How To Get To Heaven When You Die (2 Viewers)

[CowboysFromHell]

Name one thing God has actually done to benefit humanity.

Scare people into behaving/reforming?

People did that.

Well, yeah, assuming God isn't real. I took your statement to imply that we are assuming God is real for the sake of answering. On that assumption, he told humans to scare people into behaving to get to heaven.

Religions have been scaring people into behaving for millennia. Which religion is the one that the real God gave to scare people?

To the victor go the spoils of war, and the right to write (and re-write) history...and religion. Spock said as much in his post. The "right" religion is the one written by whoever has the biggest stick. Hopefully, we all have learned by now that they're all fairy tales.

 

[Paddington]

What is keeping you from trusting in Jesus Christ?

From what I've read, he seems like a trustworthy fellow. I don't have a problem trusting him.

My problem is I don't trust YOU.

I don't want you to trust in ME. Trust in Jesus Christ! Read this first post.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What is keeping you from trusting in Jesus Christ?

From what I've read, he seems like a trustworthy fellow. I don't have a problem trusting him.

My problem is I don't trust YOU.

I don't want you to trust in ME. Trust in Jesus Christ! Read this first post.

Then he needs to come out of hiding and talk to the people. So far we only see/hear YOU and people like you for our entire lifetimes (human history).

 

[Zow]

Cue the "he's everywhere you just need to know where to look" response.

 

[Politician Spock]

What is keeping you from trusting in Jesus Christ?

From what I've read, he seems like a trustworthy fellow. I don't have a problem trusting him.My problem is I don't trust YOU.

I don't want you to trust in ME. Trust in Jesus Christ! Read this first post.

You'll be far better off doing what Jesus taught for three and half years of his life than you will be trusting in who he was when he was born and what he did when he died. His ministry was far more powerful than his birth and death.

 

[mitchh1124]

"Like the coldest winter chill

Heaven beside you... Hell within

Like the coldest winter chill

Heaven beside you... Hell within

Like the coldest winter will

Heaven beside you... Hell within

And you wish you had it still, heaven inside you"

 

[mitchh1124]

What is keeping you from trusting in Jesus Christ?

From what I've read, he seems like a trustworthy fellow. I don't have a problem trusting him.My problem is I don't trust YOU.

I don't want you to trust in ME. Trust in Jesus Christ! Read this first post.

You'll be far better off doing what Jesus taught for three and half years of his life than you will be trusting in who he was when he was born and what he did when he died. His ministry was far more powerful than his birth and death.

What did he teach?

To hang out with as many prostitutes as possible?

 

[Paddington]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

 

[joffer]

"It's bull####"

-George Carlin

 

[Todd Andrews]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

You have it backwards, Follower of Paul.

Unlike you, I prefer to follow Jesus.

 

[Jayrok]

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

Matt 7:21 -- Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven...

 

[BowieMercs]

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Afterlife

The Pastafarian conception of Heaven includes a beer volcano and a stripper (or sometimes prostitute) factory.[35] The Pastafarian Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.[37]

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

 

[Scoresman]

I've found Jesus and accept him into my life.

 

[Paddington]

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So if you believe in something with all your heart (in this case its Jesus and subsequently heaven) it will come true.

 

[Politician Spock]

So if you believe in something with all your heart (in this case its Jesus and subsequently heaven) it will come true.

Only if you are wearing the ruby slippers and tap your heals together.

Wait... that's not true... the slippers were originally silver. Someone changed what L.Frank Baum wrote.... just like much of the Bible was changed from what the authors wrote.

 

[matuski]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

 

[Mister CIA]

Jesus outlived thorns and spikes, but a trillion paper cuts are bound to take a toll.

 

[matuski]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

 

[matuski]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

Well.. I guess your version of a god has every bit as much going for it as any other in the evidence department.

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

Well.. I guess your version of a god has every bit as much going for it as any other in the evidence department.

True. I don't know if what I believe is right.

I am however done with letting Paul do my thinking for me. He said a lot of great stuff. But his words are not the inerrant word of God any more than Billy Graham's words are. No man is 100% right. Christianity is a religion based on the belief that Paul was 100% right.

 

[Paddington]

Christians are followers of Christ, who believe in their heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for their sins and place their faith in Him as Lord and Savior or their life. Christians are not followers of Paul, however, the gospel of Grace was given to Paul for this age. That part is true.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Christians are followers of Christ, who believe in their heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for their sins and place their faith in Him as Lord and Savior or their life. Christians are not followers of Paul, however, the gospel of Grace was given to Paul for this age. That part is true.

wut?

 

[Politician Spock]

Christians are followers of Christ, who believe in their heart that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead for their sins and place their faith in Him as Lord and Savior or their life.

This is the gospel of Grace.

Christians are not followers of Paul, however, the gospel of Grace was given to Paul for this age. That part is true.

Yes, the gospel of Grace came from Paul. If you follow the gospel of Grace, you are following Paul.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

Well.. I guess your version of a god has every bit as much going for it as any other in the evidence department.

True. I don't know if what I believe is right.

I am however done with letting Paul do my thinking for me. He said a lot of great stuff. But his words are not the inerrant word of God any more than Billy Graham's words are. No man is 100% right. Christianity is a religion based on the belief that Paul was 100% right.

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

 

[timschochet]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.


Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

I believe that would make you a Jew.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

Not even you?

And that my friend is why we now have science.

 

[Paddington]

Creation Science is Science.

 

[sdp1226]

Creation Science is Science.

So is Mystery ScienceTheater!

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Creation Science is Science.

Larry Boy is back! We've missed you!

 

[Zow]

Creation Science is Science.

So is scientology.

I mean it's even in the name.

 

[Scoresman]

Creation Science is Science.

...and the Cleveland Browns are a professional Football team.

EDIT: actually that's probably giving too much credit to Creation Science.

 

[McGarnicle]

666 replies to this topic

 

[hagmania]

666 replies to this topic

Congrats, you pushed it passed the Mark. You're in.

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

Well.. I guess your version of a god has every bit as much going for it as any other in the evidence department.

True. I don't know if what I believe is right.

I am however done with letting Paul do my thinking for me. He said a lot of great stuff. But his words are not the inerrant word of God any more than Billy Graham's words are. No man is 100% right. Christianity is a religion based on the belief that Paul was 100% right.

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.

To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

 

[Politician Spock]

THIS is what Jesus's Ministry was all about. The Gospel of His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Ro 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Ro 10:13 For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved."

SEE!!!! Another great example of what Christians focus on. Again, I ought to know because I did it for 30+ years.

For followers of Paul, it's who Jesus was when he was born and what he did when he died that are all that matters. For all intents and purposes, Jesus might as well been hung on a cross as a one day old baby, as it would have been far more efficient than waiting 30 years. Not only is what Jesus taught during his life an "oh.... yeah, that too" part of Christianity (and many Christians ignore what Jesus taught), Paul actually teaches things that contradict what Jesus taught. Which helps explain why so many Christians ignore what Jesus taught, but it's not the entire reason. The fact that what Jesus taught is not the focus of Christianity, and the fact that Christians are just really lazy religious people in general also contributes to the lack on knowledge of what Jesus taught.

Nothing has grown my discipleship of Jesus Christ MORE than my decision to reject Paul. Paul is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is the yeast of the Pharisees. If you want to know Jesus more, ignore Paul.

How do you decide which interpretation of Jesus's teachings is the right one?

I don't decide. My relationship is with God, not a book.

Is your relationship with the Christian god? If you aren't basing that on the book what are you basing it on?

My God is the same god Jesus believed in. I am a disciple of Jesus, but I'm not a Christian. Christians are disciples of Paul.

I believe that would make you a Jew.

Some Jews decided to be disciples of Jesus, but being a disciple of Jesus doesn't make one a Jew. In fact, I think Jews would be offended by that.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.

To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

 

[Politician Spock]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.

To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

 

[Politician Spock]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

 

[Politician Spock]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

1) I am not a church, political party, or a group.

2) The only thing I believe is that God exists. The only reason I believe it is because I've had too many answers to prayer for me to accept that they were just happenstance. I don't know if God exists. It's my best explanation for what I've experienced. My belief in that has nothing to do with who I believe Jesus was when he was born, what he did when he died, or even what Jesus taught. I am a disciple of Jesus because I love what he taught and want to live my life that way. Being a disciple of someone is not a belief. It's a choice to learn all that you can from them. In this case it's not an easy choice given how much of what he taught has been used and altered by people with other agendas, so today there is a ton of noise in what he taught.

In summary I'm one person who believes only one thing... that God exists. My belief is based on my personal experience and nothing more. I may be right. I may be wrong. And if you don't want to believe God exists too, I'm okay with that. If to you, that meets your definition of a doctrine, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I am however NOT okay with a religion that suckered me into believing their crap for 30+ years of my life. Yes, I am to blame for falling victim to it, but given the size of that religion, a TON of people have been suckered by it just like I was. So yes, I feel like I'm doing something positive by sharing what I've learned about. If it helps just one person from throwing a huge chunk of their life away on it like I did, then that's a good thing.

 

[Politician Spock]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

And also how that is different from the teachings of Jesus in the bible that you adhere to, PS?

His teachings are good or bad on their own merit. They aren't good or bad because of who taught it.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

1) I am not a church, political party, or a group.

2) The only thing I believe is that God exists. The only reason I believe it is because I've had too many answers to prayer for me to accept that they were just happenstance. I don't know if God exists. It's my best explanation for what I've experienced. My belief in that has nothing to do with who I believe Jesus was when he was born, what he did when he died, or even what Jesus taught. I am a disciple of Jesus because I love what he taught and want to live my life that way. Being a disciple of someone is not a belief. It's a choice to learn all that you can from them. In this case it's not an easy choice given how much of what he taught has been used and altered by people with other agendas, so today there is a ton of noise in what he taught.

In summary I'm one person who believes only one thing... that God exists. My belief is based on my personal experience and nothing more. I may be right. I may be wrong. And if you don't want to believe God exists too, I'm okay with that. If to you, that meets your definition of a doctrine, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I am however NOT okay with a religion that suckered me into believing their crap for 30+ years of my life. Yes, I am to blame for falling victim to it, but given the size of that religion, a TON of people have been suckered by it just like I was. So yes, I feel like I'm doing something positive by sharing what I've learned about. If it helps just one person from throwing a huge chunk of their life away on it like I did, then that's a good thing.

OK, cool. Thanks for detailing out this distinction. I still say it all comes down to faith though, whether that's faith in a doctrine created 2000 years ago, or your own personal interpretation of the events that the doctrine addresses. I definitely see the difference, and agree that a lot of folks simply have blind faith in a doctrine, whereas someone like yourself has examined things and come up with your own set of beliefs. Good for you.

 

[Politician Spock]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

1) I am not a church, political party, or a group.

2) The only thing I believe is that God exists. The only reason I believe it is because I've had too many answers to prayer for me to accept that they were just happenstance. I don't know if God exists. It's my best explanation for what I've experienced. My belief in that has nothing to do with who I believe Jesus was when he was born, what he did when he died, or even what Jesus taught. I am a disciple of Jesus because I love what he taught and want to live my life that way. Being a disciple of someone is not a belief. It's a choice to learn all that you can from them. In this case it's not an easy choice given how much of what he taught has been used and altered by people with other agendas, so today there is a ton of noise in what he taught.

In summary I'm one person who believes only one thing... that God exists. My belief is based on my personal experience and nothing more. I may be right. I may be wrong. And if you don't want to believe God exists too, I'm okay with that. If to you, that meets your definition of a doctrine, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I am however NOT okay with a religion that suckered me into believing their crap for 30+ years of my life. Yes, I am to blame for falling victim to it, but given the size of that religion, a TON of people have been suckered by it just like I was. So yes, I feel like I'm doing something positive by sharing what I've learned about. If it helps just one person from throwing a huge chunk of their life away on it like I did, then that's a good thing.

OK, cool. Thanks for detailing out this distinction. I still say it all comes down to faith though, whether that's faith in a doctrine created 2000 years ago, or your own personal interpretation of the events that the doctrine addresses. I definitely see the difference, and agree that a lot of folks simply have blind faith in a doctrine, whereas someone like yourself has examined things and come up with your own set of beliefs. Good for you.

Yes, my belief in God is a faith, as my experiencing answers to prayer falls way short of being proof. I want to clarify that my faith has nothing to do with the events that occurred 2000 years ago. For all I know, Jesus never even existed. Whether he did or didn't makes no difference to me. Despite my exit from the cult that is Christianity, I still love what Jesus taught (or whoever came up with those teachings). I want to live my life that way. That's not faith. It's just choosing how to live life. It's no different than choosing a specific diet, or a specific kind of exercise. It's a choice of how I will treat others.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

But you're still letting some other guy from 2000 years ago do your thinking for you, right? I mean all of this stuff is taken on faith. Everyone has their favorite version, but nobody can really say what they believe is correct and that everyone else is wrong.

No, I'm not. Jesus was a teacher. A disciple is a follower of a teacher. I am a disciple of Jesus. Followers of Paul started the belief that Jesus was God. All four gospels were written after Paul died, likely by followers of Paul. Removing what Paul did to "Christianity" takes more than just ignoring the books of Paul. Most of the books of the new New Testament were written by followers of Paul. Most modern scholars recognize that not only were both books of Peter NOT written by one author, neither were probably written by Peter at all. Their use of the Greek Septuagint makes it very unlikely that it was written by a fisherman in Judea, because first of all a fisherman in Judea at that point in time is very likely to be illiterate, and even if he were literate, he would be using the Hebrew version of the scriptures, not the Greek Septuagint. It's far more likely the books of Peter were written by someone in or around Alexandria if they were written before Peter died. After Peter died the Septuagint was used in far more locations, but if they were written after Peter died, then obviously Peter didn't write them regardless of how the use of the Septuagint geographically expanded.To be honest, if God wanted us to hold books that God wrote in our hands, he would have had Jesus write the books while alive, or at the very least select 12 apostles to teach for 3.5 years that weren't in careers where they were likely illiterate. The first book of the new testament wasn't even written until decades after Jesus died. And modern archeology has proven that the idea that God preserved the books over the years without alteration is a myth. You can see in the copies we have that changes occurred over the years to them. And since the earliest copies we have date to around the late 2nd century, we don't have copies of the originals. So we don't know what the original authors actually wrote. If God didn't preserve the books from alteration, he probably didn't inspire them either. Why would God inspire them only for us to end up with alterations of them?

But doesn't your belief system rest on the man known as Jesus? A man who you even say wasn't believed to be a god until Paul, whom you discount, started selling him as such? A man who is not documented anywhere else in history except for the Bible that you admit is not a very trustworthy source? All you have to tell you that this man even existed at all is the shaky claims of a bunch of Bronze Age shepherds. Therefore, you have to have faith to believe this stuff, right? You can't get there purely on evidence and rational analysis.

What belief system are you talking about? What is systemic about my belief? At this point, whether Jesus actually lived or not makes no difference to me. There are a lot of teachings attributed to Jesus that I find to be awesome and choose to live my life by. It's the teachings that matter to me. If those teachings actually came from someone else, then great! They are still awesome regardless of who they came from. I wouldn't stop choosing to live my life by them because I found out they didn't come from Jesus.

You follow the teachings of Jesus and believe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe not "systemic", but I'd still say you're drinking the koolaid. But, whatever. I thought this was about the Ken Ham alias that started this thread?

I see a HUGE difference between belief in God and belief in a doctrine. I can understand though that some see no need to see such distinction. Thanks for asking.

Ok, I will ask. Please unpack. Start with what exactly you mean by "doctrine".

Doctrine: a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group.

1) I am not a church, political party, or a group.

2) The only thing I believe is that God exists. The only reason I believe it is because I've had too many answers to prayer for me to accept that they were just happenstance. I don't know if God exists. It's my best explanation for what I've experienced. My belief in that has nothing to do with who I believe Jesus was when he was born, what he did when he died, or even what Jesus taught. I am a disciple of Jesus because I love what he taught and want to live my life that way. Being a disciple of someone is not a belief. It's a choice to learn all that you can from them. In this case it's not an easy choice given how much of what he taught has been used and altered by people with other agendas, so today there is a ton of noise in what he taught.

In summary I'm one person who believes only one thing... that God exists. My belief is based on my personal experience and nothing more. I may be right. I may be wrong. And if you don't want to believe God exists too, I'm okay with that. If to you, that meets your definition of a doctrine, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

I am however NOT okay with a religion that suckered me into believing their crap for 30+ years of my life. Yes, I am to blame for falling victim to it, but given the size of that religion, a TON of people have been suckered by it just like I was. So yes, I feel like I'm doing something positive by sharing what I've learned about. If it helps just one person from throwing a huge chunk of their life away on it like I did, then that's a good thing.

OK, cool. Thanks for detailing out this distinction. I still say it all comes down to faith though, whether that's faith in a doctrine created 2000 years ago, or your own personal interpretation of the events that the doctrine addresses. I definitely see the difference, and agree that a lot of folks simply have blind faith in a doctrine, whereas someone like yourself has examined things and come up with your own set of beliefs. Good for you.

Yes, my belief in God is a faith, as my experiencing answers to prayer falls way short of being proof. I want to clarify that my faith has nothing to do with the events that occurred 2000 years ago. For all I know, Jesus never even existed. Whether he did or didn't makes no difference to me. Despite my exit from the cult that is Christianity, I still love what Jesus taught (or whoever came up with those teachings). I want to live my life that way. That's not faith. It's just choosing how to live life. It's no different than choosing a specific diet, or a specific kind of exercise. It's a choice of how I will treat others.

Yes, we all have role models. Jesus wasn't the first or only guy to come up with the golden rule. It's a good model to aspire to for anyone.

 

[Jayrok]

For all I know, Jesus never even existed. Whether he did or didn't makes no difference to me.

This is refreshing. Most will say it is essential to believe he existed and physically died on a cross and rose from the dead here on earth. I don't know that it matters in terms of faith. But IMO, a physical death on earth doesn't make much sense in terms of redemption.