Lying for Jesus. (religions, organizations, New Testament, Roman)

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Thoreau424

Many atheists put themselves above everyone else and the universe as the elite of humanity. So sure of themselves, so convinced they see reality clearly. Like the fox guarding the hen house, they've set the stage for their personal delusions, and are now center stage in their own retarded production.

Despite their professed superiority and knowledge, they never try or fully test the beliefs they so quickly write off. Their lack (and maybe even fear) of personal testing and verification shows them to be the biggest wimps, fakes, and posers on the planet. They'll quickly accept scientific testing by others, but quickly reject personal testing within themselves.

Now can you supply a honest response? You are making your side look really bad.

It fits the OP, though.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Rafius

How are you doing that? By lighting a candle?

"You stupid darkness!" (Lucy van Pelt).

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

To Christians, Jesus is the image of the living God which has been accepted by so many people. The fact that he has endured since the first century is proof that his image is a true one. So no one can deny Christianity when viewing it from that perspective.

To me, Hell represents the place some people imagine they might find themselves after a time of spiritual death. For example, after a nervous breakdown or a similar life crisis. They are too proud to accept the God that many of their neighbors have accepted. They feel "above" all of that.

But to anyone who doesn't need religion, none of this should matter. However, …..the fact that so many self-proclaimed atheists are still bothered or haunted by the idea of Hell, this is possibly an indicator that they know deep inside that they should be less condemning or critical of the kind of "lowly" masses of uneducated people who are religious (which is a false view to begin with). The fact that so many atheists spend so much time debating these things is evidence that some of them may not be in a comfortable place spiritually or psychologically when it comes to religious matters.

How do you know? Not even I claim to know what haunts atheists or does not.

Originally Posted by Rafius

Ok good. So now please explain how two opposing religions, Christianity and Hinduism, can both be true. I'm intrigued!

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

No. I'm sure someone else has described it better as "different aspects" of the same divine.

I want to know what your personal motive is for asking a question like that. Religious beliefs are set in stone against skeptics like yourself. You are never going to change what other people believe. So what is your purpose in even debating these things? As a non-believer you should know that someone's belief shouldn't matter to you... or does it? Hmm, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a reason that atheists are so obsessed with religion. What are you seeking? Hmm.

'All the same god'. I get that. And pick whichever religion you like. I get that, too. I just don't believe in any god -claim.

I suspect that is where Ozzy draws the line.

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I'd say they're addicted to anti Christian rage, and like with all addicts, you don't change your drug of choice easily. To switch their rage target to something else would be difficult and would leave them in withdrawal. There are rage addict targets of choice all across the spectrum, this forum just seems to be a back alley strewn with dirty needles dripping anti Christian hate. *shrugs and gets another cup of coffee*

Among the rage addicts, though, I think there are people who are genuinely interested in discussing religious beliefs, although they don't hold any themselves, and so it makes for an interesting board.

It's quite a handy ploy that Christians use when they are starting to have trouble treading water, to find excuses for not replying, involving a lot of accusations shared with another one who will agree.

It's a variant on running away but is ignoring any tough posts and answering only the easy ones. Or, if you can't find any, replying only to sympathisers. We shall see how it goes, but failure to respond to fair questions is noted.

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I certainly don't mind questions that are very thought-provoking, or are posed from the position of nonbelief.

I have no reason to be on "hot coals", though, because my personal beliefs are not your business, and I don't have to be forced to defend them to an audience that isn't interested in listening. I'm sure you can comprehend that. (well maybe not?)

Your personal beliefs are certainly our business if you post them here, especially if those beliefs encompass a whole grab bag of fantastic accusations about an atheism that you doubtlles know nothing about.

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

Yes! It doesn't make sense.

It wouldn't -tho those determined to find fault with atheism, valid or not.

Can anyone who is not monumentally prejudiced against atheism, latent, static or activist, look at the judgemental crap dished out to us in some the posts before now and still take issue with us for fighting back?

Originally Posted by OzzyRules

The funny thing is that atheists are probably accomplishing the exact opposite of what they claim to want to do, the way they come across.

You go right on telling yourself that we are reducing the amount of irreligion in the US. Tell as many Believers as you like and convince them they needn't worry about atheism. You do that for us.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by old_cold

So much for trying to bring everyone around to salvation.
No wonder it's taken so long.

He's clear he's NOT trying to speak to "everyone" and bring everyone in. Only "he who has ears to hear" what he is saying. He who is fertile ground for the seed of the message to take root.

That's the whole point of the parables rather than just standing up and saying the message in clear, non-symbolic language. He's aiming it where he wants it to go, over the heads of the ones he doesn't want to understand.

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

He's clear he's NOT trying to speak to "everyone" and bring everyone in. .

That's the whole point of the parables rather than just standing up and saying the message in clear, non-symbolic language. He's aiming it where he wants it to go, over the heads of the ones he doesn't want to understand.

I started a thread on this very thing....could you try to explain why this is?
Thank you in advance.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes

I think we are talking past each other. I was referring to the one mention of Nazareth in Mark, and why it is probably a later 'correction'. We look at the same parallel pericope in the other gospels (the baptism of Jesus), and look at the same parallel verses to see if and how they have been changed.

So the parallels for Mark 1:9 (In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan).

are

Matt 3:13 (Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him).
Luke 3:21 (Now it happened, when all the people were baptized, Jesus also had been baptized, and was praying. The sky was opened,)

No mention of Nazareth in the parallel passage Matt 3:13. So that and the unusual double location is a big clue Mark did not mention Nazareth.

It seems we are saying the same thing.

Regarding the rejection the original form was evidently Jesus' own country and Luke (n totally rewriting the whole thing) assumes it was Nazareth and daid so.

As for the baptism. Luke may reflect the original form in just saying that Jesus was there but doesn't say where he came from. Both the Mark/ Matthew version says Galilee. But only Mark says Nazareth' in Galilee, and must be his own gloss. Unless someone added it later. I checked and couldn't find a mention that wasn't in some early manuscripts.

However, while the vid is not strictly correct that Nazareth isn't names, the conclusion that it was invented to explain why Jesus was 'a Nazorene' is a fair point.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn

I started a thread on this very thing....could you try to explain why this is?
Thank you in advance.

I think in part, he was dog whistling over the Roman Guards and the pharisees, and religious leaders at the time who surely would have killed him even sooner if they could figure out what it was he was saying, exactly. That's also why when challenged, he often answered in the form of a question, getting the questioner to answer so he couldn't be quoted as saying some of the messages he was passing on.

BUT, I think there's more than that. Somewhere in the first half of the book of Mark, and I can't find it right now is a troubling passage about this message of salvation isn't intended to be understood by everyone. And my Bible study class had a really hard time with it. Maybe it will come to me.

And this idea, that some are intended not to perceive and follow is a hard one to swallow. It would be less difficult if there was just a heaven and no hell. Sorry, you didn't listen, you don't get heaven. But it's hard to imagine a hell in that situation where others weren't supposed to hear.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Maybe you don't know about people addicted to their own rage? I do. It's a thing.

It's like people who are addicted to their exercise adrenaline, and start to get withdrawal symptoms if their typical work out time has passed and they're still at their desk.

There are people addicted to the adrenaline that is released when they rage, and they tend to try to find the same exact trigger for their rage. Like hating Jews, hating Blacks, hating liberals, hating conservatives, hating Hilary, hating Trump, on and on and on.

And for them, it's very uncomfortable for the to go any real length of time without a "fix".

Not sure where the persecution complex came in, but oh well.

Well, persecution is a very christian thing...isn't it.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Rafius

What is pretty funny is that you don't know why. It's because Buddhists are not trying to get their religion into governments and places of learning. Neither are Hindus or Shintoists. Neither Hindus or Shintoists, Zoroastrians or Celtic Pagans, Taoists or Druids trying to introduce laws to affect us all based on what they think their gods want for us. Christianity IS. As for Muslims, I fight them just like I fight Christians. Do you understand now?

In all fairness, in Thailand (as one example), Buddhism is the state religion. It goes so far as having monks bless military equipment. It is part of the Thai educational system...in fact many public schools are at temples, with lessons taught by monks.

[old_cold]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

. And my Bible study class had a really hard time with it. .

I can understand why.

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

Well, persecution is a very christian thing...isn't it.

People who called themselves Christians certainly did a GREAT deal of persecuting.

I don't recall any Christians that Jesus was supervising doing anything horrible? His disciples? His followers who followed him from town to town?

I can't really be responsible for how people have behaved who have misunderstood the teachings of my Messiah.