Jesus Camp:

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

In this case, the brush you appear to be using when you lump all religion and the practice of it together as being "evil", etc. To suggest Dr. Martin Luther King, and Jim Jones and what they believe are basically the same is quite a reach in ridicularity.
Hmmm....that would be the brush

What makes you think Christianity is less bizarre than Jim's cult? I particularly find passages concerning salves ironic seeing has how MLK's ancestors were enslaved.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

What makes you think Christianity is less bizarre than Jim's cult? I particularly find passages concerning salves ironic seeing has how MLK's ancestors were enslaved.

C'mon Saden - you're smarter than that. One chapter of a 1000 plus page book written (at least) over 2000 years ago as an example of the underlying religion's "bizarreness"? And then to equate this same passage as being an equivalent basis as a suicide cult? Are you just being purposely obtuse? or do you really believe this is a legitimate comparison of the two religions?

[MColeman]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

C'mon Saden - you're smarter than that. One chapter of a 1000 plus page book written (at least) over 2000 years ago as an example of the underlying religion's "bizarreness"? And then to equate this same passage as being an equivalent basis as a suicide cult? Are you just being purposely obtuse? or do you really believe this is a legitimate comparison of the two religions?

It should also be noted that the coming of Jesus wiped away the Old Testament way of life and expectations of us that God had/has. The Old Testament was the word of God as it pertained to Pre-Savior Jews (and also foretold of everything that occurred in the New Testament). During his life, Jesus preached love. Not only for fellow believers, but also of non-believers. Love (& grace) conquers all.

Basically, God knew that we could never live up to His expectations. Because of our failure He sent Jesus to this earth to live a perfect life and die in our place.

I should also say that in order to be a Christian, all that is required of you is to have a solid faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You don't need to go to Jesus Camp, save 10 million lost souls, pledge $50k to a TV preacher, or live an Old Testament lifestyle. It's what is in your heart that truly determines your spiritual fate. Not me, not the Pentecostals, not any preacher, and certainly not the missionaries on the streets can determine this.

God does not command you to do anything you do not wish. We are each given our own free will here on Earth.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by MColeman

It should also be noted that the coming of Jesus wiped away the Old Testament way of life and expectations of us that God had/has. The Old Testament was the word of God as it pertained to Pre-Savior Jews (and also foretold of everything that occurred in the New Testament). During his life, Jesus preached love. Not only for fellow believers, but also of non-believers. Love (& grace) conquers all.

Basically, God knew that we could never live up to His expectations. Because of our failure He sent Jesus to this earth to live a perfect life and die in our place.

I should also say that in order to be a Christian, all that is required of you is to have a solid faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You don't need to go to Jesus Camp, save 10 million lost souls, pledge $50k to a TV preacher, or live an Old Testament lifestyle. It's what is in your heart that truly determines your spiritual fate. Not me, not the Pentecostals, not any preacher, and certainly not the missionaries on the streets can determine this.

God does not command you to do anything you do not wish. We are each given our own free will here on Earth.

Good point, and welcome to the board.

Also if you havent noticed, we are a Redskins forum too, if you are into that kinda stuff lol.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by MColeman

It should also be noted that the coming of Jesus wiped away the Old Testament way of life and expectations of us that God had/has. The Old Testament was the word of God as it pertained to Pre-Savior Jews (and also foretold of everything that occurred in the New Testament). During his life, Jesus preached love. Not only for fellow believers, but also of non-believers. Love (& grace) conquers all.

Basically, God knew that we could never live up to His expectations. Because of our failure He sent Jesus to this earth to live a perfect life and die in our place.

I should also say that in order to be a Christian, all that is required of you is to have a solid faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You don't need to go to Jesus Camp, save 10 million lost souls, pledge $50k to a TV preacher, or live an Old Testament lifestyle. It's what is in your heart that truly determines your spiritual fate. Not me, not the Pentecostals, not any preacher, and certainly not the missionaries on the streets can determine this.

God does not command you to do anything you do not wish. We are each given our own free will here on Earth.

Very nice first post. And let me just add it is an honor to have Monte Coleman join us on this message board. One of the all time greatest players in Redskins history. And one of those cases where you can say he was a "great player, but even better person"

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

C'mon Saden - you're smarter than that. One chapter of a 1000 plus page book written (at least) over 2000 years ago as an example of the underlying religion's "bizarreness"? And then to equate this same passage as being an equivalent basis as a suicide cult? Are you just being purposely obtuse? or do you really believe this is a legitimate comparison of the two religions?

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

Who is saying that we should ignore the old testament? As I stated Christianity is founded in the teachings of Judaism. Jesus was a literate jew who could (and did according to the NT) quote judaic scripture.

People have devoted lifetimes to understanding the message and meaning particular books of the Bible (I am sure the same can be said of the Koran, Talmud and other sacred books). I have, as we speak, a 5000 page tome that gives a cursory background, using comparitive language translations from the original greek and hebrew of both OT and NT. Taking any book, passage or quote from the bible (old or new) without an understanding of who wrote it, why it was written, whether it's a poetic, prophetic or historical book/chapter/verse will, of course, lead to inconsistencies. Can many verses, statements, stories be taken out of context and not lose their meaning? Of course (the 10 Commandments and the beatitudes jump to mind). Does that mean all must be? Of course not. Even those that CAN be taken out of context gain a greater depth of meaning when their context is understood.

Again, it seems you want thousands of years of wisdom on the meaning of life wrapped up neatly in a non contradictory, self explanatory, easy bake oven answer and it just ain't gonna happen - Not in Christianity, not in islam, not in judaism nor in any other religion that is worth study or devotion.

When you find a religion with easy answers to all life's problems - well, you just entered Jesus Camp.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm not being facetious. I simply don't think Christianity should get a pass, be it one passage or the whole book (i.e.Ezekiel). You can't simply ignore the Old Testament and pretend it is invalid. And while the New Testament is much tamer than the Old Testament, it is still contains inconsistencies (world is still 6000 years old).

Of course, if God in fact did create the universe, then any "hard" evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old isn't so hard anymore, now is it?

Again, this boils down to what Joe Redskin has been saying all along, that it's in many ways irresponsible and foolish to try to explain the infinate in terms of tangibility.

Down the road, we may quite possibly come to realize the true origin of all living things, attributable to something that isn't infinite. But at the very least, its certain that we are incapable in the present of such knowledge.

I actually think trusting incomplete scientific explination based on assumption and groupthink is just as if not more irresponsible than someone who believes blindly in religion (i.e. Jesus Campers).

That of course is discussion for another day and thread.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Of course, if God in fact did create the universe, then any "hard" evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old isn't so hard anymore, now is it?

My little brain hurts from trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Again, this boils down to what Joe Redskin has been saying all along, that it's in many ways irresponsible and foolish to try to explain the infinate in terms of tangibility.

Basically, you just have to have faith and take it as it is.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I actually think trusting incomplete scientific explanation based on assumption and groupthink is just as if not more irresponsible than someone who believes blindly in religion (i.e. Jesus Campers).

I'm sorry but you can't equate science and faith. Science deals in theories and a set of principles aimed at proving or disproving a theory. Observable and measurable tests are conducted. We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

I'm sorry but you can't equate science and faith. Science deals in theories and a set of principles aimed at proving or disproving a theory. Observable and measurable tests are conducted. We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

First let me say this, faith and science are, fundementally, not at odds. In fact, fundamentally they are similar, each seeks answers to questions. In fact, the thing that initially sparked my interest into the religion I finally joined, after a lenghty period of atheism, was a sign that said "Christ came to take away our sins, not our minds".

As for science, yup, advancements have occurred. But, for all our advancements, there are many things accepted by faith within the scientific community (often euphamisticly termed "assumptions") which in turn form the basis for or fill in the gaps of scientific theories.

The significant difference between science and religion is that religion, faith, and spirituality seek answers to questions that have no timeless "right" answer and they, inevitably, can only provide guidance in how to question and search for answers applicable to us individually, on daily terms and in our daily lives.

When science comes up with the answer to how we should best love our enemy, let me know.

Originally Posted by saden1

We have made progress with science, I can't say the same about faith.

It is clear that you cannot say the same b/c it is fairly apparent that you haven't done much in the way of examining "the state of faith" through the ages. As one who has as least done some examination of the matter, I would suggest to you that it is, in most of the established religions, significantly different than where it was even four or five hundred years ago.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

My little brain hurts from trying to comprehend what you're trying to say. Please elaborate.

Essentially, it is to say that all evidence of the age of the world, I.E. fossil, radiometric dating, and all other types, rely on an assumption that the universe was not intelligently created. For if it was, and bear with me, there are an infinate number of possible explinations to how that stuff came to be. Because of the infinate number of possibilities, that stuff has little meaning in terms of evidence.

It's reasonable to believe that the universe wasn't intelligently created, IMO, but only under the pretense that we do not have the answers currently. Science may very well make many more advances, but probably will never decide for or against faith. In fact, thats what faith is: the belief in the less than certain (Theory of Evolution for example). If it were cut and dry and clear, everybody would do it.

C'mon, we know from you're previous posts that you are way smarter than this. Don't let your arrogance and pride let your argument get out of hand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Essentially, it is to say that all evidence of the age of the world, I.E. fossil, radiometric dating, and all other types, rely on an assumption that the universe was not intelligently created. For if it was, and bear with me, there are an infinate number of possible explinations to how that stuff came to be. Because of the infinate number of possibilities, that stuff has little meaning in terms of evidence.

It's reasonable to believe that the universe wasn't intelligently created, IMO, but only under the pretense that we do not have the answers currently. Science may very well make many more advances, but probably will never decide for or against faith. In fact, thats what faith is: the belief in the less than certain (Theory of Evolution for example). If it were cut and dry and clear, everybody would do it.

C'mon, we know from you're previous posts that you are way smarter than this. Don't let your arrogance and pride let your argument get out of hand.

Look, as I have said before there may very well be an all powerful entity that created us, the universe, and everything else we don't know about. Having said that I call b.s. on the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah (all 3 are based on each other). I call b.s. on Jesus, Mohamed, and Moses. I call b.s. on all the the far fetched stories. I call b.s. on the contradictions, lack of civility and humanism. I call b.s. on the fact that all of these holy men were born and raised in the middle east. Where are the Chinese born prophets? How about the fact that so many prophet are related? It feels like a family business.

This is what I have come to the conclusion of after much thought and struggle. It's not popular with believers but that's alright. This is about me what I believe.

p.s. I want to know who in here has no fear of hell? Fear of hell and the desire to go to heaven are integral part of most religion. After all you can't chill with Jesus/God and drink Pina Colada if you aren't in heaven.

p.p.s. We may disagree but I got nothing but love for you lot.

-Peace

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

What makes you think Christianity is less bizarre than Jim's cult? I particularly find passages concerning salves ironic seeing has how MLK's ancestors were enslaved.

Actually, I find your post rather.........bizarre.