Jesus wasn't so "great" as you guys make him out to be.

I think the Bible was worn out well before I was incarnated, I think people at Church...well I was raised Catholic and named Matthew.......they should of read it, eat a book of Matthew Blotter........and saw things my way. you are what you eat and hell no it's not sacrilegious. I bet there is some damn fine Latino art, for blotter.

 

Haha. It won't hurt you to know, that TODAY this book is the MOST printed and translated in the world. Translated into some 2000 languages, printed in scores more copies, than any known "bestseller". I don't know about the situation "before you were incarnated", though. My Bible tells me there is no such thing ;-).

 

Sounds like a waste of paper, obviously the message was quite clear at birth.........then all fucked up, just like that game telephone...the more people talked.

 

I hate to agree with BraveSirRubin, but when he says “Your interpretations are wrong, it's as simple as that.” and “If you're gonna go against religion, at least have the decency to know your enemy”, he is spot on.

Here are some that haven‘t been touched on yet:

In these verses, Jesus was not saying that the purpose of his teachings were to tear apart families, in fact his teachings strengthen families but what he is saying is; that in some families, non-Christian family members will violently turn against their family members that are Christian. I've personally seen it, I’ve seen fathers throw their daughters out because they became Christian and I’ve seen husbands lock their wives out of the house because their wives went to a Christian meeting.

Here, if you had just continued to read John 2:18-22 would have seen that Jesus was talking about his own death and resurrection, see:
Therefore, in answer, the Jews said to him: “What sign have you to show us, since you are doing these things?” In answer Jesus said to them: “Break down this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Therefore the Jews said: “This temple was built in forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was talking about the temple of his body. When, though, he was raised up from the dead, his disciples called to mind that he used to say this; and they believed the Scripture and the saying that Jesus said.

Sorry, there is no “Hellfire”, so it seems you're the one that fails, big time.

 

That's absolute nonsense and I hope for the sake of your IQ that you know that.

 

Can I ask how you arrived at this interpretation? It would be more concurrent with the message of the Bible generally, but I do not see how you have got to the above from the semantic content of that passage. It seems that if someone wanted to read that message in it, they could, but I do not see that as confirming the statement: “Your interpretations are wrong, it's as simple as that.”

I'd also be interested to know how Christ's teachings strengthen families when, as you yourself have said, they often cause families to fission, either because a Christian is rejected by non-Christians or because a non-Christian is rejected by Christians (and I won't pussyfoot on this: the latter is MASSIVELY more common).

 

Is this the new big thing among Christians, to argue that the Bible is true because it's so popular? I ask because I think this is the third thread that the argument's been used in in as many months, and I don't think it's ever been accompanied with an explanation as to how popularity or frequency confers validity or truth. Many lies are fairly popular and commonplace, after all.

 

Because I've seen it happen in real life, the Bible is not, as you seem to think it is, some man made theory but God's instructions for our lives. Those that follow it's teachings do not always have an easy go of it as Jesus pointed out but when all in a family follow Bible teaching in their lives the family unit is strengthened and many troubles are avoided.

As for your who is rejected, let's not pussyfoot as you say and ask what the difference between the two is?

Why is the Christian rejected, mainly because the Christian now wants to live a clean moral life and the non-Christian doesn't want them to, I've even known of parents, whose child has stopped being a drug addict because of Christian beliefs, say that they would rather he'd go back to drug addiction. This you seem to defend.

Why would Christians reject a family member who is not a Christian? Seldom is it just because they have a desire not to be a Christian, because Christians have a responsibility to take care of those in their family regardless of their families beliefs. So why rejection? When that person becomes a threat to the family, bringing drugs, violence, etc into the the home, that home is no longer safe and so to protect themselves and other children in the family, that person is sometimes asked to leave until they are no longer a threat. This you seem to condemn.

The Bible says that there will come a day when people teach that what is right is wrong and that what is wrong is right and that will be a sign of the last days.

 

There was a time in history when nearly everyone believed that the earth was flat. It was still round.

Besides the actions of Christ, there is another thing about him that has always bothered me. Maybe something is lost in translation, but I think that in many of his comments, he comes off sounding like an arrogant jerk and an asshole.

I would not want to live with someone who bases important decisions on beliefs and faith, rather than facts and expert advice.

 

Righteous vs self-righteous, innit.

The problem is that you won't find a Christian who'll just say "being a jerk is okay if it's in a good cause and I know that Christ's cause is good because...." well, however they know. This is why OWB won't actually say "psychopaths who think that they hear the voice of God are wrong to think that, and I know this because...."

 

Many times how a person comes off sounding is a refection of whether you want to believe them or not.

 

The bible was written by many people and isn't always accurate. It is also pretty metaphorical. He just meant that you may be divided with people who are close to you depending on what their beliefs are. Also all Jesus meant about that mother thing was that everybody is his mother and brothers and sisters. Btw, that's not research, that quoting. And it's rather ignorant to do so when you do it out of context.

I suggest you stop being so pissed off at something you cannot and will not ever change, and go try to find some peace for yourself. It'll be the best thing you ever do.

 

People get on better when they have similar beliefs. I've not seen any evidence that the nature of those beliefs makes a difference to that.



As for your who is rejected, let's not pussyfoot as you say and ask what the difference between the two is?

Even if you have "even known of" that, I think even you would struggle to say that it's representative of people in general. I personally doubt that you haven't just made it up. There is sometimes animosity towards people who suddenly develop a firm conviction (religious or otherwise) that appears to override their existing identity. While I don't condone that in itself, I can understand it. People who change their values overnight are hard to live with.

Can you cite an example of me "seeming to defend" that? If not, I'd ask to you to stick to making assertions about stuff that no-one can prove please.

I do not get the sense that simply telling you that the above is absolute rot would persuade you, and I can't really do any more than that right now.

The above is, of course, unrepresentative. Many families, Christian or otherwise, tolerate violence, drug abuse and such for years or even decades under their own roof, because ultimately they would rather keep the family together. I have seen absolutely no evidence that Christians are any less likely to do this than non-Christians. I suspect that you are seeing what you want to see.

I also stipulate that the above is an attempt to shift the subject in order to paint a rosy picture of Christianity that ignores a fairly common tendency for religion to divide families.

Yet again, I would like you to quote anything that I have said that suggests I would "seem to condemn" a parent protecting their children.

Does the Bible make any mention of how this day will differ from the countless days that predate its compilation when people taught that what is right is wrong etc.? Because if it doesn't, we should either dismiss the above or assume that the last days started within about two seconds of people learning to speak.

 

Many times, whether you want to believe someone or not is a reflection of how they come off sounding. Richard Dawkins, for example, may well be right about everything he says, but he comes off as such a conceited dork in the process of saying it that I end up giving religion the benefit of a doubt.

 

Hoatzin, please stop taking things out of context and then trying to make them sound like something they are not. Thank you.

For the sake of those who are wondering what in the world he's talking about. First, no one is saying the Bible is true or the Word of God because it's popular.

The statement was made, that if a book was to be the Word of God or God's message for all mankind, then it would seem that it would fulfill certain requirements. One of those requirements would seem to be that it would be accessible to all mankind and over a fairly long period of time.

The Bible has been around a long time and has been translated into far more languages than other book and more Bibles have been produced than any other book. The fact is the Bible is available to everybody and to over 90% of mankind, it's available in their own language. For some people it is the only piece of literature available in their native language. None of which can be said of any other book in mankind's history.

So you see, no attempt is being made to say the Bible is the Truth or even the Word of God, because the Bible is popular. All that is being said is; that if you believe that a message from God to all mankind, should be available to all mankind, then the Bible is the only book that fits that requirement.

 

So you see, no attempt is being made to say the Bible is the Truth or even the Word of God, because the Bible is popular

no wonder more people like chocolate

 

I've personally seen plenty of evidence that what those beliefs are, makes a difference but you'll probably just infer that I'm lying about. Please see your comment quoted below.

Thanks again for implying that I'm a liar, that's always been such an old faithful for you and sure proves your points so well.

Please read you're above quote where you defend the non-Christian for doing what they do because Christians are "hard to live with.

Call it what you will but the simple truth is the Bible says this at 1 Timothy 5:8; “Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.” I shouldn’t have to tell you but that means if a person does not take care of his family, he can not be considered to be a Christian.

This is what I said;

Please note, I never said anything about whether or not “Many families, Christian or otherwise, tolerate violence, drug abuse and such for years or even decades under their own roof, because ultimately they would rather keep the family together.” or “Christians are any less likely to do this than non-Christians.” I merely state that if it’s done by Christians, it’s more than likely for the protection and safety of others in the household. I’m beginning to suspect that you are not to even bothering to read what other posters say.

You just can’t stay away from personal attacks can you? But this is just stupid, the whole discussion started with the fact the Jesus said Religion will divide families and now your saying that I’m trying to ignore that Jesus said it? This whole discussion is about religion dividing families, so how in the world is that ignoring that religion divides families? Please!

For this I apologize, after rereading what you said, I do not see where my statement has any basis in fact and withdraw my comment and hope it did not cause you any undue distress.

Yes

 

I did not say every time.

 

That was not the case with me, when I was younger.

 

I guess tha makes you one of the few.