Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

Thats because Jesus never preached religious Christianity...he preached more relationship with God, to be a family with him rather than to be religious about it...Jesus did not like the Pharisees since they focused on religion rather than the relationship with their Creator...so therefore the people who claim to be Christians and live religiously are really not Christians at all....they try to please God through works and not through faith, which was one of the essential teachings of Christ...

Flee...the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul are so far apart...they might just as well be separate religions.

Quote:

Flee...the focus of Jesus and the focus of Paul are so far apart...they might just as well be separate religions.

Frank...how so

Well, in my understanding paul preached the love of Jesus to people, he stressed that Jesus still loves him even though his apparent "dick" problem was so big...he also preached acceptance through faith and not work...saying that Jesus loved us so much he offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice of love....and that's why paul is saved...not because of him but because of the love of Jesus....

Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.

Quote:

Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.

Do you fully understand it...and if you do, explain...

CarbonSystem wrote:

I thought the part about eating red meat is especially ridiculous. My question about the bible is this, who was given the power to write the words that are now reveered as holy? We have no idea now who wrote them. They can be wild exaggerations and sometimes even totally false, and yet some people take the messages literally.

Too bad there wasnt a way to track the ' writers ' of the bible. i would be interested ( not in a religious sence ) to see the line of hands that have written and re written the bible over the few hundred years it has been in existance.
Even today, we can watch people pick up the bible, read it , then explain it as THEY see the meaning. Church leaders, deacons, pastors the like.. ALL do just that. So I agree with your question.. And I pose another one.

The catholic church, today, is changing the bible to include more of the mother mary's life in it. They say themselves that ' as an important person in the story of jesus, she has no record of her life for people to learn from'.
Hmm... so where are they getting this record? What the hell??? They were not there. So are they going to speculate and make that holy?
There are 7 diffrent versions of the bible. All popular, and have spawned thier own versions of christianity. With something so diluded and physical visable proof that it is diluded on a daily basis, how does a book warrant the 'set in stone' life rules???? >sigh<
this is one of the many reasons I am not christian and continue to question that religion.

What is that supposed to mean?

Granted, stuff has changed since the Old Testament times. So why has it only changed on some things and not others? If the Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev. 18:22), and it is accepted today, then how come back then slavery was pretty much encouraged (Lev 25:44,45) while today it is an outrage?

SmokingFire wrote:

Quote:

Of all the aspects of Christianity that I find disgusting...this John 3:16 is the most abhorant.

Do you fully understand it...and if you do, explain...

Yes I do.

Do you?

And if you suppose you do...would you be so kind as to tell me what you think the story is about?

First off, I don't understand the 7 versions and 7 churches thing. As for the "Virgin Mary" thing, this is a problem. You cant contain all of Christendom into just Catholicism. Protestants, for example, do not place any where near the significance on her as Catholics. The problem started with the early church fathers at the council of Nicea and Ephesus in the 4th and 5th centuries. The early fathers (as they are referred to) were trying to decide about what should be done with Jesus and the parts of his being. The question was whether his humanity was separate from the part that was God (a familiar Gnostic tradition stating that Jesus was a ghost and physically absent from the cross) or if he was one complete and the two parts just sort of melted together so to say. The discussion took a swing at the Council of Ephesus where it was decided that in order for a woman to carry a god, she must also be perfect. On the side from everything else, Ephesus was also the center for the worship of Artemis Diana, the mother goddess of Roman pagan tradition who was born perfect. This tradition was carried out into later invocations of Papal infallibility stating that Mary also "ascended into heaven" (being perfect, she did not have the capacity for death). Pope John Paul is attempting, or was at one point, to invoke infallibility again declaring Mary the co-redemptrix, meaning she also redeems sins like Christ.
Martin Luther at the Council of Trent rebuked many stances of the Roman Church, eventually calling the church on their obsession with Mary.
I say this all to now say, its not like that with everyone. Yes, it is messed up. Mary was a carrier of something greater than herself.
Oh, and much of the information for the life of Mary is from material previously taken from the Christian canon. If you are interested, check out the Gnostic works of Nag Hammadi. Also, the Infancy Gospels have some information but was deemed uninspired.

I am about to leave now, I have to go and let my spirit go...but Frank I would love to hear your points on my comment of John 3:16 and see your points on it, whether you believe I have a full understanding on it, or if you have some questions you would like for me to answer.

Peace and blessings to you all! :wink:

SmokingFire wrote:

I am about to leave now, I have to go and let my spirit go...but Frank I would love to hear your points on my comment of John 3:16 and see your points on it, whether you believe I have a full understanding on it, or if you have some questions you would like for me to answer.

Peace and blessings to you all! :wink:

Nah...I have no questions at all.

So let's be at it.

Here are some of my thoughts on the notions contained in John 3:16...and in your post, SF.


A sin...as I was taught, is an infraction against one of the many laws of your god. Essentially, it is a thought, word, or deed that offends the god.

According to you theistic folk...we all sin. In other words, we all do things that offend your god.

Now you seem to think that "sacrifice" is needed to your god for some reason or another...and that Jesus "sacrificed" himself for your sins.

Once again...essentially...this means that your god would forgive you your sins...

...that is, your god will forgive you for offending (him)...

...but was unwilling to do so without a sacrifice.

And you theist folk seem to think that the sacrifice needed to get the god to cooperate...had to be a significant sacrifice.

You folks also say that this god sent (his) son to Earth to make that sacrifice.

Now...you know better than I what terrible things you have done to offend your god...but I simply cannot conceive of them being so horrible that someone had to be tortured and killed in order for your god to forgive you for them.

And I cannot conceive of anything that would make me love, honor, adore, or worship a god so disgusting that (he) would be offeded by so much...and who would demand that you first torture and kills (his) son before forgiving any of it.


Consider all this...and let's discuss it.

Genises 1:26
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Exodus 30:10
Once a year Aaron shall make atonement on its horns. This annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. It is most holy to the LORD ."