A few questions for Christians

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by JunoTheGreat
Why do people get so defensive on this subject? He only stated facts and asked a question.

EGO!

There are no facts on his post. All of it is innacurate. Despite atheists love of such propaganda, and their widespread use of it, it is still false.

And ego is reality-testing, according to physicology. Don't you mean hubris?

It is not 'all' inaccurate although I will confess some of it is. I was trying to get and understanding of how people would respond. I'm not an Atheist so I don't know why you would use that term when talking about my post. To me it looks like you read my post, and being that it didn't jive with your faith, you dub it an 'Atheist thread' and assume it's all propaganda while being ignorant to most of the original topic.

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Well, you can start by being honest...
1) Enoch is part of some Bibles in use today; and,
2) What do you call the crusades and the Conquistadors? How many people have died in our current Crusades carried out in the Middle East?

I am honest, unlike atheists when the topic is Christianity.

The book of Enoch being part of some Bibles in use today is irrelevant. Anyone can assemble any Bible with any books they want. For all that I care, one could add the Bill of Rights to their version of the Bible if they wanted, and it wouldn't make the Bill of Rights part of the Bible anymore than the presence of the Book of Enoch in some Bibles make it a biblical book. They're called "deutero-canonical" books. They are not part of any canon. They are not part of the Bible. The Book of Enoch has never been a part of the Bible.

The first and second Crusades were a direct response to a threat of Muslim invasion of Europe. The remaining Crusades were a direct response to Muslim targetted killings of Christians and Jewish pilgrims. The Crusades stopped when an agreement was signed that allowed Christians and Jews to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem safetly.

The Conquistadors happened for economical reasons. The Spanish empire wanted to expand its territory and find new venues for commerce.

We have no "Crusades" happening in the Middle East currently.

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by Athin
So the answer is no?

There is enough evidence to establish that a Jewish man of the name of Jesus, called Christ (annointed) by his followers, went around causing some disturbance during the first century, and was hanged for sedition, and that the events of his life caused the founding of the religion that we know today as Christianity.

Can you direct me to a source that would show me this evidence? Other than out of the Bible I mean. In my eyes the Bible is not fact.

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Well, you can start by being honest...
1) Enoch is part of some Bibles in use today; and,
2) What do you call the crusades and the Conquistadors? How many people have died in our current Crusades carried out in the Middle East?

I am honest, unlike atheists when the topic is Christianity.

The book of Enoch being part of some Bibles in use today is irrelevant. Anyone can assemble any Bible with any books they want. For all that I care, one could add the Bill of Rights to their version of the Bible if they wanted, and it wouldn't make the Bill of Rights part of the Bible anymore than the presence of the Book of Enoch in some Bibles make it a biblical book. They're called "deutero-canonical" books. They are not part of any canon. They are not part of the Bible. The Book of Enoch has never been a part of the Bible.

The first and second Crusades were a direct response to a threat of Muslim invasion of Europe. The remaining Crusades were a direct response to Muslim targetted killings of Christians and Jewish pilgrims. The Crusades stopped when an agreement was signed that allowed Christians and Jews to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem safetly.

The Conquistadors happened for economical reasons. The Spanish empire wanted to expand its territory and find new venues for commerce.

We have no "Crusades" happening in the Middle East currently.

Once again, why is someone asking questions about Christianity automatically an Atheist?
Enoch is very much part of the Bible as there are references to it in numerous places in the Bible. Just because it isn't in YOUR version doesn't make it any less part of someone elses Bible. It's obvious that "You're right and everyone else is wrong", but try and do some research. You wouldn't come off sounding so ignorant on the issue.

reply to post by Athin


You're funny.

Please see:The New Testament

No other replies are needed for this thread.

Thanks for trying and keep on unsuccessfully trollin'!

You obviously have not performed any further research in the Christian religion. You also have never read much of what the Christian Bible has to offer. If you actually read the words instead of look at the table of contents you would divulge much more information than your skewed point of view.

Originally posted by Athin
If a group of people don't choose what is in the Bible then why are there so many different versions of it?

There is only one version of the canon. Other people thought that the addition of further books to the Bible could aid to its understanding, but that is their opinion, and doesn't make those books part of the Bible.

Originally posted by Athin
The book of Enoch was in the Bible and is STILL in the Bible in the Ethiopan version.

The Church of Ethiopia has no authority to modify the canon anymore than you or I have it. Their addition of the Book of Enoch is an extraneous addition that does not make the book part of the Bible. The Book of Enoch has never been a part of the Bible.

Originally posted by Athin
Ok so it wasn't a million, but it was a very large number. The Inquisition and the Crusades together is enough to get my point across.

The Inquisition didn't "slaughter" anyone. The objective of the Inquisition was to unmask false Christians. It had no authority over anyone that wasn't a confessed Christian. Their definition of "torture" was laughable. They had such a low standard for "torture" that by their definition anyone in a prision today is being tortured.

The first and second Crusades were a direct response to a threat of Muslim invasion of Europe. The remaining Crusades were a direct response to Muslim targetted killings of Christians and Jewish pilgrims. The Crusades stopped when an agreement was signed that allowed Christians and Jews to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem safetly.

Originally posted by Athin
No one should have authority over anyone. The Inquisition however did murder people and 'teach people the right path' through violence.

I have done my research on the subject, because atheists keep bringing this post over and over on forums, as if it was true, I did my research. The Inquisition had no authority over anyone that wasn't a confessed Christian. It never 'taught people the right path' through the use of violence. It did murder people, however.

Originally posted by Athin
Do you have any real answers that are based on something you actually know about? You are very badly misinformed in all of your answers except the last one. Please do a little digging before you decry my questions as 'lies and propaganda'. Thanks.

All my answers are based on things that I have actually studied and know about. Nothing on your post is factually accurate. This may come to a shock to you, but atheists have little interest in being accurate when the topic is Christianity. Your "sources" are biased.

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by Athin

 

You're funny.

Please see:The New Testament

No other replies are needed for this thread.

Thanks for trying and keep on unsuccessfully trollin'!

You obviously have not performed any further research in the Christian religion. You also have never read much of what the Christian Bible has to offer. If you actually read the words instead of look at the table of contents you would divulge much more information than your skewed point of view.

You have answered no questions.
As states in my thread:
"I am looking for insight into your minds and beliefs. Not looking to start a fight or to put anyone down. Thanks in advance for doing the same. "

You have obviously not performed any further research into this thread. All you did was look at a few questions, assume I was trolling, and took a shot at me for no reason. Please try to be open minded next time and not ignorant. It would make for a more healthy discussion on the subjects.

reply to post by Leahn


Not sure how many times I have to say this but I am not an Atheist. Is it a thick skull or just pure amusement that you have to come on here and think everything you know it right, and everything everyone else knows is wrong? It's obvious there are always going to be many sides on this subject. As I said in the second post of this thread, I am looking for insight. I am not looking to bash this religion or to argue with people, which is what you seem to want. Please either contribute a healthy arguement and stop forcing your opinions as fact, or leave the thread.

I guess, all a Christian has to say to the OP is 'why do you follow a set of rules given to you by your Parents and your Government?'






Your answer will be the same as the Christian's.

reply to post by Unrealised


Not necessarily. There are always people who won't follow the rules. I mean... a lot of the people calling themselves 'christian' couldn't be further from christianity.

For an example, look at any teenager talking on facebook or myspace about the (insert non Christian activity) they just did, yet still claim their 'religion' is christianity.

reply to post by MamaJ


last 100 years is particular because there is historical data that can be thoroughly examined to validate or disprove such claims. prior to that it is common that history has been rewritten over and over, by both governments ...AND religions. the more recent the easier to validate the claim. there have been zero biblical prophesies fulfilled in the last 100 years. it is because the so called fulfilled prophesies have nothing historical to back them only the claims made in a religious text written by 44 + men...

Originally posted by Athin
If you felt like it was trolling just for wanting answers then by that reasoning any curious mind is a troll.

The devoted cookie-cutter religious fundaMENTALists here find ANYONE who is curious or asks valid questions about their cults is a "troll". Pathetic, isnt it?

Its just one of their MILLIONS of cop-outs that they use when they cannot include in their replies any reasonable answers that make a LICK OF SENSE for their foolish stories. Stories that have NO PROOF but depend on "faith" alone when you really get down to it at its core.

They themselves wont dare ask ANY questions about their faith as they are made to believe that doing so is "satanic" and something that will send them to some "hell" for all "eternity". Punishment for using their god-given brains to actually THINK for THEMSELVES!!!

They are simply a cult of foolish, lazy, cult-victims who have been conned by a faith that copied all existing myths, legends, tall-tales and folk-lore into one little convenient all-in-one faith to be swallowed whole by the uneducated masses that now in 2011 include the same types of uneducated brain-dead folks.

For instance, a nice little pie-in-the-face for them was a thread on here a year or so ago that was deleted due to immature fundaMENTALists posts, had asked for ONE piece of evidence outside the bible of their jesus character. Only the fraudulent Josephus writings could be mentioned and even the religious researchers consider it a FRAUD. The Jesus character is simply just one of the mythical sun-gods similar to the many others before him that were created by MEN to be believed by FOOLS.

Silly folks do not research their faith and call others who do to be trolls. Nice cop-out there.

Who are the REAL trolls? I think the answer is obvious...

There is also a letter written that Paul refers to that has never surfaced, the letter to Laodicea. In fact there are probably hundreds of letters to various churches that have been lost.

Being a Christian isn't about having the correct letters and books in the Bible, it's about relationship.

There were some seven hundred churches in China in the 1970's that were birthed out of a man who only had about seven pages of the Bible in his possession. The early church has no NT books at all and no letters till about 50 years afterward.

Once again, the books are just letters on a page, the spirit is what gives them life, the spirit is the true reality not religious junk that is bound by a book and has no life that caused things to happen that you refer to.

reply to post by HangTheTraitors


It's funny that on this page of the comments and the one before this... I asked that same question. I asked to direct me to 'proof' of his existence. Was just told the same old nonsense. "There is enough evidence... pages in the Bible...it has to be true..."

I'm not trying to disprove anyones religion with this thread. I was just asking for answers and proof and people want to slam me for 'spewing atheist propaganda' or 'trolling'. I find it disheartening considering that the second post of this thread clearly stated that I wasn't looking to argue... was just looking for insight.

People want to base their 'facts' on faith alone which is fine I guess. I, however, do not. I need proof.

Originally posted by daggyz
There is also a letter written that Paul refers to that has never surfaced, the letter to Laodicea. In fact there are probably hundreds of letters to various churches that have been lost.

Being a Christian isn't about having the correct letters and books in the Bible, it's about relationship.

There were some seven hundred churches in China in the 1970's that were birthed out of a man who only had about seven pages of the Bible in his possession. The early church has no NT books at all and no letters till about 50 years afterward.

Once again, the books are just letters on a page, the spirit is what gives them life, the spirit is the true reality not religious junk that is bound by a book and has no life that caused things to happen that you refer to.

Paul refers to... so I'm assuming you got that information from the Bible?(correct me if I'm wrong)
That's what I'm talking about. There is no proof whatsoever except for the words in the Bible.
Is there any proof out there, aside from the Bible, that proves Jesus was real? DNA, old remains, burial sites, etc...?

I can't believe this post even got a star. To be a true Christian you have to obey every word of the Bible? No offense but I get the feeling the OP is an 8 year old. A Christian believes every word of the Bible is true. That does not equal doing everything God commanded people in the Bible to do throughout all of history. 4000 years ago there were different rules for God's chosen people. Some rules don't make sense to us now, had their purpose at that time in history. People were stoned for committing sins. They didn't intermarry with other clans. They didn't eat pork products. When Jesus Christ died on the cross to cover our sins everything changed. Jesus said (John 8:7) "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Islam is a religion that still follows rules from thousands of years ago. Maybe you should make a post to them.

reply to post by jjkenobi


I must be 8? Why must one put another down to try and prove his point? It's clear to me who the immature one really is.

If you had actually followed the thread instead of adding your ignorant 2 cents worth without reading, you would realize I said I now understood what 'true christian' means to some people.

I don't even understand why you thought you needed to put your input onto this thread, seeing as how you answered none of the questions in the OP. I guess you just felt that you know everything and are superior to others, which is why anything not in your opinion range must be from an 8 year old.

reply to post by jjkenobi


Also you said a Christian believes every word, but doesn't have to follow every word of God. Seems to me you are going against your God, and therefore be stoned to death.

Originally posted by Athin

Originally posted by daggyz
There is also a letter written that Paul refers to that has never surfaced, the letter to Laodicea. In fact there are probably hundreds of letters to various churches that have been lost.

Being a Christian isn't about having the correct letters and books in the Bible, it's about relationship.

There were some seven hundred churches in China in the 1970's that were birthed out of a man who only had about seven pages of the Bible in his possession. The early church has no NT books at all and no letters till about 50 years afterward.

Once again, the books are just letters on a page, the spirit is what gives them life, the spirit is the true reality not religious junk that is bound by a book and has no life that caused things to happen that you refer to.

Paul refers to... so I'm assuming you got that information from the Bible?(correct me if I'm wrong)
That's what I'm talking about. There is no proof whatsoever except for the words in the Bible.
Is there any proof out there, aside from the Bible, that proves Jesus was real? DNA, old remains, burial sites, etc...?

Obviously no DNA, old remains or burial sites, as he ROSE FROM THE DEAD. Troll.

Originally posted by Athin
reply to post by jjkenobi

 

Also you said a Christian believes every word, but doesn't have to follow every word of God. Seems to me you are going against your God, and therefore be stoned to death.

What you don't get is that true Christianity is spiritual not law and letter...
...when a person believes the Gospel they receive the Spirit...
...it is this present dynamic that is the condition of the Christ-one (Christian).

It is around this spiritual dynamic that social forms develop...
...these social forms are religion...
...religion is the skeletal remains of these social forms once the Spirit has moved on.

So criticise these forms all you want to but you are not touching true Christianity.