Religous beliefs-debate

Jamma, that's the one. I've lurked a bit, but haven't posted. Maybe Monday.

------------------
RealGM
Gafford Art
Artisan Cakes

 

alright thats cool
we can move the religion discussion over to that board.. make it more organized and whatnot

http://members.fortunecity.com/omar369 - click the msg board tab on the left

------------------
president of the sleepy floyd to hall of fame club.

http://www.it-is-truth.org

 

Well at least we can all agree that both of you guys believe in one egotistical GOD. I guess it's neat that at least Islam challenges the believer to do nice things and not just tell GOD that he is, and forever shall be 'the bomb'. LOL.

Since what I wrote is seemingly offensive to 'those who get offended', might I ask the believers here why it makes any sense that some omnibenevolent (I won't bore you w/ the trite omni logic games) GOD would care more about who I give 'props' to rather than how I actually choose to live? If I lead a just life, try to treat every creature with respect... honor Mother Nature, my mother, father, wife, elders, people I haven't met, people I have met...

then why can some adulterous, child beating, alcoholic racist, hate mongering, sexist, speciesist, I've run out of bad things, person flash a "get into heaven free" card just b/c s/he proclaims to know Christ? To be frank, I strive to be more like Christ than most Christians I know, and I do it because logic demands it, not because there's a threat of punishment.

When I'm on my death bed, I'll surely regret mistakes that I have made. Hopefully though, I will have some good things to look back on too. One thing's for certain though, I will honor my triumphs and mourn my failures because good == good and vice versa. On my death bed, I won't get out of everything w/ a last minute hail mary.

BTW, if I'm wrong about everything, I'm betting that my view of an omnibenevolent creator is alot cooler than your view of an omnibenevolent creator.

------------------
\../

 

I think you may not clearly understand the concept of original sin. Neither do I think you realize that sin is something you are born with and not something you do.

When Adam ate from the "Tree of Knowledge," he brought sin into the world and not to himself alone. You and I, everyone, inherits that sin through our own blood at birth. Jesus had to, therefore, come into the world to redeem man of the sin of Adam that pollutes all men.

You are also putting too much importance on a man's works and not seeing original sin in the process. To you, A murderer who can get into heaven by accepting jesus sounds rather stupid when you consider someone like Ghandi who lived his life much better but goes to hell. But realize sin is just sin. There are no degrees to God.

Let me point out that God must abide by his laws himself even, else he would not be God. And if he let Ghandi into heaven still having original sin, he would fail at being God since he did not uphold his own truth. It is not that God necessarily perfers to have a murderer over Ghandi, i don't think, but he must, just the same, stick to the rules he has set forth, even to the point of sending his only son to die on the cross.

KBM



------------------
I am an invisible man.

 

Good Faith invariably leads to Good Works. If someone is giving 'props'to God, but isn't doing Good Works, then they're just bull****ting God about having Good Faith, and God knows when you're bull****ting God.

------------------
Founder and President of the Houston Homers Club(HHC) - Are you a homer? Join now!

The Rockets will be NBA champions. Believe.

 

KBM: I really respect your dillegence to your beliefs. You are very committed to them and I truly admire that.

However, I want to address your last statement.

Let me point out that God must abide by his laws himself even, else he would not be God.

God makes the rules. They are for him to use or discard at his discretion. Not following rules he set for us does not make him less God than before. He's like the boss of a company. He can do what he chooses because it is his company, but we have rules to live by because it is his world, not ours, according to the Bible.

And if he let Ghandi into heaven still having original sin, he would fail at being God since he did not uphold his own truth.

To quote Jaws:

Mrs. Brodie: Can you do that?
Chief Brodie: I can do whatever I like. I'm the chief of police.

Rules and truth are very different things. God set down rules to protect us and enrich our lives spiritually according to the Bible, but they are rules that are set aside specifically for earth.

Can God kill someone if he so chooses? Can he strike someone down? That would violate the "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, but that commandment doesn't apply to God but rather to his people.

This is not to say that God is like some casino boss that skims off the top when he needs some extra cash. Rather, to me, the God of the Bible is more like a parent. He lives by different rules than the children.

There is nothing to say that he did not choose to make an exception with Ghandi or Mohammed or whomever. It is his world, his universe, his rules.

It is not that God necessarily perfers to have a murderer over Ghandi, i don't think, but he must, just the same, stick to the rules he has set forth, even to the point of sending his only son to die on the cross.

Sending Jesus to die didn't have to do with following rules. It had to do with fulfilling a covenant to his people the Jews. It was also to set an example for the whole world, to show that he would sacrifice his son (again, the parental reference) for the good of humanity because he loves us that much.

The word used in the original Hebrew to describe God literally translated doesn't mean "Father." It is actually "father" in the familiar or "daddy." That word was specifically chosen to show the close bond we have with God. In essence, he is our parent according to the Bible - an entity in which we can confide and trust.

That is the way I view the Biblical God. He sets rules that we follow for our protection, but he is beyond them. His "truth" supercedes those rules because rather than just following the rules, he is the personification of them - truth, life, peace, love. Rules are boundries and God, by the very definition set forth in the Bible, has no boundries.

According to the Bible, God is omnipresent, omnicient and omnipotent. He is everywhere (in the desk, in the air, in my toe, in the trees, EVERYWHERE) at the same time. He can do ANYTHING and he knows EVERYTHING.

That places him far and away above and beyond any rules that he sets down for us.

He does not have to believe in his own son in order to achieve eternal salvation. That is for us; humans - his children.

Ghandi may be in hell. The Dali Lama may go to hell. Mohammed and Malcom X may be in hell. But, they might not. It is for God to decide, not us. Besides, it is more important to concern ourselves with our chances of entering heaven rather than others.

Shakespeare probably said it better than anyone ever could (of course, he was good at that):

"There are far more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy."


Just to add to this post, I really appreciate the contributions everyone has made to this thread. It is fascinating. I know it is difficult for everyone to avoid anger over things like this. Whatever is close to your heart requires more protection than everything else. However, it is nice to see such a wide ranging variety of people together in one place.

Very few if any of us would've had access to such a diverse group prior to the advent of the internet. Ain't technology great!!??

Ok, I'm done soliloquizing (is that a word?).

------------------
And then, depression set in...

 

Jeff,

Very well said, Jeff. I think one thing too many Christians do too often is to judge other people. God is the final judge, and it's totally up to Him.

----------------------
jamma,

"Believing" is not as easy as you make it sound. Do you not recognize that a Muslim could "make the declaration" and live a good life, but not truly in his heart believe in god? If so, then how is that any different than Christianity? If so, then what are you questioning?

Leviticus is in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was written to the Jews. I am a Christian, not a Jew. Besides, how does eating something keep someone out of Heaven? Haven't you been reading what I've been saying about the Old Testament? I said, more than once now, that the Old Testament had two main purposes.

1. To teach Jews how to live.
2. To show them that they could not live that way regardless of whether they believed in God or not.

On the Quran vs. the Bible thing...

Muhammad did not write the Quran. Jesus did not write the New Testament. If Jesus had written any part of the New Testament, it would've taken any and all doubt about his teachings, and then what part would "trust" or "belief" have to do with it? NONE. I mean, why doesn't God just come down to Earth and let himself be videotaped and tell everyone to believe in him? Because then, no one would have to "choose" to believe. Sure, some would still deny it, but the vast majority would accept him.

----------------------
Achebe,

Because God created us. He created us in Him image, and He created us to be perfect. We (as mankind) turned our backs on him. He walked with us and talked with us, and we still turned our backs on him. It is not 'egotisticalism'. He merely wants His children to accept Him as their Creator without being forced to do so. That is why he gave us free will, so we can choose what we want to believe.

Also, God doesn't "send someone to Hell" so much as that He simplies denies that person to be in His presence, and where God is not, evil rules.

How do you guys equate saying something into believing it with your heart? That is ridiculous. Yes, a rapist (or whatever) can go to Heaven. But, he must accept Christ as his saviour. When a rapist goes to Heaven he may not get all the same amenities as say Mother Teresa (if she's there), because it says in the Bible that while you are here on Earth you are filling a chest with your good deeds to be rewarded when you get to Heaven. So, yes, good deeds are just that, 'good', but they are not necessary to get into Heaven or to believe in God.

See, it even says in the Bible that good deeds alone will not get you into the Kingdom of Heaven. I mean, let's say you only sinned once in your whole life (because there's only been one man that never sinned and that was Jesus). But, when you die your facing God. He looks at you and says, "My son you led a beautiful life. You were kind and generous towards your fellow man. You respected others, etc, etc... But, you did not know Me. Now you will never know Me." You'll want to throw that Hail Mary then, wouldn't you?

--------------------
To All,

I hope I am not coming off too abrasively. I do not pretend to know all the answers, because truthfully I know very few of them. But, I hold my beliefs as closely as anyone who has strong beliefs.

I really don't mind the questions. It gives me an opportunity to maybe answer some questions I have myself. To try and find the answer, that is. I have enjoyed the conversation so far, and hope it continues.



[This message has been edited by DREAMer (edited April 06, 2001).]

 

We (as mankind) turned our backs on him. He walked with us and talked with us, and we still turned our backs on him.

This is something most religions have in common, actually. Even if you don't define it as "sin," it is still a part of most beliefs.

Buddhists define it as ego. When we are beholden to the things of this earth, we are living within ego. In Christianity, we too are commanded to focus our eyes not on our worldly desires but on heaven. It is want that is our enemy.

Finally, something we all have in common!

------------------
And then, depression set in...

 

DREAMer,

I am not satisfied!

Take the Gospel of Thomas...an early gospel, with very different views from the other NT gospels...this was not put in by the Catholic church. How can you know that they were picking the best (keep in mind that the Gospel of Thomas puts very little value in the Church -- not good for them)?

Additionally, there are additions written many years after the fact (most scholars agree) in different language, done, etc...that can change or augment meaning. How can you trust those changes, made by members of the Church?

On a different level, how can you trust the story of Jesus? Consider (I have posted some of this before, but hidden away in some thread):

1. The idea of Jesus as savior is not unique to Christianity. It is pre-dated by Greco-Roman "mystery cults." These pagan saviors often performed acts which would bring salvation to their followers. In fact, many such acts can be found later described in Christianity. Precursors to the Last Suppor also appear, down to the wine as blood and bread as flesh (Dionysian cults).

2. The idea of a spiritual channel between God and man, or "intermediary son" is a philosophical-religious concept that dates to the Hellenistic age.

3. The earliest Christian writings, the epistles, do not mention Jesus as a man. He is the same type of mystical savior figure, through whom the earth was created (as Paul stated). Paul mentions his resurrection, etc...but never mentions Jesus of Nazareth, specific acts, etc. Paul frequently lashes out at other Jesus followers -- saying they are not following the true Jesus, theirs is made up, etc (how could they make up their own Jesus if there was one true Jesus who preached specific things?).

He speaks often of his revelation of Jesus as having come divinely from God. He states that God has kept the knowledge of Jesus's sacrifice hidden until Paul was able to "witness" it through the Old Testament (in Isiah, it is belived). How could the teachings of a living, preaching man have been secret?

4. In the epistles, many sayings are attributed to divine revlations from God. Later, in the gospels, these saying re-appear almost identically as sayings from Jesus.

5. It is in the gospels -- many years after the epistles -- where Jesus of Nazareth is called the son of God.

6. Considering most early Christians were really still strongly Jewish, is would be appaling for them to attribute a savior, god-like figure to a living human. It certainly would have also made it impossible to convert Jews during those early years.

7. In the epistles, Jesus is slain by "demons" not by the Romans and Jews. This all happens in what was a typical concept of the time as a lower heaven sphere - the lowest level mystical figures can go...thus, where all the demons dwell.

8. Until the gospels are made known, there are no pilgrimmages to holy sites where Jesus preached or visited, no hunting for Jesus relics...Paul himself never had any interest...and he was the first to write of Jesus. Since the gospels, there have been over 1,000 years of relic-hunting and holy land visiting....why was it different for early Christians...especially since it would have been more recent for them?

Just some examples...I can ive specific verses, but not right now...it is late. just some food for thought.

------------------
Whitey will pay.

 

This is true. As a matter of fact, some assume one or more of the Gospels was actually written by a woman (or women).

------------------
"So you say you want some intelligent responses? I say give me something intelligent to respond to." -- Dimwits beware, B-Ball freak tells it like it is. Sing it bro!

 

Jamma, the part you are referring to goes like this:

3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is he? (I am speaking in human terms.) 3:6 Absolutely not! For otherwise how could God judge the world? 3:7 For if by my lie the truth of God enhances his glory, why am I still actually being judged as a sinner? 3:8 And why not say, "Let us do evil so that good may come of it?"-as some who slander us allege that we say. (Their condemnation is deserved!)


I think Paul is not saying that lying to spread the Gospel is ok. I'd say that he's saying that God's glory is heightened when he inflicts righteous punishment (i.e. Justice). So when he asks why isn't his lying good, he's not talking about lying about the Gospel, but lying in general so that God can exercise Justice. And, you'll notice in the context that he asks the question leadingly: he's actually posing the question the detractors of his day were posing in order to catch the Christians in a supposed contradiction. He doesn't answer it outright, but you can see from the "condemnation is deserved" part what he thinks of that argument. Moreover, in the next section he goes on to talk about how everybody is hell-bound, except those saved by the grace of God.

As for the authorship of the Bible: I don't think most Christians care who wrote them down. Their identity being unclear is unimportant because, according to the doctrine, they are writing through the Holy Spirit. They are only a vehicle of communication while God is the author. You can comprehend that, can't you? (Btw, who is the author of the Koran, Mohammed or Allah?)

I'm thinking maybe I'll come visit you board later and we can talk religion there. Will the regulars mind a visiting infidel?

------------------
RealGM
Gafford Art
Artisan Cakes

 

First Jeff, UUUUUUUUUG! In Genesis 1:26, God gave man the world but in Genesis 3:6 man gave the world to Satan, so according to John 12:30-32 satan is the god of this world that will be cast out. That is why satan can offer god in Matthew chapter 4 the world because at this point it is satan's to give.

To your point that God can do what he wants, numbers 23:19 said, God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. Basically Jeff, if he said it, he must carry it out.

And this is the real reason he sent jesus christ. Indeed, in Matthew 5:17-18, jesus said: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

In Hebrews 10:1-4,10, For the law, having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because the worshipers once purged should have no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a rememberance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. [Verse 10] By which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ. A little more than just a covenant.

Acually Jeff, in the old testament, there are many hebrew words that describe God. I'll give you one more. In Genesis 1:1, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, the word God translates to Elohim. It is a plural noun in form but it is singular in meaning. The plural form suggests a tri-unit God.

You are making a wierd attempt to prove God can do what he wants here, but God has not fall but man. If God fell, there prolly would not be a universe anymore, so saying he doesn't have to believe in his son is just crazy.

[QOUTE] Ghandi may be in hell. The Dali Lama may go to hell. Mohammed and Malcom X may be in hell. But, they might not. It is for God to decide, not us. Besides, it is more important to concern ourselves with our chances of entering heaven rather than others. [/QOUTE]

I do not pretend to know where Ghandi or anybody for that matter is. But I do know if he did not accept jesus christ as his savior he is not in heaven.



------------------
I am an invisible man.

 

The only thing I have absolute faith in his the capacity of human faith, itself. I don't know how any rational view can hold that one culture's God, or belief system is the "true" faith over any other. Especially given the fact that the basic tenants of the major religions, other than the "This Is Your One God Choice, Buddy" rule, are the same. The golden rule, that one "should do unto others as one would have others do unto themselves" is universal. The idea that, as most branches of Christianity hold, that Ghandi would be in hell with Hitler simply because Jesus is not his sole God is simply insane. I think all religions have something valuable to impart, but I believe that history has shown that religion is at least as much a negative as a positive force. Thanks for letting me babble on.

-Elvis!

------------------

 

this thread is getting good.
about original sin..
is it just, that all humans are born with sin already on them? this means that babies, who've never done ANY wrong, nor have the capacity to do any wrong, they're all going to hell!!! this is not the Just God which you portray.
also, achebe, if we establish that the Quran is written by God, and without any human element in it, then whatever God commanded us to do, we do it. lke jv said, (something along the lines of) if he wanted me to go out and do something with octopii for the rest of my life, id be doing it. God doesnt need a reason. He created us, we do what He tells us to do.
and another thing, im interested in the christianity take on the Quran. we all know Muhammad didnt write it... so who did????

and finally, especially for the christians, please read this essay ive compiled and tell me your comments on it:
http://members.fortunecity.com/omar369/islam/essay.htm (its a comparative essay on islam and christianity)



------------------
president of the sleepy floyd to hall of fame club.

http://www.it-is-truth.org

 

Jamma34,

Original sin has little to do with whether a person has the wits to knowingly do something right or wrong against God. When a child is born, he or she is born with sinful blood!

To the real question, can a child go to hell? That is a complex question. First one should look at the idea of free will vs. pre-destination. If a person has free will, then does a child have the wits to chose God in his or her spirit when he or she is about to die? Or does the spirit automatically accept chirst at birth for children until that person choses to turn from God? Or if God elects his chosen, then does the child goes to where ever he or she was elected to end up? Or is there some sort of reincarnation for children until they can make it to adulthood? There are so many possiblities Jamma34.

------------------
I am an invisible man.

 

To grasp the concept of God for us is like a cartoon character trying to grasp the concept of the cartoonist. Our minds just don't have the ability to wrap around a concept that vast.

We have words in our vocabulary that are undefinable. Forever is one. What exactly IS forever? No one can conceive of forever. It is simply too vast.

Everything in our world has limits and boundries and our minds are trained to recognize that.

That is the reason we need faith. We can't conceive the concept of forever or eternity, so we have to just have faith in those beliefs.

God is another. None of us could possibly wrap our tiny minds around the concept of what God is. Placing him in human-like situations (following rules, putting him on a throne in heaven, etc) helps us to relate better to the concept.

To be all powerful, all knowing and existing within everything at the same time is something we just cannot get. To siffuse every molecule and every atom like God does means he is part of everything that exists in our world.

We can only know what our limited minds will allow us. Beyond that, it is all just guesswork, which is why we need faith and belief to sustain us. That is the beauty of religion - the dedication to a faith and love of a God we cannot understand.

------------------
And then, depression set in...

 

rim,

I think it's obvious that the church wouldn't want to include something that was not beneficial to them. But, even without it, I know not to trust every word a 'church' tells me, so I think that message got out anyway.

I also, talked to my uncle who was a Roman Catholic priest for something like 20 years (the gay one). He said he believed they did a good job under the circumstances and that they never could've pleased everyone.

So, I still contend that Christ's most basic messages are presented, and that's what matters most.

And, God pre-dates them all. The promise of a saviour is in the Old Testament, which pre-dates them all too. No, maybe not in written form, but that's because the history of the Old Testament (some of it?) pre-dated the written word.

Don't you think that the Old Testament teachings could've permeated other "cults"? I do.

What does this have to do with anything? The promise God gave was that His Son would come from the Jewish people and He even said that they would not accept Him.

On Paul's writings.... I'm not sure. I don't know enough about specific books of the Bible to say. But, next time I see my Dad, I'll ask him and get back to you on this. Those are very good questions, by the way, and I'd like an explanation just as much as you might (probably more).

------------------------------
jamma,

God is the final judge. It says so in the Bible. It tells us that man is not to judge. So, just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I know what God does, especially in a circumstance like that.

Again, I have to question how that is so different from Islam. If a baby dies very young, and was born to Islamic parents, what happens to that baby? The baby never had the chance to make the Islamic declaration, so it's not Muslim.

When you do establish that the Quran was written by God, that's the day I become a Muslim. But, since you can't, I'll stay a Christian.

His followers...? (Didn't I already answer this question earlier?)

On you essay...

I don't see how you can link 'logic' and human 'reason' to religion. The two are mutually exclusive. I mean if you could logically prove Islam was the one true faith then there wouldn't be more Christians in the world than any other religion. It'd be more like 90% Islamic, and 10% r****ds.

Well, maybe it was to give mankind different translations. Each person perceives in their own way. Wouldn't it seem more correct to get more people's opinions on something (even if it were the same thing)?

John 14:26, also says, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Have you really studied enough Hebrew to accurately question the differences between the English translations into 'tree' and 'cross'?

Two different men had two different perceptions. And, possibly the same description, just merely said it differently.

I can't recall off hand what you're referring to about Aaron and the 'seventy other men'. But, I can tell you that you are 100% wrong about Moses. Moses did not look directly at God. God told him to look away. Also, even though Moses didn't look directly at him, when he came back the people said it looked as though he had aged 20 years (or some amount of time).

This one had me confused for a while. But, even I (not much of a Biblical scholar) found the answer, which was quite easy. And, you left out the rest of the chapters, because they help to explain what you think is an inconsistency.

II Samuel 24, starts like this, "And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."
I Chronicles 21, goes like this, "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel."

After first reading them, they sound very similar, but it seems like God told David to do it in the first one, and Satan told him to do it in the second. But, you fail to say what happens later in the chapters. David repents to God saying that he sinned (by counting the Israelites) and he is punished by God.

So then, you ask yourself, "Why would God punish David for something He told him to do?" Good question.

The answer is right there in those initial sentences of the chapters..... In the first one (from II Samuel) it states specifically that the Lord was angry with what David was doing. The next part of the sentence is crucia to understanding it, "and he moved David atainst them...". The "he" is not capitalized. It therefore, does not refer to God. It is referring to either Satan or some other man (which is what I Chronicles says). Easy peasy.

Mormons believe it (at least that they are becoming equals), and that's where I disagree with them. Because God throughout the Bible stresses that He is the only One True God. That means there can't be any others. I mean, seriously, the first sin (Adam's sin) was because Adam was trying to become more 'godlike', and when Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, it was because he wanted to become more 'godlike'. I think it's obvious what God thinks about those who try to be more 'godlike'.

But, onto what you're trying to argue here. It's funny how easy something can be twisted to mean anything when taken out of context. You totally fail to include verse 21, which verse 22 obviously is referring to.

John 17:21-23, That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

So, in this context "being one" is having God in you, and becoming as one in the Body of Christ (Christians).

In His human form, God the Father was greater than He. Jesus was God in human form. He therefore was limited somewhat (He did die).

----------------------------

This post is getting too long. I'll look at more of your essay later.



------------------
DREAMer's Rocket Page

 

Jeff:

In your response to KBM, you mentioned one thing with which I disagree.

While I'm not a Christian, many modern Christian theologians believe that God is bound by some sort of rule... perhaps his own, perhaps his own nature, perhaps even some greater law.

Arthur Peacocke, who I found to be the most persuasive, argued that God is self-limiting... that God would HAVE to limit himself to allow for the structural integrity of the universe. There's a fancy Greek word that he uses, but I can't remember it. If God didn't do this, the universe would lose it's coherence.

I know a lot of people probably wouldn't agree with that... but it's certainly open to debate .

------------------
I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche

 

That's interesting, haven. I see your point. Again, I was applying logic to an illogical thing. I said myself we can't do that with belief and I didn't follow my own rule.

Nice job!!!

DREAMer:

So, I still contend that Christ's most basic messages are presented, and that's what matters most.

You should actually read the Gnostic Gospels just for your own study. They really aren't that much different from the standard gospels except that they are a tad more spiritualistic. They are rather similar to Jesus' quote in John: "Even the least of those among you can do all that I have done and even greater things."

Most of the stuff in Thomas is more about the "power to move mountains" and is pretty interesting. It still has the basic precepts found in the new testament. You'd probably like it.

When you do establish that the Quran was written by God, that's the day I become a Muslim. But, since you can't, I'll stay a Christian.

By the same token, you can't establish the Bible was written by God either. It's all a faith thing but you knew that. Sorry, just ribbin' ya.

I don't see how you can link 'logic' and human 'reason' to religion. The two are mutually exclusive. I mean if you could logically prove Islam was the one true faith then there wouldn't be more Christians in the world than any other religion. It'd be more like 90% Islamic, and 10% r****ds.

First, totally agree. Second, "r****ds"? HA HA HA HA!!!
Two different men had two different perceptions. And, possibly the same description, just merely said it differently.

To defend you here, it was actually both. The cross was an old tree with no branches on it. The person being crucified was nailed to the cross-beam (hence the term cross) which was hung from the tree.

The term "cross" was a reference to the cross-beam and the word "tree" was in reference to the actual tree he was hung from. So, in essence, both writers were correct.

Over the years, we just became comfortable with the word "cross" as a term to describe the crucification method. But, you can find references in hymns and older non-Biblical Christian writings to the "tree our Lord was hung from."

You make a strong point about words being twisted into anything. I've always found that to be true which is why there are so many denominations of the Christian faith.

It's like John 3:16. That is probably the most widely recognized verse (or verse location) in the world. However, I really like John 3:17 better.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:17 - For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

Just seems like such an upbeat view. I remember hearing a sermon from the minister at First Methodist in Houston talk about that and I never thought of 3:16 the same again.

------------------
And then, depression set in...