Alot is not aword.
As Christians we must understand that man is full of sin and can do no good. Our church needs to be strong against sin, right not I see the church as being rather weak. Many are often overly tollerant in order to not offend anyone. To those who ask forgiveness, we must show them the compassion that Christ has shown us. [Notliberal]
I posted the whole note just for context… "man is full of sin and can do no good" – what a terrible and sad view of mankind. It’s bizarre almost –
if we honestly can do no good, I should just as soon punch Ghandi in the face as help an old lady across the street.
I’m glad I’m free of such a morbid, backward, pessimistic, and just plain wrong philosophy.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
"The person of Jesus has been documented far better than many people in that day, and you don’t doubt and argue against them saying it do you?"(ATC’s entry)
Whoa there chief – the Gospels were written long after Jesus died by anonymous writers. Just think about some of the more famous quotes, "only way to the Father is through me" in John.
If the SON OF GOD actually said that, and it’s true, then there’s the GLARING fact that none of the other 3 Gospel writers mentioned it.
This means that the other 3 either didn’t think knowledge of the only way of "getting to the Father" was important (doubt you’d want to defend THAT possibility)
or these writers, collectively, were not all that accurate or knowledgable about what was actually SAID by this person.
Which option would you like to choose?
—————————————————————————————————————————————
in response to a thinking bum’s note.
If he is ready to contest the accuracy of the Bible then he will have to contest, along with it, the accuracy of EVERY other piece of history.
?? It’s so strange that I come across claims like this as often as I do – is there some site that says this, so that Christians know to say it? I mean, it sounds good, but there’s no basis in reality for making this claim. Why would this be so?
"Don’t you see? We believe that Jesus rose from the dead for the same VERY GOOD reasons that we believe that the parthenon was built…because there’s a building that stands to this day…wait…"
His example is bogus, as one person could easily have heard something that others did not. Which would be a good argument FOR the truth of scripture, rather than against it- they covered all sides. [Tashe]
How odd. The fact that the people entrusted to write down the message of the Son of God (an important message) would omit things like, "How to get into heaven" is a good piece of evidence FOR their being reliable messengers. Do you practice thinking contradictory thinking every morning? Seriously, how do you come to these conclusions?
Ok, honestly, if one of them mentioned that Jesus said, "I like peas" while eating dinner one night, and the other Gospel writers didn’t put that little factoid in there – sure, that’s no good reason to doubt the validity of the accounts. But that’s because that kind of statement is COMPLETELY UNIMPORTANT. We have here, supposedly, THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS that Jesus made!
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Another philosphical question(s):
Can you prove life?
what is this question asking? -as far as I can tell, it’s a nonsensical question, like Can you raise economics?
Can you prove that I am talking to you?
Prove is such a strong word – I usually leave that to mathematicians. No, because you’re not talking to me. However, there is a preponderance of evidence, such that when a person is talking to me, it would be absurd to not provisionally accept the conclusion that yes, a person is talking to me.
Can you prove that the sky is in fact blue?
Again with the "prove" – same answer as above.
Can you prove that you can infact "love"?
If you’re asking about emotions, they are internally verifiable, so there’s no problem with those : )
I think we take alot of unproven "facts" for advantage every day. [A Thinking Christian]
alot is not aword
“If he is ready to contest the accuracy of the Bible then he will have to contest, along with it, the accuracy of EVERY other piece of history” It’s interesting that this person thinks this is an arguement against criticising the bible. One of my archaeology professors always says if it’s written down, you have to question it. It’s automatically biased. The only real evidence is physical.
Warning Comment
why are you so passionate in your attempts to constantly prove others wrong? just wondering.
Warning Comment
why are you so passionate in your attempts to constantly prove others wrong? just wondering. taylor. Because I have a strong commitment to truth, fairness, and accuracy.
Warning Comment
Because I have a strong commitment to truth, fairness, and accuracy You running for office or something? That’s a pretty arrogant answer to the question, it implies that the folks you are attempting to prove wrong fall short in their committment to truth, fairness and honesty.
Warning Comment
It seems that many people confuse the idea of “belief” with “knowing something for a fact.” For example, I believe in Buddhism. However, having not met any Buddhas personally (to my knowledge) or personally attained enlightenment I cannot say that I literally KNOW that I am right. I have no irrefutable evidence to back up my beliefs, deep held though they are. I think the world would be a much
Warning Comment
more laid back place if more people were content to admit what they cannot prove.
Warning Comment
“To those who ask forgiveness, we must show them the compassion that Christ has shown us.” And everyone who doesn’t agree with us we ought to condemn! How Christ-like.
Warning Comment
“it implies that the folks you are attempting to prove wrong fall short in their committment to truth, fairness and honesty. haredawg” It only implies that to people who do not read things carefully.
Warning Comment
we should make it a word. see it is easier to type it without that stupid space between a and lot. alot as for this goof don’t forget that people like that live in absolutes. yes no. It’s funny how they spend so much time defending thier thoery that they never really get it. Like when you get these yahoos who claim to be creationist scientists. instead of following the scientific process they
Warning Comment
fight and argue as to why they are right. I have never met a good scientist who didn’t question that which he studied or taught. I’ve had conversations with many a scientist and the ones that stood out were the ones that actually made the effort to question or disprove a thoery. One said “fear of error will make your shoes like concrete and your voice like an explosion” peace and long life
Warning Comment
ryn; So then, if that’s not the implication, then the people you are so passionate to prove wrong have an equal or greater commitment to truth, fairness and accuracy? Then your point must be to committment as opposed to having achieved some modicum of truth, fairness and accuracy. You’ve done nothing to compare or contrast or set criteria for committment. I think you just like kvetching.
Warning Comment
“So then, if that’s not the implication, then the people you are so passionate to prove wrong have an equal or greater commitment to truth, fairness and accuracy?” Gracious NO! What kind of logic have you studied? “You imply these people don’t wear green hats” “No.” “Then, you must think that they DO wear green hats” “Gracious NO!”
Warning Comment
If you answered the question … ‘why so passionate about proving people worng …’ by saying because you wore a green hat, then all the denying in the world wouldn’t change the implication that in some part the people you felt passionate about proving wrong didn’t in fact wear a green hat. It’s a poor analogy to a straight forward statement. Let’s try this logic …
Warning Comment
Why would someone need to proven wrong if their committment to truth, fairness and accuracy were equally as strong? The real question aside from all your defensive posturing, is why do you feel it necessary to prove anyone wrong in the first place. But, yeah, it seems a pretty straightforward implication that you seem to feel you’ve a better handle on truth and such then who you argue with.
Warning Comment
My opinion should be pretty obvious, I don’t believe you have a handle on such matters to the degree that you believe it. Though I am no where near arrogant enough to suggest I am wise enough to school you or anyone else on the finer and more elegant points of truth, fairness or honesty.
Warning Comment
Why so passionate? Because I have a strong commitment to truth, care about people, etc. Why Christians so passionate? Similar reasons, I’d presume. What’s the problem with that?
Warning Comment
Aw, shoot. I was hoping this would be a grammar nazi entry.
Warning Comment
I really don’t have time to get in a full out arguement about this. However, I will say this: Many people know me. They all know all sorts of things about me. If they were to write accounts of my life – although similiar, the accounts would be different in many ways. My mother would know things about me (“important TRUTHS”) that others would simply not know.
Warning Comment
My best friend would have heard me say things (things that are essential to my life) that others would not have heard me say. It’s called perspective. My mother, my best friend, my co-workers, etc… they all have a different perspective of me. Why would it be any different with Jesus? He was God, but he was human and his accounts were written by humans.
Warning Comment
Therefore it makes perfect sense that some of the gospels would include things that others would not. Now, perhaps this doesn’t make sense to you, but it does to me. So… if you’re going to argue that it doesn’t make sense- go right ahead, but I won’t agree with your premise so I probably won’t agree with your conclusion.
Warning Comment
However, I do extend the same grace to you. If my premise in unbelievable, there is no reason to belive my conclusion. Blessings,
Warning Comment
and before there is an entry titled “belive or believe” I will correct my spelling error. *laughs*
Warning Comment