niccea cant be considered atcually christian in the sense of christ dieing for sin and belief in him is what is required for salvation ...they were more like catholics

You need to sort out your definition of Christian there

No kidding.

[MR. Nate]

Ok, Canon wasn't closed til Trent, but the basic point still stands, and Nicea was where the main outlines of the Bible as we know it wer drawn up.

I would say the main points of Christology where confirmed, not "drawn up." You're making it sound like that was when they decided Jesus was God. In fact, most of the early heresies denied Christ's humanity, and the Gospel of John (Already relied upon heavily before Nicea) gives a lot of evidence for His Deity.

[MelonanadeMaster]

Ok, Canon wasn't closed til Trent, but the basic point still stands, and Nicea was where the main outlines of the Bible as we know it wer drawn up.

I would say the main points of Christology where confirmed, not "drawn up." You're making it sound like that was when they decided Jesus was God. In fact, most of the early heresies denied Christ's humanity, and the Gospel of John (Already relied upon heavily before Nicea) gives a lot of evidence for His Deity.

I don't deny what you said, but the huge heresy of the time was Arianism, a belief that held Christ as a lesser, a demi-god.

[MelonanadeMaster]

yes thats true...though most who met at the cuncil of niccea cant be considered atcually christian in the sense of christ dieing for sin and belief in him is what is required for salvation ...they were more like catholics

Lol are Catholics not Christian now? What has Bob Jones been spoon feeding you?

[Napoleon Ier]

Ok, Canon wasn't closed til Trent, but the basic point still stands, and Nicea was where the main outlines of the Bible as we know it wer drawn up.

I would say the main points of Christology where confirmed, not "drawn up." You're making it sound like that was when they decided Jesus was God. In fact, most of the early heresies denied Christ's humanity, and the Gospel of John (Already relied upon heavily before Nicea) gives a lot of evidence for His Deity.

I don't deny what you said, but the huge heresy of the time was Arianism, a belief that held Christ as a lesser, a demi-god.

I...never said anything to the Aquinian contrario

[Backglass]

But I don't think you can have "2 or 3 witnesses" as a hard fast rule.

Agreed...you need 11. It worked for Joseph Smith when he wanted to invent his religion after all.

[bradleybadly]

But I don't think you can have "2 or 3 witnesses" as a hard fast rule.

Agreed...you need 11. It worked for Joseph Smith when he wanted to invent his religion after all.

haha. One of the best lines I've seen.

[viperbitex]

Yea, I don't believe in god due to the fact that he made the healthy foods taste like shit.

Amen

[MelonanadeMaster]

By the way, I had to ask, are you Catholic, Napoleon Ier

[comic boy]

By the way, I had to ask, are you Catholic, Napoleon Ier

Well he's not a Cathar

[daddy1gringo]

First, thank you for answering.

You are welcome. It’s my pleasure. Though I still haven’t really answered your question, yet. I am genuinely sorry it took so long to get back to you. As for this, I’m afraid you’re badly missing my point.

So according to you, If God “showed himself” as you think he should, what he would get as a result would be thousands, or millions, more people mentally acknowledging his existence and going through “Christian” rituals out of obligation, because they think they should, but still not loving him.

No. I am saying that you wouldn't just automatically start "loving" this supernatural being, simply because he finally showed up. If your father left your mother when you were a baby, and then showed up 40 years later, would you just blindly love him?

My point exactly. The appearing you are saying he should do would result only in obedience out of obligation, at best. Not love. Therefore it would be worse than a waste of time. The reason you think that’s what he “would do if he existed” is that you’re totally mistaken about who he is and what he’s up to.

he’s already got more of it then he could ever figure out what to do with. The churches are filled (especially on Christmas and Easter) with people who go because they believe they must, but don’t want to be there because they have no real relationship with Jesus; because they don’t love him.

I agree 100%. In fact I believe this is 90% of the church going population if not more.

However THOSE 90% probably WOULD love him instantly if he popped in. It sure would be an easy way to get the whole "flock" to snap to attention. Don't you think?

Not at all. You said yourself this appearing would not inspire love. “Snapping to attention” is one thing. Love is another entirely

And according to you, you would reluctantly bow and serve something that you hate, simply because you were trapped and had no choice. No wonder you won’t believe in him. I don’t blame you one bit. What a dismal prospect. I wouldn’t do that either.

First, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't hate gods.

I was referring to this:

I doubt seriously everyone would fall madly in love with the creature that created disease...that allowed loved ones to suffer, that stood idly by as the world was at war and let children die of hunger.

Call it contempt instead of hate, it certainly would become hate after the first bow, or the first act of forced service. That’s what I meant. Having to bow and serve something/one you felt that way about. That would be miserable. Unless I overestimate you, I don’t think you’d really do that anyway, and good for you if you wouldn’t. As I said, no, that’s not his purpose. I serve Him because I love him.

Why do you find it so sad that I wouldn't fall madly in love with something I have never seen before? I don't see how that is rational at all. If Leprechauns showed themselves, would you fall madly in love with them?

Once again, that’s my point. I don’t have a problem with the fact that his proving his existence would not make you, or anyone else, love him. We both agree that it makes perfect sense that it would not. That’s why he doesn’t do it that way.

There’s your answer to why he doesn’t do that. That is NOT what he wants, from you or from the world. No, his purpose is not to crowd more people into churches or to force some certain kind of behavior. He’s all about relationship. Always has been. He’s a hopeless romantic.

No answers there. Thats YOU excusing away why your gods haven't been seen in 2000 years. Besides...I thought it's purpose was to save everyone from hell and get us all to love it. No? You would think it would do whatever it could to make that happen.

So explain to me again how undeniably proving His existence and putting everyone to forced labor is going to make anyone love anyone? Especially when you just (rightly) ridiculed the idea yourself? Like I said, there’s the answer to why he doesn’t do that.

We’ve been over and over the theology of suffering in the world, and to what degree, though he is “pantokrator” there are things he “can not do” by definition, because if you force a “choice” it is not a “choice”, and so with “love” and with “will”; and how all that is happening is necessary for a greater good, when he will wipe away every tear, when all the suffering of this world will seem like a small thing set against the joy he has prepared.

Glorious words and excuses for a superstition.

Question begging.

It certainly is complicated for a all powerful all knowing supernatural being. All these rules. It cant do this or it wont do that. Men have come up with these excuses over the centuries to explain away the nagging questions and shut up the people asking them.

Not complicated at all unless you choose not to see. It’s things where “can’t do” is a matter of semantics, not power. You force a “choice”, it’s not a choice, so you can’t force a choice, by definition. That’s not a lack of power, it’s a parlor game with semantics. You force “love”, it’s not love, by definition. Etc.

You don’t believe it, and I don’t blame you. You don’t know him. When you know him, know his character, all the issues work themselves out, because you know what he is capable of, and what he is not.

No. You don't "know" any supernatural beings.

This one I had to laugh at. Listen to you trying to tell me who I do and do not know.

Christians freely use the word instead of "study" or "devote".

Yes I do study about him and devote myself to him. I also know him. And I know the difference. I have been walking and talking with Him, and working together with him since probably before you were born. I know his voice when he speaks to me. I know his character, and his sense of humor. You can thumb your nose and throw Bronx cheers at that all you want; it doesn’t affect that a bit. You might as well try to tell me I don’t know my wife and daughters; or I might as well try to tell you that you don’t know yours.

Someone with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an opinion.

That’s why His way is better than your guess. You are married, no? Did logic tell you she was the one for you and that you should get married? Then stop all this “I live my life totally by logic” crap. In many, if not all of the important issues of life, the heart is a better judge of truth than the head. As we have observed, intellect is inconclusive on this subject; you can’t prove either way. You have to search your heart for truth, and when you do that honestly, you find him there waiting for you.

All for now. More later.

[comic boy]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

[MR. Nate]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

So when someone dies, you just stoically accept the death and move on, because emotions are just interesting, not practical? You don't tell you wife/gf you love her because clearly, it is only a logical/practical relationship? And your parents? Clearly you wouldn't do anything for them. They did a bunch for you, but in the cold light of logic, that's a net gain for you, sorry to them. Their contributions are no longer necessary, it doesn't matter, your not emotionally involved.

Either you don't practice what you have stated here (which makes me wonder if you believe it) or you're kind of a jerk.

[Snorri1234]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

So when someone dies, you just stoically accept the death and move on, because emotions are just interesting, not practical? You don't tell you wife/gf you love her because clearly, it is only a logical/practical relationship? And your parents? Clearly you wouldn't do anything for them. They did a bunch for you, but in the cold light of logic, that's a net gain for you, sorry to them. Their contributions are no longer necessary, it doesn't matter, your not emotionally involved.

Either you don't practice what you have stated here (which makes me wonder if you believe it) or you're kind of a jerk.

What does this have to do with what comic boy said? Emotion isn't exactly the best judge of things. It's why I don't support the death-penalty even though I sometimes feel angry at some criminals and wish they died.
Don't let emotion cloud your judgement. If my girlfriend asked me to kill somebody I wouldn't do it, no matter how much I love her.

[MelonanadeMaster]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

So when someone dies, you just stoically accept the death and move on, because emotions are just interesting, not practical? You don't tell you wife/gf you love her because clearly, it is only a logical/practical relationship? And your parents? Clearly you wouldn't do anything for them. They did a bunch for you, but in the cold light of logic, that's a net gain for you, sorry to them. Their contributions are no longer necessary, it doesn't matter, your not emotionally involved.

Either you don't practice what you have stated here (which makes me wonder if you believe it) or you're kind of a jerk.

What does this have to do with what comic boy said? Emotion isn't exactly the best judge of things. It's why I don't support the death-penalty even though I sometimes feel angry at some criminals and wish they died.
Don't let emotion cloud your judgement. If my girlfriend asked me to kill somebody I wouldn't do it, no matter how much I love her.

Normaly the reason people support the death penalty is because they're tired of having they're tax dollars used to keep alive rapists and murderers.

[Snorri1234]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

So when someone dies, you just stoically accept the death and move on, because emotions are just interesting, not practical? You don't tell you wife/gf you love her because clearly, it is only a logical/practical relationship? And your parents? Clearly you wouldn't do anything for them. They did a bunch for you, but in the cold light of logic, that's a net gain for you, sorry to them. Their contributions are no longer necessary, it doesn't matter, your not emotionally involved.

Either you don't practice what you have stated here (which makes me wonder if you believe it) or you're kind of a jerk.

What does this have to do with what comic boy said? Emotion isn't exactly the best judge of things. It's why I don't support the death-penalty even though I sometimes feel angry at some criminals and wish they died.
Don't let emotion cloud your judgement. If my girlfriend asked me to kill somebody I wouldn't do it, no matter how much I love her.

Normaly the reason people support the death penalty is because they're tired of having they're tax dollars used to keep alive rapists and murderers.

Ah, so instead they want to spend way more tax dollars killing them off?
Yeah, that's very reasonable.....

[MelonanadeMaster]

The heart is rarely a better judge than the head, emotion is more interesting than logic but often flatters to decieve. One may believe they are talking to God but perhaps they are talking to themselves, there are no certainties just probabilities.

So when someone dies, you just stoically accept the death and move on, because emotions are just interesting, not practical? You don't tell you wife/gf you love her because clearly, it is only a logical/practical relationship? And your parents? Clearly you wouldn't do anything for them. They did a bunch for you, but in the cold light of logic, that's a net gain for you, sorry to them. Their contributions are no longer necessary, it doesn't matter, your not emotionally involved.

Either you don't practice what you have stated here (which makes me wonder if you believe it) or you're kind of a jerk.

What does this have to do with what comic boy said? Emotion isn't exactly the best judge of things. It's why I don't support the death-penalty even though I sometimes feel angry at some criminals and wish they died.
Don't let emotion cloud your judgement. If my girlfriend asked me to kill somebody I wouldn't do it, no matter how much I love her.

Normaly the reason people support the death penalty is because they're tired of having they're tax dollars used to keep alive rapists and murderers.

Ah, so instead they want to spend way more tax dollars killing them off?
Yeah, that's very reasonable.....

How much does a bullet cost?