khalou

I just re-read my replies in this post and I'm afraid I sound much more confrontational than I wanted to. I apologize if that's the case. k ah but you don't understand! Sometimes things "supernatural" to science happen because of faith. Faith is about the supernatural. But I agree with you to a point because there are many believers who don't get involved in deeper study of the Word enough to teach it on a discussion board in a way you would "get it". That doesn't mean they have no value as christians; it just means they are going to give you a most unscientific opinion if you start talking science with them. We aren't usually here to discuss science Do you have any questions about Jesus? Not right now. {quote] I do agree with you there. Unfortunately christianity is made of people. Some people are interested in going deeper into the "why" of faith and others are interested more in the "how" or "where" In other words, we all different jobs in the Kingdom. There are christians who are scientists and will take your debate. Not sure if any hang out at Worthy Boards.... I think Nebula could talk about space with you... But not you, huh? Science can be a kind of faith itself. "Faith" comes from a word that means "strong trust" and if one's trust is in science then they will go as far as science can take them....which is a long way in this world. Actually, it can't take us very far at all. Who told you that? Yet there is. All humans put their faith in something. Humans do. Science can't. Science isn't a human being. Individual scientists are, but they are made up of every possible belief system and political influence there is on the planet. Science is a global concern, and demands that all scientists agree before it will even entertain an idea. If any individual can falsify any scientific concept (which includes you), then all will have to agree to that refutation. "The Fingerprint of God" by astrophysicist Hugh Ross. I will look for it. He came to faith BECAUSE of what he saw in science. It's a very interesting book and scientific perspective. I've heard this sort of claim before. It sounds like this guy has come up with something that will rock the world. I wonder why he has chosen one of the worst forums on the planet for showing his work scientifically- the popular media? Why can't people like this just do like the rest of the scientists and publish their work in a scientific journal? Because the public is an easier sell? Are you saying that all religions are simply a psycological invention that benefits its participants because of a (supposed) higher moral character? That does sound like a scientific measurement. But there are things below the surface of the noise of gods. And then there is God. There is always God, but which one? Are you actually arguing that those Christians that you mention as being not so scientific should burn in hell just because they haven't studied science as you have? Is reading that book that you brought up a prerequisite to salvation? And you don't think you've bought into something as well? We just have different "products". Mine comes with a guarantee to last for eternity. I have faith to believe it will be true based on historical evidence (The Bible and concuring historical books) and supernatural events in my own life. What is the clinical explanation for the Holy Spirit and how it changes everyone's life?

Of course I do. Can't you guess what it might be by what I've already written?? k

It happened again~! I don't understand this board. Oh well, my responses are in bold. ah but you don't understand! Sometimes things "supernatural" to science happen because of faith. Faith is about the supernatural. But I agree with you to a point because there are many believers who don't get involved in deeper study of the Word enough to teach it on a discussion board in a way you would "get it". That doesn't mean they have no value as christians; it just means they are going to give you a most unscientific opinion if you start talking science with them. We aren't usually here to discuss science Do you have any questions about Jesus? Not right now. {quote] I do agree with you there. Unfortunately christianity is made of people. Some people are interested in going deeper into the "why" of faith and others are interested more in the "how" or "where" In other words, we all different jobs in the Kingdom. There are christians who are scientists and will take your debate. Not sure if any hang out at Worthy Boards.... I think Nebula could talk about space with you...

Hi Dave, My revelation? I had several, all the time. Jesus was the great truth in my life. No matter what happened, or where I looked, there He was, making sense of a senseless world. He was my love, and my inspiration. I'm not just speaking poetically here either. What would make Jesus proud of me? What would hurt Him? Whenever I sought His guidance, I was given the most perfect path to follow- one that transcended my own ingenuity, my own intellect. It wasn't always (hardly ever) the easiest path to follow, but always "felt" right. Through prayer, and study of His word, I could depend on Him to show me the path of love, righteousness, and faithful obedience to my Creator. I instinctively knew when I'd trodden off the path set for me, but something inside me always told me that I'd done so, and, in every one of these circumstances, there He was, arms outstretched, to hold me and love me and forgive me and allow me to start again. It is a strict lifestyle, but one that allows that I am human, and one that teaches daily how incredible Jesus must have been to be able to internally know what path to follow without instruction. Truly the only human to ever have been able to do this, because He was God. Of course, all along the way, there were moments of intense revelation, where tears and a broken heart would take me back to the base metal of my being, only to be reconstructed from scratch as a new being in Christ. I wanted more than anything else to be used as a tool to insure God's will on earth be done, and any part I could play, I readily did. My fellowship with other Christians were some of the happiest moments of my life- even now. And my occasional fall into temptation lead to nothing but unhappiness and an acute awareness of my distance from Him. I looked to the Lord's Prayer, which is one of the most profound things one can find in the whole of the Bible because it tells us how to pray. It never asks for happiness, or money, or health, or earthly freedom, or to find your car keys- but only that the will of God be done on earth, whatever that brings me- bring it on! I stumbled onto cocaine for awhile in my youth. I was quite addicted to it, though it all started out playfully. I am proud to say that I beat that addiction with only the help of my former faith- whenever I found myself in the depths of its influence, sweating and rocking and wondering how I could get more, I would recite the Bible. This is still a very special verse to me, and I highly recommend it to any Christian who finds themselves in such a dilemma- "Create in me a clean heart, Oh God. And renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence. And take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation And uphold me in thy free spirit. I went between "thy free spirit" and "thy clean spirit" as the muse took me- depending on how I felt. God didn't seem to mind. It worked. Jesus was there with me, and I knew that I didn't really want that stuff- Jesus' love was sufficient. I wanted those things again. I suppose that could qualify as a revelation as well. k k I just read this post of yours and it touched my heart, I have that scripture on my computer and I read it nearly everyday. I can't even imagine what must have happened in your life that can turn you away from such a sweet relationship you had with our Lord? It brings me to tears to think you have really walked away, well you know He has not walked away from you, He will never leave you or forsake you NO MATTER WHAT!!!! Thank you for your precious connection to me. We humans get to do that, and it is a wonderful thing. You didn't ask, but I know for a fact that there are people of other faiths that benefit from their beliefs as profoundly as I did. I'm glad I'm a human being, because it allows me to wonder and dream and consider things outside of my five senses, And I'm glad that you have found faith in your God. There is so much indescriminate suffering in this world brought about by circumstances, I'm glad you have found a way to make sense of it. But don't listen to Christians who would tell you that God has left any trace of evidence of His existence here that can be determined by evidence, because your human interpretation is all you need. Your personal evidence is all you need. No one can argue with that, and if anyone tries, I will be glad to tell them that they are wrong. But, also, remember that when some scientific discovery says something different than what you might believe, don't worry. Don't argue, or listen to any arguments, because your beliefs are not based on how creation works, or the mechanisms of God's natural world. Keep your heart and mind on the Kingdom, and all else will follow. k

Which one?? k

Just my intuition. How else would one kill? Peacefully? With flowers and fluffy pink things? LOL!!!!!!! k

Thank you for making plain the boundaries of the great abyss. I disagree with your chastisement, though I understand it. This poster has done exactly as one who "walks by faith, not by sight" should do. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think I know why you're here. Science can only see what science sees. It plods along and discovers things. Most are happy with what is discovered because it makes their lives simpler, and provides interesting fodder for movies. It also makes us live longer, and cures some of our ills. Walking by sight is a useful endeavor. The funny thing is, as science walks by sight, sometimes, it discovers things that don't sit well with those who walk by faith. When quantum physics was first presented, Einstein argued against it because "God would not play dice with the universe". Wow. Here, we had experiments of the uncertainty principle, the double slit experiment, and other proofs, yet Einstein had a problem with it because of his faith. I ask you a question. Is there anything wrong with faith as long as it doesn't trample on the fact that when you drop a ball, it falls? Didn't think so. So we have these perfectly different worldviews that COULD co-exist, except when one invades the other's space. Well, science NEVER argues faith. It simply can't because faith is outside of the parameters of its laboratory. There can be no faith in science, so faith is off limits to science. Science, nicely, stays out of that argument. There are no scientific studies about whether Islam or Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism or paganism are more likely to be true, are there? It is only when Christian decide to argue their point scientifically, or to argue their point by using scientific information that the debates occur. The invasion is all theirs. Your post seems to have suggested that they actually should be doing such a thing. The poster who you addressed didn't see it that way, and was respectfully staying within the "faith vs sight" parameters of that poster's worldview. I will debate with enthusiasm those who would step into the arena of science in order to support their faith-based worldview. I don't suppose they can use logic or history or geology or anthropology or any other ology to support their faith, but I also know one other thing that is important- I don't have a CHANCE against their faith. That arena is all theirs. So while I appreciate your post that has allowed me to make a point, I hope you understand why it's important not to debate pure faith by scientific means. I understand the dynamics of how religion works, and am therefore exempt from its benefits. All religions that have lasted for a long time have evolved into very powerful methods of influencing one's perceptions for the better, and anyone who can truly buy into one of them will reap those benefits. The problem is, once you understand the dynamic of this, you are incapable of buying into it! I hope you see the profound truth in this, because I believe it is one of the most profound truths there is. k

Hi Dave, My revelation? I had several, all the time. Jesus was the great truth in my life. No matter what happened, or where I looked, there He was, making sense of a senseless world. He was my love, and my inspiration. I'm not just speaking poetically here either. What would make Jesus proud of me? What would hurt Him? Whenever I sought His guidance, I was given the most perfect path to follow- one that transcended my own ingenuity, my own intellect. It wasn't always (hardly ever) the easiest path to follow, but always "felt" right. Through prayer, and study of His word, I could depend on Him to show me the path of love, righteousness, and faithful obedience to my Creator. I instinctively knew when I'd trodden off the path set for me, but something inside me always told me that I'd done so, and, in every one of these circumstances, there He was, arms outstretched, to hold me and love me and forgive me and allow me to start again. It is a strict lifestyle, but one that allows that I am human, and one that teaches daily how incredible Jesus must have been to be able to internally know what path to follow without instruction. Truly the only human to ever have been able to do this, because He was God. Of course, all along the way, there were moments of intense revelation, where tears and a broken heart would take me back to the base metal of my being, only to be reconstructed from scratch as a new being in Christ. I wanted more than anything else to be used as a tool to insure God's will on earth be done, and any part I could play, I readily did. My fellowship with other Christians were some of the happiest moments of my life- even now. And my occasional fall into temptation lead to nothing but unhappiness and an acute awareness of my distance from Him. I looked to the Lord's Prayer, which is one of the most profound things one can find in the whole of the Bible because it tells us how to pray. It never asks for happiness, or money, or health, or earthly freedom, or to find your car keys- but only that the will of God be done on earth, whatever that brings me- bring it on! I stumbled onto cocaine for awhile in my youth. I was quite addicted to it, though it all started out playfully. I am proud to say that I beat that addiction with only the help of my former faith- whenever I found myself in the depths of its influence, sweating and rocking and wondering how I could get more, I would recite the Bible. This is still a very special verse to me, and I highly recommend it to any Christian who finds themselves in such a dilemma- "Create in me a clean heart, Oh God. And renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence. And take not thy Holy Spirit from me. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation And uphold me in thy free spirit. I went between "thy free spirit" and "thy clean spirit" as the muse took me- depending on how I felt. God didn't seem to mind. It worked. Jesus was there with me, and I knew that I didn't really want that stuff- Jesus' love was sufficient. I wanted those things again. I suppose that could qualify as a revelation as well. k

There would have been no need. We look to Peter and realize that even though he was with Christ he still did not write about any of those thing either. The reason is quite simple; there were probably enough writings or at the very least oral traditions floating around that most Christians already had a good idea. Afterall, Paul was writing to Christians - they had accepted Christ based upon a Gospel story. Why repeat what they already know? The thing is, there is little evidence. The destruction of the temple is the best evidence for this. In Acts we have Paul visiting the temple, as well as in the Gospels we have Jesus visiting the temple. Remember, these were written by Jews and thus would have had a distinct style. One thing that we notice is that if an author is writing in retrospect, telling a historical lesson, and mentions something that is no longer in existence, it is announced. For instance, we look to Genesis and find that in Noah's day the earth was one. This is a qualification point. We do not see this in the Gospels; it is taken for granted that Jesus steps into the temple. Furthremore, Revelation includes the rebuilding of the temple and most likely has some references to the turmoil occuring during this time. It would have been the last book written thus dating it to around 76-80AD. This would place the Gospels prior to 70AD. Further evidence is the ammount of manuscripts we know were being passed around by the 2nd century. By 100AD there were Christian settlements from Judea all the way to northern Gaul (modern day France). It is recorded that all had a copy, or somewhat of a copy, of the Gospels. If you can explain how within just 30 years there were thousands of manuscripts without a printing press, then you might have actually proven God exists for this would be a miracle bigger than the Red Sea, flood, and resurrection of the dead combined. The only problem with this argument is that they didn't believe this at all. The entire reason the Gnostics labeled their Gospels "The Gospel of Timothy" and "The Gospel of Philip" is to lend credibility; they named them after these saints so that people would believe the writings had come directly from them. In fact, if you study church history the origin is one of the biggest arguments that Christians make against the Gnostics. It was a central teaching that none disagreed on that these epistles and Gospels had been penned by the very authors that were claimed. Agreed absolutely! The writers of the Gospels obviously couldn't have been the Pele to whom they were eventually said to be, and since there was no monetary value to being known as the scribe of the widespread oral traditions of the time, I'm sure that no writer would complain. k Where did I say any of that? Well, you didn't exactly say that about the writers of the gospels, but you are certainly correct that writings of the time were often said to have been written by people of merit in those days in order to make them seem more authoritative. No one disputes the fact that none of the actual disciples could have written these books after all. k My point is that Matthew, Luke, and Mark were all highly insignificant people and thus it would have made zero sense to pen the gospels in their names. There are MANY scholars who believe as I do. If they were penned as early as you believe, you are correct. But let's start with Mark. There were several Marks in the Bible, and many, many Marks of Roman citizenship. There was one Mark of significance who was a companion of Peter. Many Christian scholars believe it was this Mark who took what Peter had said and written it down after Peter's death. But this Mark had died before Peter, we discovered, and so, must have written this gospel before Peter's death. This is a bit too early according to what Mark says in his gospel, though, for various reasons. I used to think that Mark must have written after the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem because he described the events to a tee, but I'm not so sure now. It seems that it was apparent even before the Roman assault that it was inevitable. But while Mark's Jesus describes so well the tribulations associated with the destruction of the Temple, Mark also promises that His return will come very soon. -29 "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.- This promise is made by Jesus to His disciples. One other very important aspect of Mark's writing is to discern his audience- who was he writing for? His explanations of Jewish custom makes it apparent that he wasn't writing for Jews. Mark was written after Paul's letters, so it makes sense that the real thrust of at least his circle of believers was toward gentiles. He wasn't an authority on Jewish traditions at the time of Jesus, though, and used Roman slang much more so than a Jew would have- so he probably wasn't a Jew himself. He made telling mistakes in his commentary on what the Jews did during Jesus' time which leads me to believe that he must have lived around Jews, but not for long. At least one of the Jewish traditions, the washing of hands before eating, was only done by priests during the time of Jesus, but Mark would have us believe that the Pharisees took notice that some of the disciples didn't adhere to this ritual. (Mark 7) The most significant aspect of Mark is that he depicted a sheepish, almost honorable Pontious Pilate instead of the insatiable, iron-fisted dictator we see in history. Mark doesn't blame the Romans for the death of Jesus, even though crucifixion was the exclusive method of death for enemies of the state of Rome. The Jews preferred stoning. Since most agree that Mark was written first, which Gospel was second? Matthew, but that's going to have to wait for another installment. k

There would have been no need. We look to Peter and realize that even though he was with Christ he still did not write about any of those thing either. The reason is quite simple; there were probably enough writings or at the very least oral traditions floating around that most Christians already had a good idea. Afterall, Paul was writing to Christians - they had accepted Christ based upon a Gospel story. Why repeat what they already know? The thing is, there is little evidence. The destruction of the temple is the best evidence for this. In Acts we have Paul visiting the temple, as well as in the Gospels we have Jesus visiting the temple. Remember, these were written by Jews and thus would have had a distinct style. One thing that we notice is that if an author is writing in retrospect, telling a historical lesson, and mentions something that is no longer in existence, it is announced. For instance, we look to Genesis and find that in Noah's day the earth was one. This is a qualification point. We do not see this in the Gospels; it is taken for granted that Jesus steps into the temple. Furthremore, Revelation includes the rebuilding of the temple and most likely has some references to the turmoil occuring during this time. It would have been the last book written thus dating it to around 76-80AD. This would place the Gospels prior to 70AD. Further evidence is the ammount of manuscripts we know were being passed around by the 2nd century. By 100AD there were Christian settlements from Judea all the way to northern Gaul (modern day France). It is recorded that all had a copy, or somewhat of a copy, of the Gospels. If you can explain how within just 30 years there were thousands of manuscripts without a printing press, then you might have actually proven God exists for this would be a miracle bigger than the Red Sea, flood, and resurrection of the dead combined. The only problem with this argument is that they didn't believe this at all. The entire reason the Gnostics labeled their Gospels "The Gospel of Timothy" and "The Gospel of Philip" is to lend credibility; they named them after these saints so that people would believe the writings had come directly from them. In fact, if you study church history the origin is one of the biggest arguments that Christians make against the Gnostics. It was a central teaching that none disagreed on that these epistles and Gospels had been penned by the very authors that were claimed. Agreed absolutely! The writers of the Gospels obvisously couldn't have been the peole to whom they were eventually said to be, and since there was no monetary value to being known as the scribe of the widespread oral tradditions of the time, I'm sure that no writer would complain. k Where did I say any of that? Well, you didn't exactly say that about the writers of the gospels, but you are certainly correct that writings of the time were often said to have been written by people of merit in those days in order to make them seem more authoratative. No one disputes the fact that none of the actual disciples could have written these books after all. k

By the way, I don't think I made it clear that Satan in the story of Job was one of His court, and was absolutely devoted and loyal to God. This is the way that those ancient Hebrews saw this Satan, and still do to this day. k

That would be impossible. I have no idea what you mean. I asked them, just as I asked you. Their answers were above reproach. According to the Torah, their interpretation is sound. Can you tell me why a God would want an interpretation of Him to last for thousands and thousands of years, only to require that FresnoJoe be born in order to say different? And even when FresnoJoe finally comes along, his only retort is that a person named khalou has misunderstood? I didn't create the Hebrew religion, you know. It has been going on for a long time. I'm just thinking that if a people wish to base their own religion on a more ancient one, then they should probably at least understand what that religion believed for all that time. God seems to have said that His testing of Job was according to His will through the ancient writing of His chosen. I also say this. Do you have an alternate opinion? k

There would have been no need. We look to Peter and realize that even though he was with Christ he still did not write about any of those thing either. The reason is quite simple; there were probably enough writings or at the very least oral traditions floating around that most Christians already had a good idea. Afterall, Paul was writing to Christians - they had accepted Christ based upon a Gospel story. Why repeat what they already know? The thing is, there is little evidence. The destruction of the temple is the best evidence for this. In Acts we have Paul visiting the temple, as well as in the Gospels we have Jesus visiting the temple. Remember, these were written by Jews and thus would have had a distinct style. One thing that we notice is that if an author is writing in retrospect, telling a historical lesson, and mentions something that is no longer in existence, it is announced. For instance, we look to Genesis and find that in Noah's day the earth was one. This is a qualification point. We do not see this in the Gospels; it is taken for granted that Jesus steps into the temple. Furthremore, Revelation includes the rebuilding of the temple and most likely has some references to the turmoil occuring during this time. It would have been the last book written thus dating it to around 76-80AD. This would place the Gospels prior to 70AD. Further evidence is the ammount of manuscripts we know were being passed around by the 2nd century. By 100AD there were Christian settlements from Judea all the way to northern Gaul (modern day France). It is recorded that all had a copy, or somewhat of a copy, of the Gospels. If you can explain how within just 30 years there were thousands of manuscripts without a printing press, then you might have actually proven God exists for this would be a miracle bigger than the Red Sea, flood, and resurrection of the dead combined. The only problem with this argument is that they didn't believe this at all. The entire reason the Gnostics labeled their Gospels "The Gospel of Timothy" and "The Gospel of Philip" is to lend credibility; they named them after these saints so that people would believe the writings had come directly from them. In fact, if you study church history the origin is one of the biggest arguments that Christians make against the Gnostics. It was a central teaching that none disagreed on that these epistles and Gospels had been penned by the very authors that were claimed. Agreed absolutely! The writers of the Gospels obvisously couldn't have been the peole to whom they were eventually said to be, and since there was no monetary value to being known as the scribe of the widespread oral tradditions of the time, I'm sure that no writer would complain. k

This is a really good one. It seems that the various translations of it make it obscure, and, therefore, difficult to figure out. Have you ever heard of the Revised Standard version of the Bible? It says.. Ezekiel 28:14 With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. 15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you. 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire. I will seek the verse in context, because I've never been challenged by it before. But the Revised Standard Version already makes a big difference between what you have posted and what might have been meant by it. I will call this one a draw for now, and want to thank you for your interest and posts! I know that you are trying to help me to understand, and am grateful. k

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an easy one. There was never any problem among the people of the time this was written about the nature of things. The Hebrews believed that God was absolutely in charge of what befalls a man. They never believed that there was some evil entity that rebelled against God, because they believe that this sort of thing is impossible. The evil that occurs to an individual is on purpose by the will of God. The Zoroastrian, Christian, pagan idea that the spiritual realm is made up of an all good God, and an all evil anti-God was unknown to them at this time. Other cultures had such things, but not the ancient Hebrews. God's testing of Job was according to the will of God, and was carried out by God's will. Satan, as a fallen angel, wasn't explained until the very last book of the Bible. It was written quite early- perhaps in 68 CE, but certainly never occurred before the Babylonian captivity that led to a belief in a dualistic universe of a good and bad supernatural entity. Yes, but only if one is willing to study what the heavens declare, and what the firmament sheweth. Anything else is just religion. Respectfully- k

I don't yet understand the posting method here it seems, but my responses are in bold--- Not at all. It's all right there in front of us. All we have to do is look. Respectfully, k

None of this is evidence that they believed in the fallen angel, Lucifer, or hell or demons as minions of Lucifer. I'll reply in more detail tonight. k

The purpose of Pauls writings isnt to discuss the life of Christ, but the life of a believer in Christ. What we are supposed to do to follow Him. What we are to believe about the meaning of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul writes about Jesus many times. He discusses His death and resurrection in many passages. 1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. See, Paul refers to the crucifixion of Jesus here. But Paul wasnt meant to tell the events the way the gospel tells it. Paul's purpose was to teach the new believers what being Christian is about. Living for Him. How to live the life of a believer. Just as important as the gospel accounts of Jesus, we need to understand what it all means. That is the purpose of Paul's writings, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. I'm still wondering what you have to say about this hitting your intellectual perusal, K. Paul never met Jesus. Matter of fact, Paul had some serious conflicts with Peter (the rock on whom Jesus would build His church) and James in Jerusalem. The Romans destroyed that organization at Jerusalem, which left Paul to continue carefully, not to make the Romans angry. (PURE speculation on my part) But here is a link (NOT to an anti-Christian site!) but to an article that summarizes what Biblical Scholars have determined about the early Christian factions, and why. It has NOTHING TO DO with harming Christianity. It is simply more information about it. k

Lol, you dont have to be an atheist to have a healthy curiousity about things. I love learning new things. What if some of them go against your current beliefs about the universe? k

The purpose of Pauls writings isnt to discuss the life of Christ, but the life of a believer in Christ. What we are supposed to do to follow Him. What we are to believe about the meaning of the life and death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul writes about Jesus many times. He discusses His death and resurrection in many passages. 1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. See, Paul refers to the crucifixion of Jesus here. But Paul wasnt meant to tell the events the way the gospel tells it. Paul's purpose was to teach the new believers what being Christian is about. Living for Him. How to live the life of a believer. Just as important as the gospel accounts of Jesus, we need to understand what it all means. That is the purpose of Paul's writings, as inspired by the Holy Spirit. Okay. But Mark seems not to have known that washing one's hands before eating was only something that was required of Priests in Jesus' time. After the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem, in 70 AD, it was widespread among the people. Yet Mark said that the Pharisees noticed that some of the Disciples didn't adhere to this ritual, and had a problem with it. That is only one of many things in the Gospels that show that they were written much later than the writings of Paul. k

I do. k

That is the saddest thing Ive heard in a long time. Indeed! Can you imagine what it was like? Never base your faith on anything except God. Not on the religious right, nor Intelligent Design, nor creationism, nor intellectual proofs of the gospels- because it is all very much in the air, and there is much about it all that may someday be shown to be wrong. If Jesus is your savior, then even the writings of Paul shouldn't be honored at the same level because Paul was a man. But the words of Jesus have a very old writing that make them indesputable according to human ability to refute them, and even then, not all of Jesus' sayings. The fact of the essence of Christianity is faith. From Genisis to Revelation, the salvation story is the basis of that faith. Anything else is a man-made interpretation, and, while appealing to humans, might not be true. k

From your posts, I can see that many, many Christians I've encountered would see you as a prime candidate for losing your faith. You fight against that of which you have no idea because you have decided that the Bible tells you that they are false. Many, many Christians have looked at the evidence of things and have found a way to reinterpret the Bible with those things in mind because you can't ignore an elephant in your living room forever. Things tend to pile up. But, more importantly, God has never said many of the things you think He said. I have many Christian friends that I consider dear, and envy them because of their faith. (breaking a commandment, but what are ya gonna do? ) And I would never try to pry a person from their faith. But the Christians of whom I speak actually have explanations (for example) for the various periods of life on the earth (the Triassic, the Jurassic, and so on) because they have read the evidence and realize that God has created this evidence along with the earth. Those people won't lose their faith if that evidence ever becomes known by laypersons in America. But I worry about you. Should the overwhelming evidence of the early Christian Church ever reach your intellectual perusal, I'm sure you'll protect yourself by disagreeing outright and shutting it out. But what if it becomes impossible to do so? My Christian friends don't think it's particularly healthy to their faith to just ignore what human experts come up with, and realize something that I'm going to share with you whether you see it as a favor or not- and that is that it doesn't matter what is discovered that might go against your understanding about God and the universe. Christianity cannot be disproven, and that is the bottom line. But to simply disagree because you believe that's what God wants instead of looking is doing you no favors. Galileo (THAT OLD STORY! ) wasn't wrong, and after a time, everybody knew it. The church wasn't wrong about Christianity, but had developed a non-Christlike determination to fight against what man's wisdom might uncover. How many Christians, upon seeing that the church was ultimately wrong may have lost their faith as a result? I certainly don't know. But it seems to be self evident that God wouldn't have wanted the church to set itself up to be so very wrong that it might hurt the faith of someone. k

I want to reply to this, but am having technical difficulty. I'll try it this way- My responses are in bold. By your logic newton is not testable and is therefore non-exsistant, and let me explain why. Both God and Newtons laws are factual and hold ground when scrutinized, both Newton and God have a history that is recorded in books written by them, or people that knew them very well. Both Newton and God have been seen by humans and their accounts have been recorded. Why is it that you can say Newton exsisted and not say God exsists? Is it because there is a tombstone with his name? Have you ever seen his body? I disagree with this statment that God is not testable just as much as I disagree with the statment that Newton is untestable. I don't understand why you need to add the phrase "and is therefore non-existent". Where did that come from? Not from me. Then you go on to list reasons to believe in God and Newton, not tests against their existence. Why is that? God is not testable is all I said. Yes there is, read it again. It is as plain as the nose on your face. The moral standard that I get from the Bible is that everyone should be in jail because all fall short. If you want to disagree, then you will have to argue against the entirety of Christianity, not me. If you want to say that you live by a Christian Moral Standard, and I don't, then you will have to argue against Jesus Himself, not me. Did I suggest that? Or are you twisting what I said around to mean something it's not? My statment was that people behave certain ways and the bible shows a map of all possible behavior patterns but you can take whatever you want out of it. No. I was wrong. [A] Hardly what? If you repress your emotions it is a sign your not really trusting God with your prayer, therefore your not really praying but worrying out loud. [C]What isn't healthy? [D]Really? How do you know what it is like for a person of faith when you don't believe yourself? I can tell you what my experience was living in a trailer 5 years ago, but just because I didn't like it doesn't mean it's bad to live in trailers. [E]I thought there perceptions were different. [F1]Then why aren't you a christian if it works so well, and why don't you doubt that it works?[F2] Do you think there could be the possibility that it could be both? or neither?

Axe, I've nothing against you, but I've noticed that in most of your posts you simply state something as if your beliefs are absolutely true. There's a lot of people, including myself, that take offense to that sort of condescending attitude. Now have a nice day. Well, there is one thing that I will reaveal about my new universe that is a definite benefit, and that is a healthy curiosity about things. k