Zealous Donkey

OK, but if there is really a God who was all knowing and all powerful it would be appropriate for him to let us know where we stand and for us to defer to his infinate wisdom. I believe in God. A cult to me is a counterfit of the real thing. So yes you would want to mimic the real thing as much as possible. They say denial is one of the first signs of alcoholism, but someone who has never had a drink would also deny being an alchoholic. ( I think this analogy fits. :unsure:PS, This thread is getting really good IMO despite some midthread bickering. I hope everyone calms down because

Chris, aren't you giving Russell a little too much respect. I think at least on this subject BR is the one flawed, not JC. This is the correct interpretation as I understand it. And the appropriate scriptures. I don't follow Why those scriptures? Elaborate please. Sorry Chris but the only way you can make that statement is to have a complete misunderstanding of the whole teaching of the Bible, Christianity. Why you are misinterpreting is a matter of debate. You don't seem to have an especially hardened heart, but you aren't giving the Bible a fair hearing IMO. The first senten

No, No, No, I wasn't talking about anything found recently. These more recent findings may reinforce or weaken prior teachings included in the writings you mentioned .No, the alterations of which I was referring were from the time when the Bible was put together. Most of the books accepted, including the 4 gospels, were determained to be consistant with the earliest and most trusted sources available at that time. The ones rejected either couldn't be traced to original sources or were determained to be outright altered. Some secular histories have been altered by Christians to support

Chris seems to be a fine chap, but I get frustrated when Christian views are judged through media stereotypes which is what I may have misintrepeted Chris as doing. Unfortunately, there is a ( false) Christian world view that is presented through the media. One of the reasons I like this particular forum is that most debaters are debating actual scripture, doctrine, and posters views, and not this media stereotype.

Jesus was not a conventional teacher. His goal was to change peoples hearts and give them hope. Jesus whole method was to change things from inside out, ( affecting, effecting hearts and minds). Politicions ( at all times in history), and the jewish leaders back in that time, pursued things through external means. Why would Jesus use the same techniques which got them in the whole mess to begin with. Actually, you aren't far off what I was saying, which is this. You can't read the Bible like a novel. ... and I do think it would be more difficult to accept things if you don't bel

I have never heard one Christian pastor, priest, teacher, scholar ever describe that passage in the way you have characterized it above. It is common for people to fear committing an unforgivable sin. You may be speaking from first hand knowledge, but whether you are, or are just worried about the nightmares of children, your intrepatation of the scripture is ridiculous. It would be an interesting discussion talking about "the unforgivable sin" but I will leave it up to you to start another post. ( if you do start one, I will gladly participate)

Now Ann Coulter's view's supposedly represent the Christian worldview. This gets old. I could bring up Stalin and it would be much more appropriate a representative of your world view than Ann Coulter's is of the Christian world view. I guess we are stuck with Pat Robertson but only because the media holds him up to be a Christian spokesman, he wasn't elected by Christians. I happen to like reading Ann Coulter, but to include her in this debate is silly.

Jesus ( and Paul ) weren't trying to get legistlation passed, they were teaching a message that would give strength to people no matter what circumstance they found themselves in. My point was simply this; if you have read and studied the Bible to any extent as a believer, then you wouldn't see alot of contriciction in the overall message they are teaching. There are confusing aspects especially if you get down and try to dissect passages.The Bible is telling the same story over and over. The same story that is told over and over in the old testament is told one final time in the Ne

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770This is just the beginning, the Europeans have so much yet to teach us.

No!! The whole point is that no matter how many parables he tells to make his point some people will never 'get it' it is not that he doesn't want you to get it, it is that some people (like yourself) will absolutely reject it no matter the effort made to help you understand.These parables are not hard to understand.You will have no excuse, because he has spoken to you in parables. You have completely missed the point.... which is the point.

When Jesus comes down to his church, (today) , or his people ( the jews back in Jesus' day) he expects to see fruit. A fruitless tree after so long is useless, and past a certain point might as well be destroyed. The condition of the human heart is the same. After so long a persons heart becomes so hardened that he has no chance (or desire) for redemption.One of several teachings on the Christian life in these verses.

While you are correct, the poor were very much taken advantage of to the point where they could be slaves there whole life and still not pay all their debts. Kind of like credit cards today, but without ability to file bankruptcy.

No, but Paul said enough about homosexual sex to make it clear that it is sinful. There is no way around this if you believe the Bible. Jesus didn't claim to be the son of God till shortly before his death. Alot of the claims made in those other writings, gospels you mentioned have been proven false. That is why they weren't included in the Bible. That is not to say that the originals, if ever found, could contribute to what we know of Jesus. But because alot of those writings were altered (probably to make them more eastern friendly) they had to be fully rejected from inclusion in t

As a side note. Africa actually sends Christian missionairies to America because they (rightly) see us as a lost people.

Yes, they were written for pastors. I do understand that noone is damned because of what Haggard did, but he did cause some sheep to scatter, and if they are lost, then I believe the bible says Haggard will be accountable.

Jer 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORDJer 50:6 My people hath been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray, they have turned them away [on] the mountains: they have gone from mountain to hill, they have forgotten their restingplace

He is simply refering to the people who will turn away from Christianity forever because of this incident. I don't think there will be as many as Hero's pastor thinks, but there will be a few. Honestly these people weren't of strong faith anyway (generally speaking) but some may have become stronger in the faith later, so it is a tragedy for those few.

I can agree with the addiction part, but he is definately a hypocrite, heres why. He accepted a position that is to occupied by a person with certain virtues. By accepting the position he also accepted a responsability to hold up to those virtues. If he had ever had a gay relationship or used illegel drugs he should not have accepted the position. Accepting the position made him a hypocrite in itself. I know that no one is without sin, but it is not hard to find someone to lead or pastor a church that doesn't have a drug addiction, porn addiction, ect. It really goes to the heart of

It is out of the context of the whole Bible. You called God immoral when what he was doing was stemming the tide of immorality by taking the actions he took. Just because you started at beginning of the Bible doesn't excuse the fact that you ignore learning about the true nature of God by studying the rest of the Bible including the New Testament.

I'm sorry my friend but you really failed in this area. Becuase you have completely taken all of these out of context. There are much better examples you could use to make a better case.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Sorry, I thought I had that one in there.

Recording phone conversations which would incriminate himself as well as the preacher. Why keep these unless you are planning on using them later. But either way set up or not, the preacher is getting what he deserves. Read my earlier posts, I haven't tried to defend the guy at all.

Actually I think he said he was a democrat, voted republican, and was going public for political reasons. So, we don't really have to make much of an assumption.

Of course he said that. Do you think he is going to admit to being a Democrat? He has already failed a lie detector test. If you consider this to be anything but a political set up then you are very naive.

1Cr 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Why do you think sins against the body are specified in this verse?Jn 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. Here jesus is saying Judas' sin is worse than Pilot's. Lam 4:6 For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a m