Pastor prays for Obama to die of brain cancer, like Kennedy

[rjd970]

Your casting pearls before the swine.

I guess I should be offended if I believed any of this religious stuff, but since I'm not I really don't care.

It's a shame too, because the Sermon on the Mount is a beautiful discourse on social justice and compassion. Jesus wasn't talking nonsense, and in my opinion his message to the world is marginalized when the fairy tale stuff is inserted.

 

[KB5252]

None of that matters with the question at hand. You are still saying you have the right understanding of the New Testament and anybody that doesn't share your view is perverting it. The fact that they say the same thing and use the same justifications you are mean nothing to you.

Mormons or Amish or fundamentalist Chrisitans view the NT in a significantly different different light than most mainstream Christians (I assume you too). So who's right? You....because you say so, and everybody without your purview would have to try really hard to pervert the real thing?

I'm not attacking you, I am just trying to illustrate that everything you say can (and is) said by others that slightly (and sometimes significantly) disagree with you.

Yes, but this goes back to my statement about either believing none or just some of what the New Testament teaches. If you believe in the New Testament fully and embrace everything that comes with it the Old Testament becomes mostly chronicle of the past, a history if you will.

I know you aren't attacking me and I understand exactly what point you try to convey to me. The problem is that if you cast the Old Testament aside and follow the New Testament and the teachings of Christ then these old ways become null and relegated to history. Therefore anyone using them to justify their hatred or any acts against others using the the old teachings as justification are wrong and perverting the teachings of Christ and therefore cannot be Christian.

Christians arose as a movement after Christ's crucifixion and based the NEW religion on his teachings (the new covenant).

 

[OrangeEmpire]

only if you don't believe in it at all or only believe certain parts.

The way in which most people pervert the Bible is to pick and choose certain parts, usually in the Old Testament and try to blend those teachings with those in the New Testament. If you understand the Biblical reason for the new testament, Christ's teachings and life (Gods new plan for Christians) then most of the ways of the Old Testament are shed (eye for an eye etc) if this had never happened it would resemble Islam in many ways.

:banghead2:

Not literal, it was how much the eye was worth in terms of compensation!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Yes, but this goes back to my statement about either believing none or just some of what the New Testament teaches. If you believe in the New Testament fully and embrace everything that comes with it the Old Testament becomes mostly chronicle of the past, a history if you will.

I know you aren't attacking me and I understand exactly what point you try to convey to me. The problem is that if you cast the Old Testament aside and follow the New Testament and the teachings of Christ then these old ways become null and relegated to history. Therefore anyone using them to justify their hatred or any acts against others using the the old teachings as justification are wrong and perverting the teachings of Christ and therefore cannot be Christian.

Christians arose as a movement after Christ's crucifixion and based the NEW religion on his teachings (the new covenant).

+1

:hi:

 

[Oldvol75]

I was talking about what Joevol said.

And the bolded part sound an awful lot like a certainty to me, and can you explain how it makes sense with the underlined part?

Yes, the underlined part is what the Bible teaches: John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

John 6:40; And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, expect the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Can you explain how people like Hitler, KKK, and other that people say they are "Christians" resemble any teaching that Christ taught. They only had a title of Christian. Heres a couple of places to start with Christ's teachings, Matthew 5:21-23,43-48. Nothing that these men did aligns with anything Christ taught.

 

[Oldvol75]

I guess I should be offended if I believed any of this religious stuff, but since I'm not I really don't care.

It's a shame too, because the Sermon on the Mount is a beautiful discourse on social justice and compassion. Jesus wasn't talking nonsense, and in my opinion his message to the world is marginalized when the fairy tale stuff is inserted.

Can you please enlighten me with what the fairy tale stuff is? I'm just curious. Thanks in advance.

 

[rjd970]

Can you please enlighten me with what the fairy tale stuff is? I'm just curious. Thanks in advance.

Virgin births, walking on water, raising the dead (and from the dead), miracle healing, feeding the masses, etc...

All of which, I might add, were myths borrowed from other near east religions that were already in existence.

Jesus was a historical figure and a social revolutionary with a useful message. Why can't that be good enough? There is zero...zero...evidence that any of the miracles ever happened and compelling evidence they were inserted after the fact to appeal to other religious peoples. All of these religious stories, from any persuasion, are self-fulfilling prophecies written after the fact with an agenda, so it should come as no surprise that "evidence" and "eyewitness accounts" written in the same document conform to the story they are telling.

This is aiken to Muslims believing Muhammad actually ascended to heaven on a winged horse, or spoke to Gabriel. Muhammad was a real person, and those events are detailed in the Qu'ran and Hadith. Why don't you believe they happened? Probably for the same reason I don't...it's silly and ridiculous.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the NT that focused on Jesus' message, without the miracle and divinity stuff. IMO, this should have been done 2000 years ago.

 

[Oldvol75]

Virgin births, walking on water, raising the dead (and from the dead), miracle healing, feeding the masses, etc...

All of which, I might add, were myths borrowed from other near east religions that were already in existence.

Jesus was a historical figure and a social revolutionary with a useful message. Why can't that be good enough? There is zero...zero...evidence that any of the miracles ever happened and compelling evidence they were inserted after the fact to appeal to other religious peoples. All of these religious stories, from any persuasion, are self-fulfilling prophecies written after the fact with an agenda, so it should come as no surprise that "evidence" and "eyewitness accounts"
written in the same document conform to the story they are telling.

This is aiken to Muslims believing Muhammad actually ascended to heaven on a winged horse, or spoke to Gabriel. Muhammad was a real person, and those events are detailed in the Qu'ran and Hadith. Why don't you believe they happened? Probably for the same reason I don't...it's silly and ridiculous.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the NT that focused on Jesus' message, without the miracle and divinity stuff. IMO, this should have been done 2000 years ago.

But on the other hand, there is "zero" proof that they did not happen!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Virgin births, walking on water, raising the dead (and from the dead), miracle healing, feeding the masses, etc...

All of which, I might add, were myths borrowed from other near east religions that were already in existence.

Jesus was a historical figure and a social revolutionary with a useful message. Why can't that be good enough? There is zero...zero...evidence that any of the miracles ever happened and compelling evidence they were inserted after the fact to appeal to other religious peoples. All of these religious stories, from any persuasion, are self-fulfilling prophecies written after the fact with an agenda, so it should come as no surprise that "evidence" and "eyewitness accounts" written in the same document conform to the story they are telling.

This is aiken to Muslims believing Muhammad actually ascended to heaven on a winged horse, or spoke to Gabriel. Muhammad was a real person, and those events are detailed in the Qu'ran and Hadith. Why don't you believe they happened? Probably for the same reason I don't...it's silly and ridiculous.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the NT that focused on Jesus' message, without the miracle and divinity stuff. IMO, this should have been done 2000 years ago.

You tell us........ you harp on the weak minded trivial matters and not spreading the true message!

:dunno: