Why not? It makes it easier to reference if I need to pull something. Every book I have in my library, I've read at least twice. In the case of the Bibles, I've written in them and highlighted stuff I need to know. Ditto with the Koran, the Tao Te Ching, the Baghavad-Gita, the Satanic Bible, and the other Holy Books I have. All of it, OT and NT.

The Gnostic texts might not be "canonical" but they are additional information. People in general might do better if they read alternate views on things. Not just what they agree with. I think it was you that mentioned "Mere Christianity", which means you're reading other books, and not living purely off the Bible.

Oh, and both Old Testament and New Testament.

1. Beg to politly differ... God is allways with us. We are in his presense by simply existing. See how that works?
2. Check you facts. 1.3 billion christians. 1.6 billion claiming islam...
3. I talk like me. Yoda is a make believe puppet in a fantasy world.

1) Then we will disagree. God is in our presence, we aren't in God's presence.
2) Check your facts, you are wrong. 33% of the world's population is Christian, 19% is Muslim. I still don't know what you were trying to prove with this.
3) You talk like Yoda when you want to add gravitas to what you are saying, it's very off-putting.

They are additional information, like a Masters in Philosophy is a marketable degree.

I read lots of books, but when I read them for information, I first make sure that the information will be useful.

This a personal opinion.

I have found them to be useful and interesting. I also find fiction novels to be useful and have frequently gone wandering after a particularly good read to look up information mentioned in the book. I know there are some who come across as very snobby about what makes a books useful or not, but I believe it's what one gets out of it that matters. Ideas are a wonderful thing.

I am allways in gods presence. You are also though you see it not.

Facts are only as good as the gatherer... when one lumps LDS in with christianity only then does christianity become the largest... GIGO.

Please forgive me if the way I communicate puts you off...

I will of course continue communicating in the manner that I communicate.

It is after all the manner in which I communicate. I am what I am.

No, I'm not.



Westboro Baptists are Christians. They are probably the worst Christians on the planet and they fail in almost every conceivable way to follow Christ, but they are Christians. LDS may not believe as I do, but they are good, wholesome people who are following Jesus as best they know how. It's the same way with Catholics, Coptics, Baptists, Methodist, etc. They are all Christians, trying to follow Jesus as best they can.

From what I see you reject his concept of his god. Nothing wrong with that. He has to live with that god we don't.

Truly.

Let people have their bully god. It's their problem, not ours.

I don't believe in a bully god.

Why make a demon out of a concept that should be good?

That's just taking something that could have been good and perverting it into something that's negative.

What's the point to that?

If spirituality is a matter of faith, then it only makes sense to place faith in good ideas. Placing faith in nasty ideas is nothing short of stupid unless a person is indeed an emotional masochist, or enjoys the idea of trying to spread emotional sadism onto others.

So there is no sense in any religion that tries to make God out to be a mean bully. That's just a total waste of everyone's time.

LDS is not nor will it ever be part of christianity. It is a faith in its own right.

a link to the future with its roots in the past.

a living testement to the god in man.

yet this also is but a smoke screen to truth.

God is only 'imperfect' when man places god into the image of man instead of accepting that man is the image of god.

What you seem to be saying is that God cannot change physics or definitions, or anything having to do with the physical world and our (human) common interpretation of it.

If that's so, then God is only 'creator' and thus anyone who places a high value on the natural physical world is actually honoring the creator's efforts.

It takes no belief system or dogmatic traditional assumptions for the creator to be honored, therefor religion is not necessary at all.

Absolutely. Science is the only true religion actually. It's the only religion that truly reads "God's word". Words that were written long before the Earth or Sun were even created.

There are indeed "words" in the cosmos. Entire volumes of information, and scientists are reading them. Of course they aren't written in English, or any other human language. They are written in mathematics which is the language of God.

God wrote us a letter using the microwave background as the paper to write on that tells us the history of the entire universe. It even tells us of things that happened before it was written.

If you'd like to know the true word of God, I highly recommend the video lecture series published by "The Teaching Company" entitled, "Cosmology: The History and Nature of Our Universe" presented by professor Mark Whittle. It's a 36 lecture college level course on Cosmology and the nature of the universe.

It's the true word of God.

Don't pay a lot of money for the course though. It goes on sale for $69 periodically. Or better yet you can rent it through NetFlix, or even better yet, you might be able to borrow it from a library or through inter-library loan.

It's a great course!

I bought it and I enjoy watching it over again every once in a while. Lots of great information. And he explains why we know that this information is true beyond any shadow of a doubt. It cannot be false because it has been confirmed by nature herself.

No need to have any faith, it's guaranteed by nature herself to be true.

Ok, so they were nomadic – that means when they came across a city like Sodom, that the people therein had no way of knowing or understanding the cultural norms of those early Hebrews. Nor did they know of their God or his rules, but because the ‘customs’ of Sodomites were dissimilar, God decided that the entire city should be destroyed. Of course that makes sense because those are the same characteristics of a God who sent the great flood.

But the following only adds confusion:



God actually thinks humanity is irredeemable – why? Did he loose control over his creation, perhaps like the old woman in the shoe – He had so many children he didn’t know what to do??

But THEN after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation. Here Jesus says that no human can ever possibly adhere to every one of God’s commandments for a lifetime. So he would fulfill that role and then abolish the need for other humans to do so through his self-sacrifice.

OK – but doesn’t that mean we were pretty much irredeemable at that point???? So at one time God just got rid of almost everyone, and this time he found a better alternative.

In this case Jesus will serve as the sacrifice, instead of destroying cities, casting plagues, or sending a great flood. Sounds like some kind of weird learning curve in which humans pay the price.

This seems to be the ‘rule of thumb’ for most Christians. “our disagreements are over minor points” – But then they categorized Catholics as this sub-set not worthy of full Christendom.

When posters make comments about the things Christians believe – Christians get mad and say “NOT ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT”.

And when other posters explain why they are not Christians and would not Christians, they are told that they’ve never read the book and don’t know what they’re talking about. But they HAVE talked to a lot of other Christians who happen to have said this is what they believe.

But what happened to “our disagreements are over minor points” ??


SO – what are those core values that make all Christians band together against anyone who isn’t Christian?

And if it makes no difference what Christian sect one belongs to – then why is it necessary to have different sects and do you really believe that some sects are a better vehicle to an eternal life?

Matthew 5:18


Ok so let’s see if I can reword this to meet with what you suggest.

For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law unless all of laws can be strictly adhered to by a man in the flesh

OK, so in that case I would have to say that Jesus met all conditions and requirements of the old law and thus fulfilled it – so it could pass away.

BUT let’s try something else

For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one job or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all prophecy has been fulfilled

In that case – Jesus’ birth, miracles and his death were simply the fulfillment of ONE prophecy. We know there are many more yet to be fulfilled.

It simply marked the end of an era in which the old covenant of sacrificing animals gave way to a new covenant in which all other law was UNCHANGED but this time God didn’t expect humans to be able to follow all the laws.

In other words – God’s law remains unchanged and that one person in the form of Jesus was able to stick to the laws meant that was what God expects – HOWEVER, God knows humans are weak and Jesus was his way of making up for that weakness.

Of course that still doesn’t explain how after thousands of years of being this relentless, uncompassionate, and ruthless God, there appears Jesus with a message of love and salvation.

What do you say the difference between 'Murder' and 'Kill' is?

Some say there is no difference, they mean the same thing - what do you think?

Truly.

What is the "Undeniable Core" of Christianity?

Is it that Jesus was "The Christ"? What I've discovered is while most Christian will agree with that, they will still often disagree on precisely what "The Christ" even means!

Clearly they all really have no choice but to agree that Jesus was the "only begotten son" of God. Because that's a claim that's pretty obvious in the Book of John. And John 3:16 is one of the Christian's most used and proselytized verses.

But it pretty much ends right there. Precisely what Jesus represents and precisely how his crucifixion ties into the whole religion is often a topic of hot debate, even among Christians.

So what is truly the Core of Christianity?

That Jesus is the "Only Way" to the Father?

But everyone seem to disagree on precisely what it means to be in harmony with Jesus.

I can claim to be in harmony with Jesus. In fact, I have already made it clear that I agree with the moral teachings that have been attributed to him. Therefore in that "sense" I'm a "Christian" even though I don't recognize that Jesus was "The Christ".

Why should a recognition that Jesus was "The Christ" be important, if what's truly important it so simply be in harmony with the moral values that Jesus taught?

And where does Jesus ever say that a person must believe and obey all of the directives in the Torah? Where does Jesus say that some guy named Paul will come along later and fill us in on all the details that Jesus failed to teach?

Personally I don't think Christianity even has a "Core". All it has are a bunch of followers who often like to point fingers at other people and accuse them of not being in harmony with God for not agreeing with THEIR interpretations of things.

That, my friends, is the CORE of Christianity if you ask me.

No, not at all. God created the universe and the laws of space and time.

That wouldn't have counted anyway.

Jesus can't count as a mere mortal man.

His "sinless behavior" would be a moot point.

The reason being that Jesus did not need to believe on FAITH if he was God. He already KNEW beyond any shadow of a doubt that God exists and even knew what heaven was like, and how history would unfold, etc., etc.

It could be EASY for any mortal man who had that kind of divine certainty not to sin.

So the idea that Jesus was some sort of "example" of how mortal men should live doesn't even make any sense. Because mortal men wouldn't have the certainty of knowledge that Jesus would have had.

You can't compare Jesus with a mortal man unless you allow him to actually BE a mortal man. But if he was a mere mortal man, without divine knowledge, then his claims of divine knowledge would have been lies.

Therefore it can't be made to work.

You can't have Jesus "fulfilling" laws that were made for men.

That doesn't work.

No, you are taking different incidents from the Bible and sticking them together. Is that fair? No. Is that reasonable? No. Do you care to be fair or reasonable?



God never had control over humanity, He didn't want to. He gave us free will, so that we could make our own mistakes and freely choose to worship him or not. God doesn't think individual humans are irredeemable, but we were fast approaching a culture that would have had no redeeming feature or people.



Jesus created the world, flooded the world, spoke to Moses from the burning bush, led the Israelites out of Egypt, commanded that Jericho be destroyed, died for our sins. Jesus is God. I will repeat it for the millionth time: Jonah refused to serve God, because he felt that God was too forgiving. The Old Testament is replete with God forgiving people. Where you people get this idea that God was so terrible in the Old Testament...Oh, I know...You can't be bothered to read it.



God always planned to to give himself as a sacrifice for his creation, because he loved us. But it was possible for the culture (before the flood) to become so corrupt that Jesus couldn't have taught us to follow him. At that point, there would be no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself, which would have rendered humanity irredeemable.