I think they don't want to live like they should and will twist and turn to fit there way......which of course is a much easier path for people to follow.....you can do what you want, think like you like and be held accountable to know one.....

I have seen it over and over where they take a scripture and make it so out of context.....that I am forced to have to put the whole scripture there...because when you do....you can't doubt the meaning of what it says......

For example as wabbit said....John 3:16

For God so loved the world.......

You can take that and make it pretty much fit anyway of living......but if you do the whole thing.....

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son, that whoever believes in Him should not persish but have eternal life......

And a lot of people would not accept that because they don't believe eternal life.....and sure as heck don't believe that you have to actually believe in God to have eternal life.....

And so you are saying that people need to have someone telling them how they SHOULD live. ----->(Point A.)

And you feel it is wrong for people to do what they want. ---->(Point B.)

And you feel that people should also be told how they should THINK, or not be able to THINK like they like. ---->(Point C.)

And that they should always be held accountable to someone, ----->(Point D.)

Is this correct?

If so, then you are saying that:

We should not be allowed to decide how we live, what we do, or what we think and that we should look to some outside authority to tell us all of these things.

Well that eliminates free will, and even free thought.


JB

Now I realize that while Christians claim that they are in favor of free will, they really don't like that concept.

Christianity's idea of free will is: Convert or die.

By "die" I meant to forfeit everlasting life.

In the meantime, they would like people to live as they are told to live, do as they are told to do, and think as they are told to think and to always defer to the higher authority of the Church and the rules set forth in church doctrine or the Bible.

JB

All freewill is.......is making choices....now you can look at it another way.....Christians have freewill......but how they decide and what they decide in their choices is what is different.....If I make a choice on anything I ask myself what would Christ of done...because for me....I can do it my way and be a *****......or I can do it his way....and be sweet and loving.....which is what I like to do....if not pushed to do the other.....And for me....asking myself before anything what would Christ do...puts it in a different light.....and even though my choice is still mine....how I make that choice is His.

Is everybody retarded today? Am I in the twilight zone? WHAT THE HELL? Every sentence must be read in context or it makes no sense. Seriously, I'm writting off the people who are only here to wallow in their own filth. Abra, Rabbit and Funches are no longer worth my time, but none of them said anything so completely stupid as the sentence I quoted above. It stands alone as the epitome of stupidity. I seriously doubt the sanity and intelligence of so many who are posting here. Making childish, patheticly inept arguments, which would be dissected by anyone with a highschool deploma...it's just so sad.

. sad that your not up the challenge

Spider, you took that sentence out of context.

HOWEVER

A good sentence that makes an assertive statement should stand on its own.

"What the Hell?" ----> is not a complete sentence. I cannot respond to it.

"Is everybody retarded today?" ------> This is a complete sentence.

The answer is no.

"Seriously, I'm writting off the people who are only here to wallow in their own filth." -----> This is a complete sentence except that you misspelled writing.

Response to this statement: -----> You can do whatever you wish.

"Am I in the twilight zone?" -------> This is a complete statement.

The answer is: I don't know where you are, so I am unqualified to answer.


"Abra, Rabbit and Funches are no longer worth my time, but none of them said anything so completely stupid as the sentence I quoted above." --------------> This is a complete statement. Very well written.

My Response: That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

"I seriously doubt the sanity and intelligence of so many who are posting here." ------------ This is a complete sentence and a complete statement. It stands on its own.

My response: I agree with this statement.

"Making childish, patheticly inept arguments, which would be dissected by anyone with a highschool deploma...it's just so sad." --------> This is a complete statement, although poorly written (my opinion) and it has three misspelled words.

patheticly = pathetically
highschool = high school
deploma = diploma

My response: The statement was a statement of my opinion. (Although I do like to see the context in which a statement is made, especially if it is unclear or ambiguous or a parable, or a sarcasm or an analogy etc.)

A clear and precise statement that is a complete sentence should stand on its own. If it does not, then it is probably not a complete sentence or it falls into one of the categories mentioned above.

JB

In responding to your statement above I have to guess where you are ending your sentences. From what I remember from my English class three or four periods (dots) are not part of the punctuation.

Also, you seem to have been censored with some stars so I have to guess what you wrote.

But according to the "entire context" of the words above, I am getting this message:

You are saying that when you make choices you have to ask yourself "What would Christ do." In the words of someone who does not believe in Christ, a person could simple ask "What is the right thing to do?" (I am guessing here too, as I assume that Christ would probably do the right thing.)

Now I will interpret the following:



You are confessing that if you did it "your way" you would be a ****. (What ever that is, I don't know, but I don't imagine it was flattering.)

So instead of doing it "your way" you decide to do it the way you feel Christ would do it, which you feel is the "right" way.

This confesses that you were first inclined to do it the wrong or un-Christ-like way.



So how you make that choice is based on what you THINK or have been lead to believe Christ would do. You believe he would have been kind and loving or forgiving or whatever, ~so that is what you decide to do.

Without this model of perfection, then, you might be a horrible nasty selfish, greedy, cruel, etc.... or whatever person.

Do I understand this correctly?

JB

For me, this whole sentence is absurd.

For God so loved the world?

Excuse me, but if God so loved the world he wouldn’t have allowed his fallen angels access to it to corrupt it in the firs place. He also wouldn’t have poured water on it to drown out all of humanity at one point. Is this the same unchanging God who did that. Or is this a different God who gave His Son? It seems that he loves the world sometimes and at other times he doesn’t.

Also, what the big deal about it being his “only begotten” son?

Why is it so important that this was God’s “only begotten son”? I’ve always seen this as nothing more that romantic demagoguery to appeal to the hearts of people to make them feel sorry for God. Oh, poor God, he could only have one Son, and look what he had to ask him to do!

An all-powerful creator could have as many children as he wants. To keep saying that he gave his “only begotten son” is just to try to drum up sympathy for God. And make everyone feel even that much more guilty over this horrible tragedy that God purposefully and knowingly orchestrated.

In fact, if you believe that this God is all-knowing and had a Master Plan all along then this was all part of God’s plan from the very beginning. To suggest otherwise would be to imply that God couldn’t help but to this and was somehow forced into this situation beyond his will.

An all-powerful, all-wise, all-knowing God who creates a universe with a Master Plan and he has to drown out humanity at one point, and then have his “only begotten son” ruthless murdered and publicly nailed to a pole just so he could forgive men for disobeying him? When in fact this very act was a direct disobedience to his commandments?

He can’t forgive men their sins unless they commit the ultimate sin of murdering his son in a horrific public spectacle?

Surely an all-knowing God would also be aware that this very story and image was going to traumatize many young children throughout the ages who are being taught that some man was nailed to a pole to pay for their sins because they are so unworthy of God’s love that they could never hope to be loved by God had this terrible slaughter not taken place.

Please.

You people tell me that I’m being unreasonable? This is a picture of the most unreasonable deity I can imagine.

I mean, if you want to believe that God is like this. Fine. But to try to sell it to me or tell me that I’m being rebellious toward God for not buying into this horror story,… well, that’s just absurd.

It’s also absurd to tell me that I’m insulting people because to me it appears to be absurdly outrageous.

This is just my honest feelings. Why should I be asked to hide my honest feelings? Why should I be asked to silently sit by and not voice opinions concerning what I think of this story? This is the age of free speech.

People often claim that Christianity must be true because it survived for so long. Well, free speech and massive communication just wasn’t possible back then. You could be killed or burned at a pole yourself for suggesting that this story might not be true. People who didn’t believed just hid their true feelings and pretended to go along with it. So it continued to grow in popularity until it became the monster it is today.

Not to mention the very active and relentless proselytizing of it that we see everyday right here on these forums.

People who can’t possibly know that this story is true, are vehemently trying to sell it and become extremely emotionally upset and abrasive to anyone who suggests that it might not be true to the point where they even claim personal insult and injury.

Yet, in truth, they have no clue whether the story is true or not.

Most of them just preach Jesus, Jesus, Jesus until they are blue in the face, and scream that it’s all about brotherly love, when that’s not even close to what the religion is really about.

There’s no need to slaughter anyone on a pole to spread brotherly love.

The lies of the modern religion or cult of Ecankar were hidden and repeated as they erased and rewrote their own history several times. The book "Confessions of a God Seeker" talks about how difficult it was, even in this modern time to expose the plagiarism and lies involved with this cult.

At the time Paul Twitchel conned people into believing his stories he had no idea what would happen with the free flow of information and the ability to search the Internet for things that would expose his lies.

He made up a line of spiritual masters that never existed and his followers who believed him actually had visions and experiences with these fictional characters. It was the power of suggestion and the way the mind works in the creating of our personal reality that was causing these visions and experiences.

They may have been real to the people who experienced them, but they could not have been representative of real characters because these characters were fictions.

Think how difficult it was to prove the fraud of that modern day cult to its avid followers in this modern age and how even more difficult it would be to expose the ancient religious frauds that are too old to investigate but still passed on as truth.

JB

JB love love love the new pic...

that is all

goodbye...


gigglesnort

Thanks, I like your roses picture too. Much better than that stomach with the alien trying to escape it.

No context, radio!

I agree, you look like a monk.