doughgirl said:
He follows the example of Christ. HE FOLLOWS.
Yes, and he required people to follow
him, he'd take care of the rest.
Paul was not being arrogant when he said this.
No, not that verse, what about this:
Galations 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
It seems to me like Paul is telling the people of the Galation church that he hopes that Christians who spread teachings differing from his cut off their penises.
You got that right, and he wasn't shy about admitting it.
But at this time the Corinthian people did not know much about Jesus Christ. The Gospels had not been written yet…..so they had no idea what Christ was like. How could he tell them to imitate something they did not know much about? They trusted Paul and he had built a relationship of trust with these NEW believers. He was their Christian example……he was not their King, Lord……only an example. Christians today should be examples of how God wants us to live. I do not worship anyone else but I do admire other Christians and their walks with God.
Ha, Paul rather arrantly tells the people of Corinth that they must give more money to the church. He plays multiple guilt cards, comparing the genorocity of the church at Macedonia, and saying that God loves a cheerful giver. Jesus never said to give any money to a church. Actually,
the Way or Christians, distort Jesus' teachings. It's easier to worship Jesus than follow his teachings, and the Apostles found that out. They want their followers to repent and get baptized in Jesus' name. The problem I see with that is that nowhere in the NT is there
any record of Jesus baptizing anyone.
That is why going to church is so important. God did not mean us to do life alone…….to battle alone. We need family, we need friends that are Christians to help us in our daily struggles and to keep us on that narrow path.
Well, that is contradictory to Jesus' teachings once again. He told you to go in your room alone and pray.
Obviously, Jesus didn't approve of group prayers or anything of the sort. And I have plenty of friends and family, I am content, I do not need to belong to a church and worship a worthless piece of wood or metal, or maybe feel content because I believe an invisable man is conversing with me.
Well I’ll tell ya…….people live daily lives without requiring proof for everything they do. They rely on faith for most things.
Examples…
Say you are going to fly across the country by jet. Do you know with 100% certainty that you will get to your final destination?
You are going to have surgery. You select the doctor based on his expertise and experience. You pick a reliable hospital based on their record. Do you know for sure that you will make it through without dying? Chances are you will make it……..I said CHANCES,
Yes, but having faith that you are going to land at your destination and faith in a supernatural plane of existance and a murderous, conceited, emotionally insecure sky pixie are wayyyyyy different. For one, it is beyond proof that other people traveling via airplane have arrived in their destinations safe and sound. There are medical surgeries going on as we speak, and the vast majority of them turn out fine. The things you talk about do require a modicum of faith, but there's a record to base that faith on. But
there is no proof, or even a scintilla of documentation of a single person going to heaven, hell, or engaging in a game of twister with the skydaddy. That, my friend is 100% faith.
You mention the atheist…..His position is indefensible.
It is philosophically impossible to be an atheist, since to be an atheist you must have infinite knowledge in order to know absolutely that there is no God.
Why,
atheism makes no assertions at all? Atheism just states that there is no reason to believe in a God. Nothing more, nothing less. Sure, a strong atheist claims there is no God. But I believe that is a reasonable assumption based on the huge lack of evidence supportting such an entity. For instance, The Bible God is considered
omnipotent, and
omniscient. But he loses to iron chariots and shows countless frustration and has all sorts of hissy fits and temper tantrums. I would think, any emotion is incompatible with
omniscience, since he knows everything that will and has been, and I don't consider running away with your tail tucked between your legs from an army that has iron chariots, anywhere near
omnipotence. So, after a thorough reading of the Bible, I have come to the conclusion that if the Bible God is attributted these properties, he dosen't exist.
Atheism is not a valid philosophy.
Yes, you're repeating yourself, but you failed to win me over on your little tirade above. Do you believe in leprechauns? No, then you'd be "aleprechaunist". The prefix "a" denotes non-belief. It is not a belief, simply a lack there of.
No finite human being can prove God does not exist because God may very well exist beyond ones comprehension or their experience.
Your're absolutely right, except we have a 2,000 page book dedicated to God. It portrays this God in a light comparable to a little child bitching over a scraped knee.
Have you ever heard of Isaac Asimov? He signed the Humanist Manifesto ll. He honestly said…. "Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God does not exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time”
Duh. If God could be proven not to exist, what would be the purposes of all the churches, faith-based groups, and the Vatican? I think alot of people would be walking around like zombies. People need something to believe in. The more technologically primitive a society is, the more mystical religions will flourish. For example, if someday we can travel to other galaxies, and discover other entitys in the universe, and ultimately decrease our mortality rate, can we still believe in a mystical, celestrial man sitting in a cloud, pointing a finger and watching us? Compare that to tribes of people in the Congo. People barely have enough food, the mortality rate is young, and only a select few have automobiles there, it is very easy to believe in a heavenly father responsible for everything when you have not even ventured from your native planet.
And we do have evidences today.
Where? What? When?
The Bible is an historical document of demonstrated accuracy and reliability.
Haha, com'on. I like reading the Bible too, but it is merely a fictional piece of bullshit. Talking donkey's and snakes, whales swallowing people and spitting them up alive, suns standing still, flaming wirlwinds carying people to heaven, this God creating plants before light, and the list goes on. How can you possibley read through this and hold a straight face?
It has valuable information on customs, languages, ethics and religion of what is the foundation of all Western civilization.
But fails to mention Islam, alot of Muslims will claim Allah is the one true God. I bet Allah could defeat iron chariots.:lol:
From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls they have determined that the Old Testament for all practical purposes is exactly the same as it was originally inspired by God and recorded.
Uhh, no. Alls they prove is that the Hebrews did a fine job of perserving the integrity of the OT text. The Bible makes the claim that it was inspired by God, not the scrolls.
I wont go into it here because it’s a huge topic…but read about the Ebla tablets. They prove that written language existed at least 1000 years before Moses, which once again vindicated Moses as the most likely author of the Pentateuch.
Read about all the fulfilled prophecies.
Please, any prophesy can be fullfilled depending on how the interpreter of it, describes it. Jesus did not fullfill the prophesy in Malachi that he was the messiah, no wonder Jews reject him.:lol:
Also look at the non-Christian writers that were living close to the time of Christ. They support the New Testament record. Flavius Josephus wrote about John the Baptist and mentioned Jesus by referring to James the half brother of Jesus, the “so-called Christ.” He referred to Jesus as a wise man who was condemned to die on the cross by Pilate. How about Tacitus. He talked about Jesus death and the existence of Christians in Rome. How about Pliny the Younger…Suetonius……The Talumud……The Mishnah…they all make references to Christ.
Yes, and they all lived decades after Jesus supposedly died. But none of them attributted Jesus with "divine" abilites.
The Bible is clearly the most trustworthy historical document ever written.
O man, that statement is so funny. I think I'll put it in my sig.:lol: Haha, is this the same Bible that states donkey's can talk, there are Giants, the earth is flat, and demon possesion causes illness?:lol: Surely you're not serious here.
You compare the Bible with other ancient manuscripts and none are more factual and accurate. If you toss the Bible out as unreliable then virtually all other books must be tossed out as being unreliable as well.
I guess the dictionary is unreliable? I got a a new tv today, should I throw out the manuel as it's unreliable? I guess the phonebook is unreliable?
