Which Religion is the One True Religion?

We all know it's BS, cause there's no way to reconcile their contradictions. They keep adding 2 plus 2 equals 5, but doesn't understand there's no logic in their answer.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hummmm.

Neo says we are no longer under the law.

Here is what Jesus says about that:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5: 17ff

NOT ONE WORD; NOT ONE LETTER; NOT ONE PART OF A LETTER!

I wonder if it makes sense to take Neo's word...or the word of Jesus on that????

Hummmm!!!!

Frank, the original intentions of the law were to make life between humans peaceful, men were to follow them because they love God and their fellow man, when man started following the laws for the sake of following the rules, then God decided that he would sacrifice his son on Earth so that we may see how much he loves us, and to restart that fire and relationship we once had.

It is true Jesus did not change the law, he fulfilled it for us...imagine it this way, the law is on a piece of paper, Jesus does not alter the paper at all, he merely pockets it, and makes it so we don't have to be held accountable to the law anymore....now did he change the law? NO!

0 Replies

God sacrificed his son? You mean to tell us jesus didn't have free will? OMG, even god contradicts himself! LOL

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
Hummmm.

Neo says we are no longer under the law.

Here is what Jesus says about that:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5: 17ff

NOT ONE WORD; NOT ONE LETTER; NOT ONE PART OF A LETTER!

I wonder if it makes sense to take Neo's word...or the word of Jesus on that????

Hummmm!!!!

Frank, the original intentions of the law were to make life between humans peaceful, men were to follow them because they love God and their fellow man, when man started following the laws for the sake of following the rules, then God decided that he would sacrifice his son on Earth so that we may see how much he loves us, and to restart that fire and relationship we once had.

It is true Jesus did not change the law, he fulfilled it for us...imagine it this way, the law is on a piece of paper, Jesus does not alter the paper at all, he merely pockets it, and makes it so we don't have to be held accountable to the law anymore....now did he change the law? NO!

Should I take your word on that....considering you have an ulterior motive for asserting this tortured bit of logic...

...or should I take the word of Jesus...who could not have made his position any plainer.

Of course, you may be suggesting that Jesus was a bit stupid...and could not put his notions into the very clear and understandable way you are able to do.

Is that it?

Good grief...no wonder this world is in the shape it is. The people who proclaim themselves best equipped to guide it are insane.

0 Replies

Quote:

God sacrificed his son? You mean to tell us jesus didn't have free will? OMG, even god contradicts himself! LOL

Of course Jesus had free-will, and he still let horrible people hang him on a cross. That's how much he loves us.

Quote:

Should I take your word on that....considering you have an ulterior motive for asserting this tortured bit of logic...

...or should I take the word of Jesus...who could not have made his position any plainer.

Of course, you may be suggesting that Jesus was a bit stupid...and could not put his notions into the very clear and understandable way you are able to do.

Is that it?

Good grief...no wonder this world is in the shape it is. The people who proclaim themselves best equipped to guide it are insane.

Frank, you are the most close-minded person I have ever encountered, you bring up something in the bible to dispute, I give an explanation, and you act as though you had your fingers in your ears while I was talking. It's laughable how badly you are trying to make the bible a joke. Neo and I have given ample explanations, and you don't even listen to them. You are never going to find understanding when your mindset is one that won't even attempt to find out the truth. We know what your problem was with the Bible, and we have given an answer to your misunderstanding, are you really neutral, are you an ally to truth, or to ignorance and agnosticism? Think about it...

0 Replies

Why did jesus say, "why has thou forsaken me?" on the cross?

0 Replies

He was still man, he was in terrible pain, and he did nothing wrong...who do you think he was talking to anyways?

0 Replies

Nothing like complaining about pain when you're sacrificed to save the whole human race.

0 Replies

thunder, sophistry is not explanation, nor is internally referential circular argument a valid means of refutation or rebuttal, nor is opinion, hearsay, and anecdote evidence of anything, nor are straw man, red herring, and circumlocution valid forensic methods, but those are all you, and your compatriots here in this discussion, have offered.

Now, the Bible per se isn't a "joke", but the way most bible-thumpers/evangelicals/born-agains/assorted-other-similarly-deludeds go about trying to validate it - and the rest of their fairytale superstitions - certainly is a joke. As I've said before, strong arguments for Christianity and/or the Bible can be and have been made (cf. Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, and William Lane Craig, among others ); not that those arguments necessarily prove the case, mind you, but strong, forensically valid arguments in support of either proposition - the Bible and/or Christianity - can be made, both independently and in context with one another. So far, no one in this discussion even has approached, let alone presented, anything resembling any of those arguments.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

neologist wrote:
Frank;
Old Testament
New Testament
I rest my case.

Wouldn't you simple minded, poor deluded fool wish it were that simple.

But as I pointed out to Rex up above....Jesus worshipped the god of the Old Testament. Unless you want to suggest that Jesus was wrong in doing so....and unless you want to suggest that Jesus was lying when he said he DID NOT come to change the law....

...then the "Old Testament/New Testament" argument is horseshyt.

Do you want to say any of those things....or would you prefer to continue with this asinine rationalization nonsense to continue to amuse us?

It's hard to argue with you Frank. If I said the restraints of the Mosaic law continued after Jesus' death, you would ask me how come the early Christians didn't worship at the temple; how could Paul argue against circumcision, etc. blah, blah, blah.

I'm not asking you to believe the bible, Frank. But your post indicates a separation of reality from cognition.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

God sacrificed his son? You mean to tell us jesus didn't have free will? OMG, even god contradicts himself! LOL

Here's something even more shocking CI. Have you kept up on your heart medication? Promise me you won't die laughing.

Jesus actually wanted to endure the sacrifice. Can you believe it? Oh, excuse me. I should never have asked.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here is what Jesus had to say about that:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you: UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, NOT THE SMALLEST LETTER OF THE LAW, NOT THE SMALLEST PART OF A LETTER, SHALL BE DONE AWAY WITH UNTIL IT ALL COME TRUE." Matthew 5: 17ff

He could not be any more plain about it.

Unless you are of the opinion that "heaven and earth have passed away"...and that every forcast of Revelation has come true...THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The admonistion I have quoted CAME FROM THE GOD THAT JESUS WORSHIPPED.

Are you saying that the god Jesus worshipped is bullshyt?

Are you saying that the words Jesus spoke in this regard is bullshyt?

Just what in the hell are you saying?

Ok this is a fair question...

If the law has passed away then this must indicate that the heavens and the earth have passed away too.
The epistles speak of the church of the body of Christ... We the church of are the body of Christ we are member in particular. When Christ Jesus ascended into the heaves and was seated at the right hand of God... the church [being in his body] was seated with him...
So we see the heavens and earth of old being changed into a new heaven and earth...

Eph 2:6
And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

Ro 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

1Co 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Col 3:1
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Comment:
There are a new heaven and earth and we Christians were raised 2000 years ago in the body of Christ. We were judged with Jesus Christ, this is why we are now free from law. We died and were reseurected and we now are free... Christ lived a hell so we could live in heaven.

Maybe Frank instead of being part of the question you can become part of the answer... Smile

0 Replies

I'm not with you on this, Rex. Sorry. Sad

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Quote:
God sacrificed his son? You mean to tell us jesus didn't have free will? OMG, even god contradicts himself! LOL

Of course Jesus had free-will, and he still let horrible people hang him on a cross. That's how much he loves us.

Quote:
Should I take your word on that....considering you have an ulterior motive for asserting this tortured bit of logic...

...or should I take the word of Jesus...who could not have made his position any plainer.

Of course, you may be suggesting that Jesus was a bit stupid...and could not put his notions into the very clear and understandable way you are able to do.

Is that it?

Good grief...no wonder this world is in the shape it is. The people who proclaim themselves best equipped to guide it are insane.

Frank, you are the most close-minded person I have ever encountered, you bring up something in the bible to dispute, I give an explanation, and you act as though you had your fingers in your ears while I was talking. It's laughable how badly you are trying to make the bible a joke. Neo and I have given ample explanations, and you don't even listen to them. You are never going to find understanding when your mindset is one that won't even attempt to find out the truth. We know what your problem was with the Bible, and we have given an answer to your misunderstanding, are you really neutral, are you an ally to truth, or to ignorance and agnosticism? Think about it...

Thunder....the "explanations" you and the others have offered are laughable. You contort logic; distort meanings; revise history....and do who-knows-whatelse...

...in a frantic (completely unsuccessful) attempt to shoehorn the god of the Bible into the god you want to have exist.

It is incredible the blindness and denial you folks bring to the discussion...and then to have the audacity to pretend it is those of us on this side of the argument that possess those defects.

Whatever!

Fear the unknown... if you must.

Pretend to love a god unworthy even of "like"... if you must.

Distort logic; contort reality; revise history; distort meanings....if you must.

We pity you.

My guess is the majority of us would do damn near anything to help you break free of this albatross.

But...if you must...bear it.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Maybe Frank instead of being part of the question you can become part of the answer...

I already am part of the answer, Rex. You simply are unwilling to see that.

Do the same contorting, distorting, and rationalizing that allows Thunder to get through the day....if you must.

We pity you for it....but it is your choice.

0 Replies

Frank, it seems we have come to an impass, shall we agree to disagree? I have tried to explain my point of view, and we have gotten nowhere, maybe you would have to be in my shoes to understand...who knows. Frankly, I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall, and I would like to discuss something that doesn't come down to opinion.

0 Replies

I'm not sure if this applies to Frank or not, but some folks have a vested interest in their disbelief.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

God sacrificed his son? You mean to tell us jesus didn't have free will? OMG, even god contradicts himself! LOL

Sorry, C Imposter. Since Jesus is God and He decided to lay down His own life, maybe you could elaborate, but it's not apparent what contradiction that you are trying to reference here.

Perhaps you are simply unable to fully understand the nature of God. Well, don't feel too bad, because no one else fully understands it either. Finite cannot fully grasp Infinite. So what's new with that?

Our minds cannot even grasp numbers that increase to infinity. It is beyond us to do so. How much more difficult to comprehend an Infinite Being of intelligence , compassion , etc.

Does the paramecium understand the human mind? Hardly. But the paramecium , if he could think, would be foolish to deny what he did not understand.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I'm not sure if this applies to Frank or not, but some folks have a vested interest in their disbelief.

Not sure if Frank could even use the B word with dis- on the front end. Maybe not. But he seems like an alright guy, even though we aren't of the same belief. He reminds me of my Ethics professor in college.

But you are right about a vested interest with some folks if you are referring to the fact that folks build their lives around their belief or lack of. And pride is a huge obstacle to changing any belief as you know from experience. Me too.

But even Frank seems to believe in SOME moral absolutes. I think he would say he is anti-slavery, based on the previous discussion. However, being Agnostic, he technically should not be able to say he KNOWS it is wrong.

Problem is for Frank and the Agnostic camp , if there is a moral Absolute forbidding slavery, or murder, or theft or anything, then it must have a Source. That source cannot be Man or it wouldn't be Absolute, it would be subjective.

To say there is NO Moral Absolutes is a contradiction in terms.

So where did moral Absolutes come from? Does a vested interest in maintaining our current lifestyles allow us to address that question honestly?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

But even Frank seems to believe in SOME moral absolutes.

I do not do "beliefs."

A "belief" is simply making a guess...and disguising the fact that it is a guess by refusing to call it a guess.

I don't do that.

If I am making a guess (or estimate or such)....I clearly identify it as such.

Quote:

I think he would say he is anti-slavery, based on the previous discussion. However, being Agnostic, he technically should not be able to say he KNOWS it is wrong.

I do not consider opposition to things like slavery (or lying, cheating, murder, stealing)....to be "moral absolutes."

I think society...in order to function...can proscibe certain activities because they threaten the orderly functioning of society.

Allowing people to lie, cheat, steal, murder, or arbitrarily grab other humans and place them into involuntary servitude DO threaten the orderly functioning of society...so I do speak out against them and I do suggest it is the right of society to proscibe them by sanctions.

Quote:

Problem is for Frank and the Agnostic camp , if there is a moral Absolute forbidding slavery, or murder, or theft or anything, then it must have a Source. That source cannot be Man or it wouldn't be Absolute, it would be subjective.

I do not think there needs to be this "moral source" in order for societies to make laws. AND THIS STUFF IS SUBJECTIVE.

Your god made all sorts of laws....and now you folks seem to think it is perfectly okay to ignore them. You try to pretend it is okay because of the life and death of Jesus....BUT JESUS HIMSELF SAID THAT THE LAWS STILL APPLY...down to the last word; down to the last letter; down to the last stroke of a letter.

And you are trying to sell this moral absolute nonsense!

C'mon. Give us a break.

Quote:

To say there is NO Moral Absolutes is a contradiction in terms.

Okay....THERE ARE NO MORAL ABSOLUTES!

Now...show me the contradiction in those terms.

(HINT: There ain't any!)

Quote:

So where did moral Absolutes come from?

If you mean like....homosexual activity is an abomination punishable by death....

...from people who invent gods, would be my guess.

If you mean like....slavery is perfectly acceptable morally...

...from people who invent gods, would be my guess again.

Quote:

Does a vested interest in maintaining our current lifestyles allow us to address that question honestly?

YES...and how I wish you guys would do it. What kind of silly fears are preventing you from doing so?

0 Replies

Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know