From now on I’m gonna worship the oil companies who pay for all the anti-climate-change “research” instead of that mean Mr. Gore. They don’t make a profit, do they?
Um, you know that that isnt true. There were THOUSANDS of emails and THOUSANDS of data sets. There is NOTHING in the ANY of them, other than the use of the word trick as a clever means of working the data. It does not imply that they tricked anyone or that they lied or did anything dishonest.
There have also been thousands of those scientists from thousands of universities and research facilities that have taken the data and shown that human acitivity has an effect on the global climate (that is the main issue here, not global warming or cooling). So to think that if one institution took one short cut in a one data set that the entire thing is false? NO OF COURSE NOT, stop being idiots and do a little RESEARCH before you just read the tag line of a news article and go spouting your mouth off about things you dont know a thing about.
Mirror time:
“Stop being [an idiot] and do a little RESEARCH before you just read the tag line of a news article and go spouting your mouth off about things you don’t know a thing about.”
NoFearPup, you said nothing. Literally nothing. When you can come to me with some actualy facts, proof or anything of any merit, then I will gladly hang up the mirror for you.
I’m skeptical of global warming because these are the same people who, back in the 70s, said we were headed for the next ice age. Must’ve been a REALLY short ice age.
My grandmother used to say the proponents of the media are experts at crisis management.
Sorry folks, but its all true and unless the world cleans up it’s act, we are all for a hell of a ride.
Libretarian, there was a trend towards global cooling between the 1940’s and 1970’s. This was all part of the natural cooling and warming cycles of the earth. During the 1970’s media took the idea of global cooling, misrepresented the fact (or just didnt understand them) and reported that an ice age was coming. The same sort of stuff is happening with global warming. People dont understand that while global cooling and warming are natural occurances in the earths cycles, the issue here is MAN EFFECTING GLOBAL CLIMATE. This can be accomplished through the release of certain chemicals and gases into the atmosphere, which AMPLIFY the global warming which would take it BEYOND the mere cycle and into a violent up and down, resulting in extreme weather paterns. THAT is the issue. The debate is not about the actual temperature, but rather the effect that people have on their environment and in turn the earth’s climate.
p.s I welcome anyone to try to argue and dispute climate change with me. If you have any data or anything of any substance I will gladly debate it with you.
p.p.s if someone needs to be explained exactly what is happening and why there are some people who claim that it is not happening, then I will explain it to you also.
I’ve found out how to solve the US debt problem.
Let the sea-rise phenomenon wash away the IOUs.
I just hope those botanists who know the tree-ring theory is balderdash are wrong. But then they are just experts, and you know those experts.
Sit back and enjoy.
Hey scott, the solution to climate change is consuming and polluting less. There is nothing to benefit from that, other than the fact that people need to be more concious as to what they do. Stop spouting idiocy and pull your head out of the sand.
p.s. there is more proof of climate change than there is of Jesus Christ
p.p.s. The science is settled. There is proof of climate change, rising seas and environmental degredation. It is undisputed. It is only disputable if you ignore the facts.
Wow, that is an awesome argument there Scott. I am completely defeated by your amazing retort of “No. There isn’t”, wow, had only I thought of that brilliant and simple way of winning every argument. Jeez, if only i knew that, then I wouldnt have spent so much time writing my masters thesis, I could have saved myself the 120 pages and just written your brilliant and fool proof agrument of “No. There isn’t”.
p.s. I never said Jesus never existed, what I said was “There is more proof of climate change than there is of Jesus Christ” at no point did I say he didnt exist. I was making the linkage between the fact that you can so vehemently believe in something that has little to no actual fact other than a book written hundreds of years after the fact, than you do something that is happening all around you and supported by millions of people, institutions, organizations, governments and the scientific community.
Um Scott, the bible wasnt written in the time of jesus. that IS a fact. Secondly there is lots more evidence of climate change beyond just model. Those models, if you care to know are based on data collected over decades and what the models do is follow trends. Now, i am not sure if you care to know, but MOST predictions are made with computer models and they are generally quite accurate. You know why? Because they use general principles of physics as their basis, which ARE SET LAWS. Furthermore, if you looked at satilite pictures of earth you would see that the polar ice caps and ice sheets are melting and sinking into the ocean. You can even go to google earth and find it.
And thirdly, you are correct that in history people have believed all kinds of insane stuff, but the big difference being that THAT WAS IN THE PAST, when we DIDNT HAVE COMPUTERS AND MODERN SCIENCE. This was a time when we had little means of generating evidence and when people like you could make ridiculous claims and people had little to go on to believe it. And finally, EVEN IF people in the past believed things that were not true does not mean that that is the case now. What you said is a logical fallacy.
ok Scott, i would like to add that I studied theology in college. And I know of the theory that the bible was written as early as 70ad because of lack of mention of the destruction of the temple, but that again proves nothing as they could have omitted that (and if anything, John being told of the destruction of the temple would have fueled his passion to write revelations).
But either way, parts of the book were written thirty years after the death of christ, and that is only parts. Revelations was thought to have not be written by the same John as the apostle and much of the work was written easily 70 to 150 years after christ. And that is only what is assumed by the writings, not the actual texts. The stuff we come in contact with now was transcribed hundreds of years after christ and the originals are no where to be found (surely because of the fact htat is paper, and cant be expected to last that long).
Regardless of all of that, my point still stands. And Scott, what is the point of bringing up Islam the entire time? I dont like it either, i studied the koran and I feel it is complete hogwash and it is completely clear in the koran itself that Muhammad was a con man that tricked thousands of poeple to advance his political aims.
But back to the point, can you please show me facts or data by these climatologists you speak of?
And finally, it isnt about changing the way 6 billion people behave, it is changing how 2 billion people behave that is the issue. And more importantly how the US behaves since it is the largest consumer and waster of almost all goods. And the change is not for some pasty faced kids, but for the billions of people that will affected by the your calous disregard for the facts.
That depends where you are.
His errors in his movie are irrelevant. I didnt watch his movie (seriously) I follow the basic science which talks about throwing off the balance in the earth’s climate which would create intense weather patterns that would make living on earth difficult.
The authors claim that it was politically attacked, but all of that is irrelevant because the Hockey Stick is not the only proof, since there are tons of other data sets that show exactly what i was mentioning before.
“I’m skeptical of global warming because these are the same people who, back in the 70s, said we were headed for the next ice age. Must’ve been a REALLY short ice age.
My grandmother used to say the proponents of the media are experts at crisis management. They create a crisis. Then they manage it.”
Very true Librarian, however, to expand, the media scrambling for that soundbite to remain viable, listens to those who would profit by running about shrieking…”the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
One case in point was the Y2K crisis. Some of us skeptics thought the peril was much overblown, and it was indeed. You see, the purveyors of this panic, (by the way, made LOTS of $$) suggested their counsel derailed what WOULD have been catastrophe! Uh huh.
Lift a few words out of context, and spread lies. “George W. Bush had the intellect of a goat, the courage of milk toast, and led us to wars without hope of victory.”
Republican interpretation:George W. Bush had intellect, courage, and led us to war victory.
See how easy that is? and Scooter believes the interpretation, not the facts.
BTW- The record does indicate Jesus probably existed. However, there is not a shred of evidence that “Moses” ever did, and tons of evidence that he did not, and not one of the things he “did” ever happened. Those who used his name to write a rather destructive and vengeful book DID lay the basis of Sharia law that all the good “Christians and Jews” claim as oppressive. If Repugs think taxes are offensive, re-read how much the ancient rabbis set up to rip off from the people for “salvation”, ummm, you might also check out how much the Roman Catholic church raked in from the populace, and from the exploitation of the New World- which happened during that pleasant time known as the Inquisition- joyful times indeed!
DrCanuck, there is virtually no credible doubt among scholars of the ancient Near East (including Christians, Jews, agnostics, etc.) that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I’m pretty sure you only wrote that to get scottfreitas riled up. Just the same, I want to make sure that’s clear.
As for you, scottfreitas, you’re right that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. You’re also right that this does not conclusively prove that the event never occurred. (Conversely, claims that it definitely did occur are similarly unsubstantiated.) And you’re also right that this pericope neither adds to nor subtracts from the overall message of John’s gospel.
But you are without a doubt way off base about the remainder of the earliest manuscripts otherwise “matching up perfectly” aside from misspellings.
One huge omission is the ending of Mark’s gospel (the first one written, incidentally, at around 66 CE or so). The most reliable early manuscripts (including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices) end with Chapter 16, verse 8. This ending is also supported by the letters of early witnesses like Clement and Origen.
And unlike the story of Jesus and woman caught in adultery, the verses appended to this actual end-point are quite consequential. These verses (9-18) contain the only resurrection appearances of Jesus in Mark’s gospel, after all.
You really need to not make these kinds of claims, scottfreitas. I’ve done more study on this than you have. And I’m not afraid to point out your errors for everybody else here to see.
Wow, scottfreitas. Your admission that you could be “more diplomatic” is about the biggest understatement of the year!
That said, I can’t tell you how much joy you’re giving me this holiday season. Every one of your responses makes me laugh more than the one before it.
Despite your “serious doubt”, I promise you I am utilizing primary sources. You might notice that I actually named four of them in my last post! And they all predate Thomas Jefferson by more than a millennium. Just because you’ve never heard of these documents doesn’t mean that the big bad scholarly community simply made them up.
Tell you what, scottfreitas. Go open up your NIV Bible to Mark 16:9. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
… … … … …
You’ll notice that it is accompanied with a note. In case you didn’t have it handy, I’ll go ahead and type it out verbatim for you. … … ahem … …
“The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
I promise I’m not making this stuff up. I promise I know lots and lots more about this than you. And I promise that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (whether fragmentary or complete) simply do not include the text in question.
Now if the conservative evangelical publisher of the NIV (Zondervan) doesn’t convince you, then I just don’t know what will (short of Jesus coming to your house and telling you in Aramaic).
Wow, scottfreitas. That’s what it takes for you to begin being civil, huh? All I had to do was publicly ridicule you long enough, and you finally decided to submit a post without all the venom?
Look. Now that we’re at this place, I really do think we can have a decent back-and-forth. I’m going to make a lot of claims in this discussion that you will consider downright heretical. They’re not, mind you. Lots of smart and humble and good Christians have held my views long before I ever came by them. Not a one of them has been the monster you frequently claim that they are. And what’s more, neither am I.
But if we can keep the volume down, I’m quite certain this can be enlightening for everybody. So what do you say? Promise not to start condemning people to hell and threatening violence to people who disagree with you again?
Can we just make contradictory claims about the Bible, theology, politics, etc. (all the while backing them up with the best evidence and arguments we can) without the other person necessarily being an evil, godless, Nazi?
Note: I submitted this before I saw your response. The following is just the beginning of my answer to the 4th comment up from here.
I don’t have time to wait, so I’m going to assume you agree. Here goes!
First, the NIV is a fine translation. I don’t believe it’s the best out there for a number of reasons. Most accredited institutions of higher theological learning recommend the NRSV because it maintains the highest standards for honest translation. (I use The New Oxford Annotated, HarperCollins, and The New Greek-English Interlinear NT.)
That said, any qualms I have with the NIV are not strong enough for me to dismiss it out of hand. As it turns out, the first study Bible I owned was an NIV, and I still have it and use it (mostly for comparison).
I should also point out that no scholar worth his or her degree will recommend the use of only one version. Along with the three NRSVs and the NIV I mentioned, I use the NASB (widely regarded for its word-for-word literal translation, even to the point of awkwardness), The Good News Bible (especially useful for its narrative flow), and Eugene Peterson’s The Message (which is intended to capture the Koine spirit rather than its verbatim text).
As a side matter, I am guilty of none of the things you’re accusing me of in your last post. Also, I did not imply that the absence of any resurrection appearances in Mark’s unadulterated gospel necessarily negates the resurrection itself. You merely inferred it. I simply provided it as an example to refute your scurrilous claim that the aforementioned pericope from John’s gospel was the only questionable passage in the Bible.
tpenna, thanks for sharing your study and knowledge with us and providing it in an easily understandable way for those of us who don’t study the Bible and gospel.
Now, you mentioned that you place some confidence in the NKJV’s note about Mark’s ending. While the NKJV (as with the KJV) uses the accepted Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for its OT source, its translation of the New Testament is widely recognized to be significantly flawed. One big reason: Textus Receptus.
While the Byzantine text (as it is technically known) is not a “bad” one, per se, it contains significant conflations and revisions that deviate from earlier and more authoritative text-types (like the Alexandrian).
That said, neither the KJV nor the NKJV have any claim to integrity. Rather, the translators and editors arbitrarily chose to stick with the TR (after the discovery of earlier sources) for purely ideological reasons.
When you put ideology in the driver’s seat, you don’t have honest inquiry.
Also, those so-called “fundamentals” of Christianity that you refer to were never named as such until the early 20th century by a group of dispensationalist Presbyterians.
Neither Jesus nor Paul hints at any such set of dogmas to which a person must assent in order to be a Christian.
My pleasure, believecommonsense. I’m having fun here, even if I should be working on a PhD app that’s due in a week.
scottfreitas, you asked whether there were any other New Testament passages in dispute. Hoboy, there are!
One particularly interesting (and theologically significant) case involved only one type of source: the Codex Alexandrinus. Check 1 Timothy 3:16 (which itself is a pseudepigraphical writing).
For a long time, Christians understood this text to be one of the most definitive biblical claims for Jesus’ deity. The only problem is, that “claim” actually turned out to be a 5th century “typo” (followed by a later scribal corruption).
Where the NIV currently reads “He appeared in a body”, Christians up to the 18th century read “God appeared in a body”. That was when JJ Wettstein, examining the codex, discovered that what translators had thought was a theta followed by a sigma (short for theos, or “God”) actually turned out to be an omicron and a sigma, revealing it to be the much less explicit statement we see today.
The difference between the Greek theta and omicron is simply a small horizontal line in the middle. It turns out that what translators had earlier thought was just such a line was actually a line from the verso that had bled through to the other side.
By the way, check the KJV to see which word it uses.
So I said all that to say this: “The Bible just ain’t as plain as you think it is.”
The above is just one example of many. Several deviations or corruptions have little or no theological significance. Some do have important implications. And some are just murky and difficult to resolve. All this is okay. But honesty demands that we not try to paper these things over and pretend that the Bible is as clear as can be. Instead, let’s humbly seek the truth together, ever acknowledging that we don’t yet have the truth. That’s why (as H. Richard Niebuhr put it), we are a church ever striving to become the Church.
The Truth (big “T”) exists, to be sure! But no human has ever been (nor will ever be) able to grasp it.
Oh, and I’m a proud Episcopalian, by the way. Two of my church’s four priests are gay (including the rector), and three of them are women. Neither they nor I have simply “wished” that the Bible would justify our beliefs. Nor have we “ignored” any passage of Scripture. We all take the Bible quite seriously. That should be evident from my above posts. We just don’t believe it says what you say it says.
Well scottfreitas, I think it’s fair to say that I vehemently disagree with almost everything you just said. And what’s more, you vehemently disagree with most of what I posted.
And even though you’re implying that I (and people like me) are worshiping a make-believe God, at least (for now) you’re no longer saying that I’m evil or that you’d gladly enlist in a war to kill me and all the other liberals.
Regarding Jesus being “the way, the truth, and the life”, take another look at C.S Lewis’s The Last Battle (from The Chronicles of Narnia).
Lewis writes about a certain Calormene soldier named Emeth who dies during a battle with the Narnians. Even though he has worshiped Tash all his life, upon seeing Aslan in the afterlife, he immediately realizes that Tash was a false god.
But Aslan welcomes him into his country (heaven), telling Emeth that he counts all of his worthwhile service to Tash as unto himself.
I remember always thinking that name sounded funny. But later on I learned that emeth is a Hebrew word for “truth”. The point Lewis seemed to be making is that anything that is true is of Christ (John 14:6), even if the people pursuing the truth don’t know it.
So people can come to Christ (and therefore to God) without knowing that they are doing so.
“the Truth (big “T”) exists, to be sure! But no human has ever been (nor will ever be) able to grasp it.”
Paul: “When the perfect comes, the imperfect must flee…”
Judas Iscariot: “I have betrayed innocent blood.”
That’s two witnesses of the Truth. Paul was profoundly changed by theological Truth; and the Betrayer, Judas - if he had something against Jesus…would not have considered Jesus “innocent.”
^ ? Was that meant to be a refutation of some sort? Could you rephrase that a little? Maybe I’m just a little tired, but I don’t understand what you’re getting at, NoFearPup.
Wow, scottfritas needs to take a few college courses on biblical research and history. They didn’t have the postal system, internet, typewriters, cheap writing paper, ballpoints and other instruments that have made publishing easy, affordable and available to the masses. But, hey, why let a few facts get in the way.
Heh. No, parkersinthehouse. Not a single professor has ever mentioned C.S. Lewis outside of one non-related illustration from his The Four Loves during a course I took on virtue ethics. And even that wasn’t mentioned in class. Just a minor quote in a 200+ page book.
I use the Narnia story here for the same purpose. Just an illustration, because Lewis was pretty good at those.
Neither am I claiming that the writer of John’s gospel had my interpretation in mind when he wrote the famous passage. In fact, the verse fits into the revelatory framework of most of the Johannine “I am” statements. They are meant to point to identification with God.
My point is that there may be something more significant found here than the original author intended. (This is, after all, what the Church claims about the Bible when we speak of “inspiration”.)
In essence, Truth (big “t”) is more than what is factual, or even what is logical. And my contention is that this Truth of the gospel is not condensible into a credal formula to which we must provide intellectual assent. It’s not just about checking off the “Yep, I accept Jesus Christ” box in the religious doctrines column.
Rather the Truth of the gospel has much more to do with Luke 4:18-9, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news (godspel in Old English) to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I figure wherever these things are happening (wherever the poor are receiving good news and the oppressed are being liberated), then people are engaging in what is “True”, and Jesus is there among them, whether they know they’re serving Jesus or not.
I remember when I was in undergrad at a small Christian liberal arts school, I used to volunteer with a club that served lunches to and developed relationships with homeless folks in Philadelphia.
One week we were discussing whether or not to become involved in a wider secular protest about the city’s abusive treatment of our homeless friends through its selective enforcement of certain laws. One of my fellow Christian students suggested it was important we go so that we could “bring Jesus” there.
I immediately responded that Jesus was already there. The best we could hope to do was catch up with him. I still know from personal experience that Christians are not the only ones doing God’s work in the world today. Too often, in fact, Christians are slowing it down.
And just as God called the Babylonian conqueror of Judah “my servant King Nebuchadnezzar” (Jeremiah 43:10, 25:9, & 27:6), God still works through Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, humanists, and others to do the important work of justice and reconciliation today.
Many will say to him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food?” Jesus didn’t care that they knew who they were serving, just that they were serving. And he’ll say to them, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom” (Matthew 25:31-46).
In order for one to belong to Christ, one has to have Christ inside of them. It is God that does all good.
1 Corinthians 4:6,7
6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written , that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory , as if thou hadst not received it?
James 1:16,17
16 Do not err , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
To have God working through one, one is grateful, that one denys that ones self. All is about God.
To be a Christian = Christ’s likeness.
Without Christ, christian doesnt exist, so it is safe to say that it is Christ working through us. It is about Christ. God is the only one that does good. All credit belongs to God. Without God we can do nothing. In order to be a Christian, one has to have Christ. The Holy Spirit teaches all things, not manly knowledge. God spoke through the prophets, all Glory belongs to God. Deny thyself.
Matthew 16:24 KJV
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Love for one another shows one is of God.
1 Corinthians 13 KJV
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned , and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long , and is kind ; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself , is not puffed up , 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly , seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked , thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth : but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away . 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come , then that which is in part shall be done away . 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known . 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
1 John 4:8 KJV
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
To be Christian, Christ has to be inside of us. It is no longer us, it is Christ working through us.
Yes, to be Christian = Christ like.
Casting Crowns: Voice Of Truth
http://www.playlist.com/searchbeta/results/172924433
Jars Of Clay: Faith Like A Child
http://www.playlist.com/searchbeta/results/499371793
How the hell was that “presumption”? Do you even know what the word means, NoFearPup? Look it up. When you do, you’ll find that DrCanuck was actually correctly pointing out that those who attempt to “use the book to prove the book” are themselves guilty of presumption. They’re taking its authority for granted.
And Bruce4671 (if you’re even still reading this), much smarter theologians than any gathered here (myself included) have attempted and failed to “prove” God’s existence by means of reason. (Thomas Aquinas springs to mind.) It just ain’t possible. (See Kant.)
What’s more, if God’s existence could be proven, then God would be diminished, or made unnecessary. Check Søren Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments for a larger discussion on this point.
@ Scoot Do you have any pictures of Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people or something that proves your fairy tale true besides some old book? How bout you prove to us that YOU can walk on water and do all the crud that you claim someone did two thousand years ago?
B.T.W. something old does not make it the norm. We still have kings and queens but no one goes around paying tribute or kissing the ground they walk on cause we as a people have been doing that for thousands of years until the industrial revolution, where we replace kings with suits. But I digress…
Wrong: Believers follow a tried and true process of applying God’s promises to their lives…
Unbelievers and mockers insult what they do not know out of pride and fear.
Bruce, unfortunately you see other posters here through the biases of your made-up mind. I’ve been perusing your comments so far and they appear to be all over the map.
You’re right…there is no prerequisite for Salvation except believing in Jesus. And the Gospel happens to be so simple a child could understand it (that is what the Bible says, not me). I think if you take a good look at most “theological” arguments that spring up on this forum; you will find that they usually involve a more traditionally-believing poster correcting the proudly and often ignorantly proclaimed opinion of “unbelievers” and “atheists”.
So, dude…lighten up and enjoy the ‘Toons and the company.
benbrilling over 14 years ago
Oooo you are sooo right.
From now on I’m gonna worship the oil companies who pay for all the anti-climate-change “research” instead of that mean Mr. Gore. They don’t make a profit, do they?
toasteroven over 14 years ago
Plastic?
http://www.greatgarbagepatch.org/
Hm…
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Um, you know that that isnt true. There were THOUSANDS of emails and THOUSANDS of data sets. There is NOTHING in the ANY of them, other than the use of the word trick as a clever means of working the data. It does not imply that they tricked anyone or that they lied or did anything dishonest. There have also been thousands of those scientists from thousands of universities and research facilities that have taken the data and shown that human acitivity has an effect on the global climate (that is the main issue here, not global warming or cooling). So to think that if one institution took one short cut in a one data set that the entire thing is false? NO OF COURSE NOT, stop being idiots and do a little RESEARCH before you just read the tag line of a news article and go spouting your mouth off about things you dont know a thing about.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Mirror time: “Stop being [an idiot] and do a little RESEARCH before you just read the tag line of a news article and go spouting your mouth off about things you don’t know a thing about.”
a.c.d over 14 years ago
NoFearPup, you said nothing. Literally nothing. When you can come to me with some actualy facts, proof or anything of any merit, then I will gladly hang up the mirror for you.
woodwork over 14 years ago
nobody has even mentioned the main cause of global warming….cow farts!
LibrarianInTraining over 14 years ago
I’m skeptical of global warming because these are the same people who, back in the 70s, said we were headed for the next ice age. Must’ve been a REALLY short ice age.
My grandmother used to say the proponents of the media are experts at crisis management.
They create a crisis. Then they manage it.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Um, no, there is global warming, there is climate change and there are rising sea levels. Check Greenland, the artic and antartic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/25/copenhagen-diagnosis-ipcc-science
Sorry folks, but its all true and unless the world cleans up it’s act, we are all for a hell of a ride.
Libretarian, there was a trend towards global cooling between the 1940’s and 1970’s. This was all part of the natural cooling and warming cycles of the earth. During the 1970’s media took the idea of global cooling, misrepresented the fact (or just didnt understand them) and reported that an ice age was coming. The same sort of stuff is happening with global warming. People dont understand that while global cooling and warming are natural occurances in the earths cycles, the issue here is MAN EFFECTING GLOBAL CLIMATE. This can be accomplished through the release of certain chemicals and gases into the atmosphere, which AMPLIFY the global warming which would take it BEYOND the mere cycle and into a violent up and down, resulting in extreme weather paterns. THAT is the issue. The debate is not about the actual temperature, but rather the effect that people have on their environment and in turn the earth’s climate.
p.s I welcome anyone to try to argue and dispute climate change with me. If you have any data or anything of any substance I will gladly debate it with you. p.p.s if someone needs to be explained exactly what is happening and why there are some people who claim that it is not happening, then I will explain it to you also.
ANandy over 14 years ago
I’ve found out how to solve the US debt problem. Let the sea-rise phenomenon wash away the IOUs. I just hope those botanists who know the tree-ring theory is balderdash are wrong. But then they are just experts, and you know those experts. Sit back and enjoy.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Hey scott, the solution to climate change is consuming and polluting less. There is nothing to benefit from that, other than the fact that people need to be more concious as to what they do. Stop spouting idiocy and pull your head out of the sand.
p.s. there is more proof of climate change than there is of Jesus Christ
p.p.s. The science is settled. There is proof of climate change, rising seas and environmental degredation. It is undisputed. It is only disputable if you ignore the facts.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Wow, that is an awesome argument there Scott. I am completely defeated by your amazing retort of “No. There isn’t”, wow, had only I thought of that brilliant and simple way of winning every argument. Jeez, if only i knew that, then I wouldnt have spent so much time writing my masters thesis, I could have saved myself the 120 pages and just written your brilliant and fool proof agrument of “No. There isn’t”.
p.s. I never said Jesus never existed, what I said was “There is more proof of climate change than there is of Jesus Christ” at no point did I say he didnt exist. I was making the linkage between the fact that you can so vehemently believe in something that has little to no actual fact other than a book written hundreds of years after the fact, than you do something that is happening all around you and supported by millions of people, institutions, organizations, governments and the scientific community.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
Um Scott, the bible wasnt written in the time of jesus. that IS a fact. Secondly there is lots more evidence of climate change beyond just model. Those models, if you care to know are based on data collected over decades and what the models do is follow trends. Now, i am not sure if you care to know, but MOST predictions are made with computer models and they are generally quite accurate. You know why? Because they use general principles of physics as their basis, which ARE SET LAWS. Furthermore, if you looked at satilite pictures of earth you would see that the polar ice caps and ice sheets are melting and sinking into the ocean. You can even go to google earth and find it. And thirdly, you are correct that in history people have believed all kinds of insane stuff, but the big difference being that THAT WAS IN THE PAST, when we DIDNT HAVE COMPUTERS AND MODERN SCIENCE. This was a time when we had little means of generating evidence and when people like you could make ridiculous claims and people had little to go on to believe it. And finally, EVEN IF people in the past believed things that were not true does not mean that that is the case now. What you said is a logical fallacy.
a.c.d over 14 years ago
ok Scott, i would like to add that I studied theology in college. And I know of the theory that the bible was written as early as 70ad because of lack of mention of the destruction of the temple, but that again proves nothing as they could have omitted that (and if anything, John being told of the destruction of the temple would have fueled his passion to write revelations). But either way, parts of the book were written thirty years after the death of christ, and that is only parts. Revelations was thought to have not be written by the same John as the apostle and much of the work was written easily 70 to 150 years after christ. And that is only what is assumed by the writings, not the actual texts. The stuff we come in contact with now was transcribed hundreds of years after christ and the originals are no where to be found (surely because of the fact htat is paper, and cant be expected to last that long). Regardless of all of that, my point still stands. And Scott, what is the point of bringing up Islam the entire time? I dont like it either, i studied the koran and I feel it is complete hogwash and it is completely clear in the koran itself that Muhammad was a con man that tricked thousands of poeple to advance his political aims. But back to the point, can you please show me facts or data by these climatologists you speak of? And finally, it isnt about changing the way 6 billion people behave, it is changing how 2 billion people behave that is the issue. And more importantly how the US behaves since it is the largest consumer and waster of almost all goods. And the change is not for some pasty faced kids, but for the billions of people that will affected by the your calous disregard for the facts.
johndh123 over 14 years ago
toasteroven said, about 9 hours ago
“Plastic?”
Yes, don’t you remember Mr. Robinson giving Dustin Hoffman that tidbit of sage advice for future investment? ~wink~
a.c.d over 14 years ago
johndh123 over 14 years ago
LibrarianInTraining said, about 3 hours ago
“I’m skeptical of global warming because these are the same people who, back in the 70s, said we were headed for the next ice age. Must’ve been a REALLY short ice age. My grandmother used to say the proponents of the media are experts at crisis management. They create a crisis. Then they manage it.”
Very true Librarian, however, to expand, the media scrambling for that soundbite to remain viable, listens to those who would profit by running about shrieking…”the sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
One case in point was the Y2K crisis. Some of us skeptics thought the peril was much overblown, and it was indeed. You see, the purveyors of this panic, (by the way, made LOTS of $$) suggested their counsel derailed what WOULD have been catastrophe! Uh huh.
Magnaut over 14 years ago
the answer is YES and he also invented the carbon footprint and the internet
oneoldhat over 14 years ago
answer to bear —-YES
comYics over 14 years ago
Come on guys, give it a rest, it is Thanksgiving. Lets be thankful we have a bountiful feast coming, and pray for those that should.
comYics over 14 years ago
Well, we are certainly thankful for Christ, for already defeating that mess.
1 Corinthians 15:57 KJV But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
Lift a few words out of context, and spread lies. “George W. Bush had the intellect of a goat, the courage of milk toast, and led us to wars without hope of victory.”
Republican interpretation:George W. Bush had intellect, courage, and led us to war victory.
See how easy that is? and Scooter believes the interpretation, not the facts.
BTW- The record does indicate Jesus probably existed. However, there is not a shred of evidence that “Moses” ever did, and tons of evidence that he did not, and not one of the things he “did” ever happened. Those who used his name to write a rather destructive and vengeful book DID lay the basis of Sharia law that all the good “Christians and Jews” claim as oppressive. If Repugs think taxes are offensive, re-read how much the ancient rabbis set up to rip off from the people for “salvation”, ummm, you might also check out how much the Roman Catholic church raked in from the populace, and from the exploitation of the New World- which happened during that pleasant time known as the Inquisition- joyful times indeed!
tpenna over 14 years ago
DrCanuck, there is virtually no credible doubt among scholars of the ancient Near East (including Christians, Jews, agnostics, etc.) that Jesus of Nazareth existed. I’m pretty sure you only wrote that to get scottfreitas riled up. Just the same, I want to make sure that’s clear.
As for you, scottfreitas, you’re right that the earliest manuscripts of John’s gospel do not include the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery. You’re also right that this does not conclusively prove that the event never occurred. (Conversely, claims that it definitely did occur are similarly unsubstantiated.) And you’re also right that this pericope neither adds to nor subtracts from the overall message of John’s gospel.
But you are without a doubt way off base about the remainder of the earliest manuscripts otherwise “matching up perfectly” aside from misspellings.
One huge omission is the ending of Mark’s gospel (the first one written, incidentally, at around 66 CE or so). The most reliable early manuscripts (including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices) end with Chapter 16, verse 8. This ending is also supported by the letters of early witnesses like Clement and Origen.
And unlike the story of Jesus and woman caught in adultery, the verses appended to this actual end-point are quite consequential. These verses (9-18) contain the only resurrection appearances of Jesus in Mark’s gospel, after all.
You really need to not make these kinds of claims, scottfreitas. I’ve done more study on this than you have. And I’m not afraid to point out your errors for everybody else here to see.
comYics over 14 years ago
In faith we are overcomers. In faith we are victorious.
Romans 10:17 KJV So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
We are already victorious through God.
Regardless of literal.
That first comment is rather an encouragement to thanksgiving, [instead] of debate.
comYics over 14 years ago
Chapter 3 in John reassures of this victory.
comYics over 14 years ago
Proverbs 15:1 KJV A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
It’s strange to enter into this discussion in a toon blurb, but
Jesus, the son of God, existed physically here on earth
prove it? we prove it twice
simply, there were witnesses to his life and his miracles including his resurrection, and there is tangible reason for my faith - day after day
argument is so wasted on the Christ - all you have are opinions, not truth
tpenna over 14 years ago
Wow, scottfreitas. Your admission that you could be “more diplomatic” is about the biggest understatement of the year!
That said, I can’t tell you how much joy you’re giving me this holiday season. Every one of your responses makes me laugh more than the one before it.
Despite your “serious doubt”, I promise you I am utilizing primary sources. You might notice that I actually named four of them in my last post! And they all predate Thomas Jefferson by more than a millennium. Just because you’ve never heard of these documents doesn’t mean that the big bad scholarly community simply made them up.
comYics over 14 years ago
Of course the Truth is not grievious. Love isnt ever grievious. For that I am thankful.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Tell you what, scottfreitas. Go open up your NIV Bible to Mark 16:9. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
… … … … …
You’ll notice that it is accompanied with a note. In case you didn’t have it handy, I’ll go ahead and type it out verbatim for you. … … ahem … …
“The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.”
I promise I’m not making this stuff up. I promise I know lots and lots more about this than you. And I promise that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts (whether fragmentary or complete) simply do not include the text in question.
Now if the conservative evangelical publisher of the NIV (Zondervan) doesn’t convince you, then I just don’t know what will (short of Jesus coming to your house and telling you in Aramaic).
comYics over 14 years ago
1 Thessalonians 5:18 KJV In every thing give thanks : for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
Philippians 4:8 KJV
(Luke 8 tpenna Mark 16:9.)
Anyway, happy thanksgiving.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Wow, scottfreitas. That’s what it takes for you to begin being civil, huh? All I had to do was publicly ridicule you long enough, and you finally decided to submit a post without all the venom?
Look. Now that we’re at this place, I really do think we can have a decent back-and-forth. I’m going to make a lot of claims in this discussion that you will consider downright heretical. They’re not, mind you. Lots of smart and humble and good Christians have held my views long before I ever came by them. Not a one of them has been the monster you frequently claim that they are. And what’s more, neither am I.
But if we can keep the volume down, I’m quite certain this can be enlightening for everybody. So what do you say? Promise not to start condemning people to hell and threatening violence to people who disagree with you again?
Can we just make contradictory claims about the Bible, theology, politics, etc. (all the while backing them up with the best evidence and arguments we can) without the other person necessarily being an evil, godless, Nazi?
tpenna over 14 years ago
Note: I submitted this before I saw your response. The following is just the beginning of my answer to the 4th comment up from here.
I don’t have time to wait, so I’m going to assume you agree. Here goes!
First, the NIV is a fine translation. I don’t believe it’s the best out there for a number of reasons. Most accredited institutions of higher theological learning recommend the NRSV because it maintains the highest standards for honest translation. (I use The New Oxford Annotated, HarperCollins, and The New Greek-English Interlinear NT.)
That said, any qualms I have with the NIV are not strong enough for me to dismiss it out of hand. As it turns out, the first study Bible I owned was an NIV, and I still have it and use it (mostly for comparison).
I should also point out that no scholar worth his or her degree will recommend the use of only one version. Along with the three NRSVs and the NIV I mentioned, I use the NASB (widely regarded for its word-for-word literal translation, even to the point of awkwardness), The Good News Bible (especially useful for its narrative flow), and Eugene Peterson’s The Message (which is intended to capture the Koine spirit rather than its verbatim text).
tpenna over 14 years ago
As a side matter, I am guilty of none of the things you’re accusing me of in your last post. Also, I did not imply that the absence of any resurrection appearances in Mark’s unadulterated gospel necessarily negates the resurrection itself. You merely inferred it. I simply provided it as an example to refute your scurrilous claim that the aforementioned pericope from John’s gospel was the only questionable passage in the Bible.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
tpenna, thanks for sharing your study and knowledge with us and providing it in an easily understandable way for those of us who don’t study the Bible and gospel.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Now, you mentioned that you place some confidence in the NKJV’s note about Mark’s ending. While the NKJV (as with the KJV) uses the accepted Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia for its OT source, its translation of the New Testament is widely recognized to be significantly flawed. One big reason: Textus Receptus.
While the Byzantine text (as it is technically known) is not a “bad” one, per se, it contains significant conflations and revisions that deviate from earlier and more authoritative text-types (like the Alexandrian).
That said, neither the KJV nor the NKJV have any claim to integrity. Rather, the translators and editors arbitrarily chose to stick with the TR (after the discovery of earlier sources) for purely ideological reasons.
When you put ideology in the driver’s seat, you don’t have honest inquiry.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Also, those so-called “fundamentals” of Christianity that you refer to were never named as such until the early 20th century by a group of dispensationalist Presbyterians.
Neither Jesus nor Paul hints at any such set of dogmas to which a person must assent in order to be a Christian.
tpenna over 14 years ago
My pleasure, believecommonsense. I’m having fun here, even if I should be working on a PhD app that’s due in a week.
scottfreitas, you asked whether there were any other New Testament passages in dispute. Hoboy, there are!
One particularly interesting (and theologically significant) case involved only one type of source: the Codex Alexandrinus. Check 1 Timothy 3:16 (which itself is a pseudepigraphical writing).
For a long time, Christians understood this text to be one of the most definitive biblical claims for Jesus’ deity. The only problem is, that “claim” actually turned out to be a 5th century “typo” (followed by a later scribal corruption).
Where the NIV currently reads “He appeared in a body”, Christians up to the 18th century read “God appeared in a body”. That was when JJ Wettstein, examining the codex, discovered that what translators had thought was a theta followed by a sigma (short for theos, or “God”) actually turned out to be an omicron and a sigma, revealing it to be the much less explicit statement we see today.
The difference between the Greek theta and omicron is simply a small horizontal line in the middle. It turns out that what translators had earlier thought was just such a line was actually a line from the verso that had bled through to the other side.
By the way, check the KJV to see which word it uses.
tpenna over 14 years ago
So I said all that to say this: “The Bible just ain’t as plain as you think it is.”
The above is just one example of many. Several deviations or corruptions have little or no theological significance. Some do have important implications. And some are just murky and difficult to resolve. All this is okay. But honesty demands that we not try to paper these things over and pretend that the Bible is as clear as can be. Instead, let’s humbly seek the truth together, ever acknowledging that we don’t yet have the truth. That’s why (as H. Richard Niebuhr put it), we are a church ever striving to become the Church.
The Truth (big “T”) exists, to be sure! But no human has ever been (nor will ever be) able to grasp it.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Oh, and I’m a proud Episcopalian, by the way. Two of my church’s four priests are gay (including the rector), and three of them are women. Neither they nor I have simply “wished” that the Bible would justify our beliefs. Nor have we “ignored” any passage of Scripture. We all take the Bible quite seriously. That should be evident from my above posts. We just don’t believe it says what you say it says.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Well scottfreitas, I think it’s fair to say that I vehemently disagree with almost everything you just said. And what’s more, you vehemently disagree with most of what I posted.
And even though you’re implying that I (and people like me) are worshiping a make-believe God, at least (for now) you’re no longer saying that I’m evil or that you’d gladly enlist in a war to kill me and all the other liberals.
Can you please keep it this civil in the future?
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
tpenna over 14 years ago
Regarding Jesus being “the way, the truth, and the life”, take another look at C.S Lewis’s The Last Battle (from The Chronicles of Narnia).
Lewis writes about a certain Calormene soldier named Emeth who dies during a battle with the Narnians. Even though he has worshiped Tash all his life, upon seeing Aslan in the afterlife, he immediately realizes that Tash was a false god.
But Aslan welcomes him into his country (heaven), telling Emeth that he counts all of his worthwhile service to Tash as unto himself.
I remember always thinking that name sounded funny. But later on I learned that emeth is a Hebrew word for “truth”. The point Lewis seemed to be making is that anything that is true is of Christ (John 14:6), even if the people pursuing the truth don’t know it.
So people can come to Christ (and therefore to God) without knowing that they are doing so.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
“the Truth (big “T”) exists, to be sure! But no human has ever been (nor will ever be) able to grasp it.”
Paul: “When the perfect comes, the imperfect must flee…” Judas Iscariot: “I have betrayed innocent blood.” That’s two witnesses of the Truth. Paul was profoundly changed by theological Truth; and the Betrayer, Judas - if he had something against Jesus…would not have considered Jesus “innocent.”
tpenna over 14 years ago
^ ? Was that meant to be a refutation of some sort? Could you rephrase that a little? Maybe I’m just a little tired, but I don’t understand what you’re getting at, NoFearPup.
Dtroutma over 14 years ago
What a divergence from polar bears and science vs wishful thinking.
comYics over 14 years ago
Proverbs 15:1 KJV A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
I hope each of you are having a wonderful Thanksgiving. Each day brings us something to be thankful for from God.
parkersinthehouse over 14 years ago
so tp - they teach the gospel according to lewis in your seminary? your extrapolation regarding blind search for truth is from narnia?
Darsan54 Premium Member over 14 years ago
Wow, scottfritas needs to take a few college courses on biblical research and history. They didn’t have the postal system, internet, typewriters, cheap writing paper, ballpoints and other instruments that have made publishing easy, affordable and available to the masses. But, hey, why let a few facts get in the way.
Just like your response to climate change.
tpenna over 14 years ago
Heh. No, parkersinthehouse. Not a single professor has ever mentioned C.S. Lewis outside of one non-related illustration from his The Four Loves during a course I took on virtue ethics. And even that wasn’t mentioned in class. Just a minor quote in a 200+ page book.
I use the Narnia story here for the same purpose. Just an illustration, because Lewis was pretty good at those.
Neither am I claiming that the writer of John’s gospel had my interpretation in mind when he wrote the famous passage. In fact, the verse fits into the revelatory framework of most of the Johannine “I am” statements. They are meant to point to identification with God.
My point is that there may be something more significant found here than the original author intended. (This is, after all, what the Church claims about the Bible when we speak of “inspiration”.)
In essence, Truth (big “t”) is more than what is factual, or even what is logical. And my contention is that this Truth of the gospel is not condensible into a credal formula to which we must provide intellectual assent. It’s not just about checking off the “Yep, I accept Jesus Christ” box in the religious doctrines column.
Rather the Truth of the gospel has much more to do with Luke 4:18-9, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news (godspel in Old English) to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
I figure wherever these things are happening (wherever the poor are receiving good news and the oppressed are being liberated), then people are engaging in what is “True”, and Jesus is there among them, whether they know they’re serving Jesus or not.
tpenna over 14 years ago
I remember when I was in undergrad at a small Christian liberal arts school, I used to volunteer with a club that served lunches to and developed relationships with homeless folks in Philadelphia.
One week we were discussing whether or not to become involved in a wider secular protest about the city’s abusive treatment of our homeless friends through its selective enforcement of certain laws. One of my fellow Christian students suggested it was important we go so that we could “bring Jesus” there.
I immediately responded that Jesus was already there. The best we could hope to do was catch up with him. I still know from personal experience that Christians are not the only ones doing God’s work in the world today. Too often, in fact, Christians are slowing it down.
And just as God called the Babylonian conqueror of Judah “my servant King Nebuchadnezzar” (Jeremiah 43:10, 25:9, & 27:6), God still works through Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, humanists, and others to do the important work of justice and reconciliation today.
Many will say to him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food?” Jesus didn’t care that they knew who they were serving, just that they were serving. And he’ll say to them, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom” (Matthew 25:31-46).
comYics over 14 years ago
tpenna, again
Christian = Christ Like, followers of Christ.
If those claiming to be Christ Like, arent Christ Like, than they arent Christians.
comYics over 14 years ago
In order for one to belong to Christ, one has to have Christ inside of them. It is God that does all good.
1 Corinthians 4:6,7 6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written , that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. 7 For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory , as if thou hadst not received it?
James 1:16,17 16 Do not err , my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
To have God working through one, one is grateful, that one denys that ones self. All is about God.
To be a Christian = Christ’s likeness. Without Christ, christian doesnt exist, so it is safe to say that it is Christ working through us. It is about Christ. God is the only one that does good. All credit belongs to God. Without God we can do nothing. In order to be a Christian, one has to have Christ. The Holy Spirit teaches all things, not manly knowledge. God spoke through the prophets, all Glory belongs to God. Deny thyself.
Matthew 16:24 KJV Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Love for one another shows one is of God.
1 Corinthians 13 KJV 1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned , and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long , and is kind ; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself , is not puffed up , 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly , seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked , thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth : but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away . 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come , then that which is in part shall be done away . 11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known . 13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
1 John 4:8 KJV He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
To be Christian, Christ has to be inside of us. It is no longer us, it is Christ working through us.
Yes, to be Christian = Christ like.
Casting Crowns: Voice Of Truth http://www.playlist.com/searchbeta/results/172924433
Jars Of Clay: Faith Like A Child http://www.playlist.com/searchbeta/results/499371793
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
^Presumption…but, that’s what Libs of all stripes do…
tpenna over 14 years ago
How the hell was that “presumption”? Do you even know what the word means, NoFearPup? Look it up. When you do, you’ll find that DrCanuck was actually correctly pointing out that those who attempt to “use the book to prove the book” are themselves guilty of presumption. They’re taking its authority for granted.
And Bruce4671 (if you’re even still reading this), much smarter theologians than any gathered here (myself included) have attempted and failed to “prove” God’s existence by means of reason. (Thomas Aquinas springs to mind.) It just ain’t possible. (See Kant.)
What’s more, if God’s existence could be proven, then God would be diminished, or made unnecessary. Check Søren Kierkegaard’s Philosophical Fragments for a larger discussion on this point.
donotemailme over 14 years ago
No, God invented climate change and here in the real world we call it the seasons.
I feel sorry for kids today. We are now made to feel guilt when the weather changes.
And the answer from the Global Warming cult: pay more for energy. How does paying more for electricity change how much sunlight we get?
Global Warming is 100% due to Sunlight; thank God.
charliekane over 14 years ago
Amen, tpenna. Well said, all of it!
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Unbelievers can’t find God, so they take His place. I call that presumption.
d_legendary1 over 14 years ago
@ Scoot Do you have any pictures of Jesus walking on water, feeding 5,000 people or something that proves your fairy tale true besides some old book? How bout you prove to us that YOU can walk on water and do all the crud that you claim someone did two thousand years ago?
B.T.W. something old does not make it the norm. We still have kings and queens but no one goes around paying tribute or kissing the ground they walk on cause we as a people have been doing that for thousands of years until the industrial revolution, where we replace kings with suits. But I digress…
Jesus is as real as Santa Clause.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Wrong: Believers follow a tried and true process of applying God’s promises to their lives… Unbelievers and mockers insult what they do not know out of pride and fear.
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Bruce, Hint: God said…and it was so. Or else He’s not God.
Also: Does every Jesus-Seminar Atheist post here or what?
NoFearPup over 14 years ago
Bruce, unfortunately you see other posters here through the biases of your made-up mind. I’ve been perusing your comments so far and they appear to be all over the map.
You’re right…there is no prerequisite for Salvation except believing in Jesus. And the Gospel happens to be so simple a child could understand it (that is what the Bible says, not me). I think if you take a good look at most “theological” arguments that spring up on this forum; you will find that they usually involve a more traditionally-believing poster correcting the proudly and often ignorantly proclaimed opinion of “unbelievers” and “atheists”.
So, dude…lighten up and enjoy the ‘Toons and the company.