Does Anyone Else Believe In Jesus Christ ?

[BitchicksHusband]

It feels so good to know it is OK to feel safe making fun of Christians, no mater what.

How safe will you feel when you are standing in front of Jesus on the throne trying to explain why it was OK to mock his followers for decades?

Hope you're right that Christianity is wrong...

As safe as you will feel when in front of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to explain why you believed in a fake religion and not in His Holy Noodles.

Hope you're right that Pastafarianism is wrong...

Let's see.  One is backed by the best-selling book every year without fail since the printing press was invented with over a billion followers worldwide and whose life was so transformative that we measure dates by it and the other is backed by an atheist trying to make a point to a school board 7 years ago.  I think I'll take my chances with Christ.

[Ekaros]

Let's see.  One is backed by the best-selling book every year without fail since the printing press was invented with over a billion followers worldwide and whose life was so transformative that we measure dates by it and the other is backed by an atheist trying to make a point to a school board 7 years ago.  I think I'll take my chances with Christ.

Since when something being popular has made it right?

If Islam overtakes the christians do you convert to it because it must be the more advanced and correct belief just because it has more followers?

[pedrog]

It feels so good to know it is OK to feel safe making fun of Christians, no mater what.

How safe will you feel when you are standing in front of Jesus on the throne trying to explain why it was OK to mock his followers for decades?

Hope you're right that Christianity is wrong...

As safe as you will feel when in front of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to explain why you believed in a fake religion and not in His Holy Noodles.

Hope you're right that Pastafarianism is wrong...

Let's see.  One is backed by the best-selling book every year without fail since the printing press was invented with over a billion followers worldwide and whose life was so transformative that we measure dates by it and the other is backed by an atheist trying to make a point to a school board 7 years ago.  I think I'll take my chances with Christ.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2012/books

Better convert to sadomasochism then.

Plus Ad Populum Fallacy.

[dank]

All religions are is different flavors/languages to describe god.  It matters not the religion, what matters is if you believe.

[Spendulus]

I grew up learning about Jesus from my family and they were always obsessed with the second coming. Once you've believed that for so long, picturing Jesus shooting from the sky on a fiery chariot, you kind've slack on life, at least some of my family did. Couldn't embrace the rapture element...

A fiery CHARIOT?

Aw come on.

At least let's give him a 1968 Camaro, yellow with black stripes, twin  turbocharged.

It could be a 1968 Camaro with flames on the side...

NO!!!  That's totally unacceptable.  I mean like, forget it all then.  Painted flames on the side is stoopid. 

I want flames like this thing is some Apollo moon rocket.  Then we be talking.

[Spendulus]

It feels so good to know it is OK to feel safe making fun of Christians, no mater what.

How safe will you feel when you are standing in front of Jesus on the throne trying to explain why it was OK to mock his followers for decades?

Hope you're right that Christianity is wrong...

As safe as you will feel when in front of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to explain why you believed in a fake religion and not in His Holy Noodles.

Hope you're right that Pastafarianism is wrong...

Let's see.  One is backed by the best-selling book every year without fail since the printing press was invented with over a billion followers worldwide and whose life was so transformative that we measure dates by it and the other is backed by an atheist trying to make a point to a school board 7 years ago.  I think I'll take my chances with Christ.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2012/books

Better convert to sadomasochism then.

Plus Ad Populum Fallacy.

Two good points.  But he had a good question:

Does making fun of the beliefs of others make you better?  Or worse?
   

[Anon136]

I only believe in things that have good evidence and/or logcally consistent arguments to back them up, i have not yet encountered such evidence and/or logically consistent arguments for any religion. I am however uncompromisingly open minded so if you felt so inclined as to share with me the evidence and/or arguments that convinced you, and if the evidence evidence is good and/or the arguments are sound than i'll certainly climb on board.

Well, then you may want to read The Case for Christ.  It was written by a journalist attempting to disprove that Jesus was who he said he was using the types of methods he used to find truth from eyewitnesses and reports about news stories:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation-ebook/dp/B000FC2KEM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1383148637&sr=8-5&keywords=evidence+demands+a+verdict

i dont need to read a book, just tell me what the evidence is and link the original sources.

[Spendulus]

I only believe in things that have good evidence and/or logcally consistent arguments to back them up, i have not yet encountered such evidence and/or logically consistent arguments for any religion. I am however uncompromisingly open minded so if you felt so inclined as to share with me the evidence and/or arguments that convinced you, and if the evidence evidence is good and/or the arguments are sound than i'll certainly climb on board.

Well, then you may want to read The Case for Christ.  It was written by a journalist attempting to disprove that Jesus was who he said he was using the types of methods he used to find truth from eyewitnesses and reports about news stories:

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation-ebook/dp/B000FC2KEM/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1383148637&sr=8-5&keywords=evidence+demands+a+verdict

i dont need to read a book, just tell me what the evidence is and link the original sources.

I don't know that either of the following two books claims or subjects  are adequately covered on the web.

So just to confuse things further...

Here's a classic book that shows how Jesus & co-conspirators could have pulled off the biggest scam in history - no dying on the cross, etc...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Passover-Plot-Special-Anniversary/dp/1932857095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383165821&sr=8-1&keywords=passover+plot

And here's my recommendation, this is an unbiased scholarly look at evidence that Jesus may or may not have existed.

Arthur:  Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/The-Historical-Jesus-2-Parts/dp/B0018QJ32G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383165976&sr=8-1&keywords=historical+jesus+ehrman

[pedrog]

It feels so good to know it is OK to feel safe making fun of Christians, no mater what.

How safe will you feel when you are standing in front of Jesus on the throne trying to explain why it was OK to mock his followers for decades?

Hope you're right that Christianity is wrong...

As safe as you will feel when in front of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster trying to explain why you believed in a fake religion and not in His Holy Noodles.

Hope you're right that Pastafarianism is wrong...

Let's see.  One is backed by the best-selling book every year without fail since the printing press was invented with over a billion followers worldwide and whose life was so transformative that we measure dates by it and the other is backed by an atheist trying to make a point to a school board 7 years ago.  I think I'll take my chances with Christ.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/2012/books

Better convert to sadomasochism then.

Plus Ad Populum Fallacy.

Two good points.  But he had a good question:

Does making fun of the beliefs of others make you better?  Or worse?
   

Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

Don't forget too much people suffered and died for not following those ridiculous beliefs, atheists have been persecuted for way too long, killed, burned, tortured, dismembered, banished, shunned, associated with immorality, robbed of their possessions, chased away from their property, but now there's free speech and those people better have thick skin if they still maintain those same ridiculous beliefs.

[just_me]

1- When I posted, I did not really expect this
thread to become so popular, but wow,
hey, if people like to discuss this,
then that is fine with me.

2- I find that I am not really able to convince
people to have faith or belief in jesus.
But 'when it pleases God, then he will reveal
his son to you'

3- I thank everyone who is replying who has
faith in jesus christ, for staying on topic.

4- I am hopeful that the bitcoin community
will be supportive of my new website at
saveme.info and drop by to give a little
to one or more of the people who are asking
for some bitcoin donations, or come on by and
get your own bitcoin donation webpage if you
want.

Bitcoin donations can be received anonymously at
saveme.info or you can chose to reveal who you
are, if you want to. its up to you.


You have me working for you, to try and advertise
the site, and thereby when people come to the site,
they might click on your link, and read your story,
and they might have compassion and give some
bitcoins to you.

Thank you again to everyone for replying
and remember that

Jesus Christ Is Lord
And God Raised Jesus from the Dead on The third day

Jesus said: 'If I go and come again, then you will
know that you will do the same'

 Praise the Lord

[Spendulus]

....
Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

Don't forget too much people suffered and died for not following those ridiculous beliefs, atheists have been persecuted for way too long, killed, burned, tortured, dismembered, banished, shunned, associated with immorality, robbed of their possessions, chased away from their property, but now there's free speech and those people better have thick skin if they still maintain those same ridiculous beliefs.

The problem with that point of view is that for most of history, atheism was ridiculous.  The invention of the microscope changed that.  Before then, spontaneous generation of life was obvious and this 'proved' the existence of supernatural phenomena as part of and parcel of life.  Hence, the spiritual world existed.  It was only a question of one or many gods, but that question could not have rationally had an option of 0 gods.

So for me to accept your initial premise means that I must accept as rational the past ridicule and suffering of atheists.  Which I do not.

You seem to be advocating a 'what goes around comes around' or an 'eye for an eye'.

But (some of the Christians on the forum might comment on this) that seems to be contrary to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament.

[Mitchell]

I am not digging your web design. Don't believe in Jesus Christ or God either.

[just_me]

Reply here if you believe in Jesus Christ.

Hi, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord,

and that Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day

I also believe that if you say that with your mouth,
and believe it in your heart,

Then you will be saved.


Read my Sig, and you see that I am a website designer, but I am also thinking
about getting some backlinks to some Jesus Christ believing websites.
Maybe we can exchange links if you have a Jesus Christ website?
And if it is also a bitcoin site somehow, then all the better.

Please read what I said at first, and then you will realize that some of you are posting off-topic here.
This is not a thread for debating with fools about whether God is, or whether Jesus is, or not.

And I quote from the Holy Bible: 'The Fool Has Said In His Heart, There Is No God'


What did I say in my first post?
Reply here in this thread if you believe in Jesus Christ

Not only are some people blind and deaf, but they also cannot read, nor understand.

[pedrog]

Please read what I said at first, and then you will realize that some of you are posting off-topic here.
This is not a thread for debating with fools about whether God is, or whether Jesus is, or not.

And I quote from the Holy Bible: 'The Fool Has Said In His Heart, There Is No God'


What did I say in my first post?
Reply here in this thread if you believe in Jesus Christ

Not only are some people blind and deaf, but they also cannot read, nor understand.

Ah, quoting the Bible, here's my favorite:

Ezekiel 23:19-21

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

[Spendulus]

Please read what I said at first, and then you will realize that some of you are posting off-topic here.
This is not a thread for debating with fools about whether God is, or whether Jesus is, or not.

And I quote from the Holy Bible: 'The Fool Has Said In His Heart, There Is No God'


What did I say in my first post?
Reply here in this thread if you believe in Jesus Christ

Not only are some people blind and deaf, but they also cannot read, nor understand.

Ah, quoting the Bible, here's my favorite:

Ezekiel 23:19-21

Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

Not bad, not bad...

I have one that I made up, which in my posting please understand I do not mean it to apply to you (it doesn't), but it simply seems like something that at times, needs to be said.

It goes like this.

"Verily, I say unto thee that twice milenia in the past, no man and certainly no god-man walked the Earth commanding others to be complete assholes."

Now it happens I just finished watching a great movie, with many biblical scriptures of great import, and it will take me a while to comprehend this movie and the many hidden meanings.

Pulp Fiction...

[BitcoinBarrel]

Ark of the Covenant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYIwjYN4JVo

[pedrog]

....
Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

Don't forget too much people suffered and died for not following those ridiculous beliefs, atheists have been persecuted for way too long, killed, burned, tortured, dismembered, banished, shunned, associated with immorality, robbed of their possessions, chased away from their property, but now there's free speech and those people better have thick skin if they still maintain those same ridiculous beliefs.

The problem with that point of view is that for most of history, atheism was ridiculous.  The invention of the microscope changed that.  Before then, spontaneous generation of life was obvious and this 'proved' the existence of supernatural phenomena as part of and parcel of life.  Hence, the spiritual world existed.  It was only a question of one or many gods, but that question could not have rationally had an option of 0 gods.

So for me to accept your initial premise means that I must accept as rational the past ridicule and suffering of atheists.  Which I do not.

You seem to be advocating a 'what goes around comes around' or an 'eye for an eye'.

But (some of the Christians on the forum might comment on this) that seems to be contrary to the fundamental teachings of the New Testament.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".

When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!

[Spendulus]

.....I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".

When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!

It's not that there were not athiests, but that they existed in a differing context.  Such an athiest might have disagreed that there was a 'supreme being', but he never would have doubted natural spirits of the forest, or of the storm, the ocean, or the obvious nature of spontaneous creation.  Thus, he wasn't even an athiest as you think of it today.

In such historical times, the arguments were more polytheistic vs theistic, one versus three on the godhead, so forth and so on. 

[pedrog]

.....I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".

When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!

It's not that there were not athiests, but that they existed in a differing context.  Such an athiest might have disagreed that there was a 'supreme being', but he never would have doubted natural spirits of the forest, or of the storm, the ocean, or the obvious nature of spontaneous creation.  Thus, he wasn't even an athiest as you think of it today.

In such historical times, the arguments were more polytheistic vs theistic, one versus three on the godhead, so forth and so on. 

Atheism is just a specific branch of skepticism.

Buddhism is technically an atheist religion and they have all sort of magical stuff.

My point was, skeptics have been persecuted for ages for speaking against outrageous claims, and now we can speak freely and educate, mock, make fun of, the ridiculous stuff people still believe, I don't care if they believe a middle-eastern Jew is there savior, or astrology or ancient aliens, if it is ridiculous it has to be pointed out as such, people need to gain some critical thinking.

[Spendulus]

.....I'm not advocating an "eye for eye".

When the first guy invented the first god, I'm sure there was another guy next to him that said I don't believe what you're saying, there have been atheists as long as there have been theists.

Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.)

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And yes, now we have science, but there are people that still maintain beliefs that go against reality, beliefs from the bronze age, and that is ridiculous and dangerous!

It's not that there were not athiests, but that they existed in a differing context.  Such an athiest might have disagreed that there was a 'supreme being', but he never would have doubted natural spirits of the forest, or of the storm, the ocean, or the obvious nature of spontaneous creation.  Thus, he wasn't even an athiest as you think of it today.

In such historical times, the arguments were more polytheistic vs theistic, one versus three on the godhead, so forth and so on. 

Atheism is just a specific branch of skepticism.

Buddhism is technically an atheist religion and they have all sort of magical stuff.

My point was, skeptics have been persecuted for ages for speaking against outrageous claims, and now we can speak freely and educate, mock, make fun of, the ridiculous stuff people still believe, I don't care if they believe a middle-eastern Jew is there savior, or astrology or ancient aliens, if it is ridiculous it has to be pointed out as such, people need to gain some critical thinking.

I'm skeptical about all that.  Evidence exists that atheists are not so terribly rational.  In the US, about 80% are Democrat and go along with those progressive agendas.  They replace - to what extent may be debatable, yes - believe in an all powerful god with a belief in an all powerful government.  I think this happens at a subconscious level, after a vacuum exists from taking away the god-stuff - someone like Obama comes in and fills in the gap.

We've all seen that happen.   I'm sketching out the details here, and not trying to impute the negativity to this phenomena that it might seem.  Rather I see it as more like a human 'need for myth/mysticism/spiritual' which will get filled one way or another.

Obviously, a 'need for myth' is opposed to rationality.

The reverse of this is worth noting too, it is not uncommon to see very sharp scientists who have a humble and honest faith in one or another form of religion.

I can't see anything wrong or illogical with that.