Jesus Christ: A foul-mouthed, drunken, promiscuous homosexual.

I figured that would clear a lot up for you...hahaha I sleep with it on my bed sometimes, I forget about it when studying and fall asleep.

 

Your bible is like my guitar

 

It gives you knowledge, instructions???

 

Yes and yes.


Well, technically no... I instruct myself, and while playing, I give myself more knowledge, etc etc etc...

Haha if you meant something else, don't mind me....

 

Does it give you life's instructions??? Does it bring you an everlasting peace???

 

Actually yes and yes to both of these questions.

 

hmmmm...it can give you temporary peace, but not everlasting...and how in the heck does it give you life's instructions...hmmmm

 

um...haha um..... I don't know

Life's instructions I find on my own, and live life by the day...

 

Sure you'll get experience that way but you'll also get tempted, lead by the wrong people and make the wrong choices cause you are unfamiliar as to what God wants. You'll make choices based upon your feelings and not what God has planned for you. Hence you will only have that temporary happiness, instead of life long.

 

Actually I've already made the wrong choices by being tempted by the wrong people. I feel much smarter and know what to look out for because of it.

But I don't see how "God" can give anybody life long happiness.... care to explain?

 

I'm sure this god (whom a lot of people undoubtedly believe in) makes people feel more secure my reminding them that they'll burn in a fiery pit while ravens pick at their skulls if they don't worship his insecure ass all the time. Sounds like happiness to me!

 

what is blasphemy?

 

What does God want ?. What has God planned ?

Don't take this the wrong way , but i find the thinking that some people have made wrong choices and possibly peoples feeling are wrong because it does not include God , a bit pompouse.

The people within religouse organisations mostly do very good work within the community (and abroad) and all that ..but religeon is the most devisive form of human activity i know... surely just doing good work does not need the sanctimoniousness that is within a lot of christian (and other religous teaching).. i can help or not help who i like , its not selfish or wrong of me, i don't think.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm
gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted esteem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy
is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, [heresy is an] opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative."

i think i do a lot of it

 

No, it's hard to believe that everything (in my world, anything) written about him is 100% true. It's not like they had the most reliable record-keeping methods back then...

 

This is the most disguisting thing I've ever heard. God destroyed the city of Sodom for not welcoming Jesus and instead trying to sodomize both him and his disciples. Homosexuality is not WRONG. However it is un-natural, sex is about reproduction with pleasure on the side. Homosexuals are pure hedonists, pleasure-seekers! To me that is not right. Portraying Jesus as a homosexual drunk, Its funny to hear, and I wouldn't call it Blasphemy no more than the 1000 years that the Catholic church has used Babylonian paganism mixed with true Christianity to deceive desperate souls. Times change hopefully people can see the humor in something like that. But still it is disguisting.

 

I don't remember Jesus, the son of God, or the Trinity, or anything like that ever being mentioned in the Old Testament. None of that crap came along untill the New Testament. While we're at it let's just say that John the Baptist was pals with Moses and that Jesus was a white Englishman.
Everyone should poke fun at religion once in a while, just in fun, not offensively. I do it all the time and most people could care less.

 

I have to chime in here. This was not a culture that based everything on oral tradition. They wrote things down. When all is said and done, that is exactly how we keep reliable records now. They had to hand write it of course, but essentially, the only way we know what has happened in the past is because someone wrote something down. So, their record keeping methods were as accurate as ours (for the most part). Also, these men were Jews. As a rule, they took their religion/faith VERY seriously and did not to allow for any error. Look at the massoretic (sp?) preists. Their job was to copy the Hebrew scriptures. They kept a count of the number of words and letters on every page (or scroll). They also kept a count of the middle word of the texts. After copying, they checked the number of words, the number of letters, and the middle word (at the very least). If anything was off, the entire text was scrapped and they started over. I bring this up to demonstrate the kind of attention to detail and precision that the Jews of the day applied to their religion.
We know that the texts of the new testament have not been altered over time. So, if the gospels are not accurate, we have to say that they are not accurate based on the idea that the author of the autograph (the original text) was somehow mistaken or lying. To say that they were intentionally decieving people would be ludicrous as all of them (save John) were executed for their testimonies and men will not die for what they KNOW to be a lie. If they were mistaken, then how do we know where the mistakes were? Remeber, we cannot use any sort of presupposition when we talk about where their mistakes reside. At that point, it generally breaks down into opinion. As such, believing that the authors recorded the events accurately versus mistakenly remembering the wrong details seems more reasonable. Why? Because when interpreting an ancient document, unless contrary evidence can be shown, we generally accept that the events happen in the way they are recorded in the document. Also, allowing us to assume there are mistakes and then presume to know where the mistakes are leads to some pretty hard hitting conclusions.
Why? Because the Bible (specifically the New Testament) is a historical book. It is the most well attested to ancient document in existence. So if you want to start assuming mistakes in these documents, then you MUST assume LARGER mistakes in documents whose date of authorship is further removed from extant texts. There is roughly 100 to 200 years between date of authorship for most NT texts and our extant copies. The next closest historical document approaches 500 (the Illiad) and from there it jumps to 900 to 1400 years between authorship and the earliest extant copies. So, you see, we can effectively remove all epistemic warrant for believing ANYTHING in ancient history if we start supposing mistakes in the scripture without actually producing contradictory evidence.
So, either it is accurate and He WAS perfect or it is innacurate and you undermine all of recorded history. Which do you choose?