Ishamael

.... That is it. I regard this as further confirmation, that you christians are xenophobic, especially in your own circle. I`ve offered my questions at direct request of your prominent posters, and I see this censorship as a proof of your incurable xenophoby. I am taking my leave from this board. There is no knowledge to be found where people repress the questions. _____ I thought of saying something nasty as my parting shot... But I sincerely can not think of anything worse, then what you are presenting yourselves as with your own effort. Farewell.... May Jesus have mercy on your souls.

With the same foundation, I can say that universe had always been. On a side note, someone with moderatorial rights apparently didn`t liked study of John`s Gospel.

I`ve prepared my questions for the first three chapters of John. I will start a separate thread (well, if I can), and post them there not to spam here up. As you answer the first three, I`ll prepare following... Sadly, I can`t review all of it within a day, so this will have to be a several days study. ___ Cobalt: What had caused the God?

Well, Undone, I can say so as well, you know. Let me sum it this way. I am not rejecting my disbelief. However, I would like to know more - why do you believe, how do you believe, and for what purpose. I may offer my own theories about why do you believe - they are not intended to be personal attacks. Similarly, I certainly will not view opinions about my disbelief as personal attack (Well, provided they are not "cus ur stoopid!", that is. ) ___ FresnoJoe - I want to know why. There must be cause and effect for everything. ___ Josh - muslims and jews have their own stories about how they preserved their faith throughout the persecution. If your argument is true, so must be theirs.

I had never invited anyone in my home in the first place. If you mean to say I`m not welcome here, say it out loud, and I`ll leave. ___ I had been literally met with all I`ve mentioned time and time again, in different sociums. If you mean to say, that action carries no information, then I`m happy to tell you otherwise. If you show your hostility - it DOES carries on the information, that you are hostile. I am here, as I said before, in a search of knowledge. And no, before you ask, not something particular. I came here to investigate the problem with xenophoby I`ve mentioned earlier, but my curiosity is certainly not limited with just that. ___ On a side note - I am female. Please, be more attentive.

Have fun.

You missed the point again. I had encountered both bad and good Christians. And I`m entirely willing to make my own opinion on every Christian separately. However, when I meet virtual stranger, who says he/she subscribes to christianity, I can`t be immediately assuming he/she is good and decent person. I have to verify that first, and until I can verify that, I have to keep on guard - he/she might as well be one of the marginal christian cultists which means nothing but trouble. I know I am willing to show tolerance, and not jump to conclusions, when someone assumes I`m stupid, communistically-fanatical or alcoholic because I`m Russian. Should you be willing to show same tolerance, there would be no reason for me to assume you are hostile, xenophobic or bigoted, right? But when I say - "Uh, I`m not sure about Christians, I had bad experiences with them.", and I get jumped on, "How dare you lump us all together!" - this will not lead to productive dialogue.

I thought I explained that. I would not be offended, if your initial opinion would be such. However, if you`ll persist in it after discovering facts about me that oppose that, I would be doubtful of your capacity as a good conversionalist at the very least.

It`s not as black and white, as you`d like it to be. I said, that in my experience, Christians are often unpleasant to deal with for reasons you`ve just reiterated. I also said more then once, that I have personally met Christians, whom I would name as genuinely good people.] INDIVIDUALLY. One separate Christian in tete-a-tete conversation has as much chances to be good or bad, as any human. But a socium of Christians for some reason becomes xenophobic. This is one of my points of major interest. What makes that happen? ___ As for me being Russian. Yes, I`m well aware of stereotype. Mostly I just shrug, and talk about something else. It doesn`t bothers me, per ce, unless someone insists on that applied to me without a good reason to. Preempting your following question - yes, I find Shiloh`s posts to be unpleasant, and thus, I draw my conclusion about her/him being unpleasant to me. Similarly, if someone would tell me I`m lazy, I would tend to pass that over, as I recognise that as partially true. On the other hand, I would not take kindly accusation of alcoholism, as I am well aware, that any internet poster has NO way to conclude about my habits with alcoholic beverages. Aka, summing it up - if the conclusion about me can be viably drawn from the results of interaction, I would not be offended at it, even if such a conclusion would be disfavorable. On the other hand, accusation about something I had never provided any information about will be met with disdain.

Do you really think the time is lost? In your own way, each time you argue, you refine your own understanding of Christ. Where would Christianity be, if people wouldn`t talk about it?

Naa. You disagree, and that`s fine. As long as you recognise my own right to disagree with you, it`s all kosher.

Note, how many times you say "unfair". Freudian slip? Now, my points 1 and 3 do not contradict. The fact you subscribe to teachings does not means you learn from them. Thus, while teachings of Jesus might not promote xenophoby, hostility and bigotry, a lot of FOLLOWERS interprets them in such way. ___ Both KKK and Westboro Baptists said that they act "by the edict of God". Since practically all Christians say that God guides them, and some of them perform pretty unpleasant things by this "quidance", I would like some additional proof, that this particular christian does not interprets Jesus`s guidance as "I must hate you, because you are black/gay/jew/atheist/catholic/<put your own version>". Getting scalded by hot water, you`ll blow on hot milk next time too, you know? ___ My statement stands. I`ve yet not encountered an amiable socium of Christians. When I will encounter one, I will change this assessment. So far, it stands.

Well... If they put Bible under my nose, they must be claiming to adhere to Christ, no? I am no telepath - I can`t verify what people really believe. If they tell me, that they believe in Christ, there`s little else I can do to verify their beliefs. ___ That is exactly what I said, Wayne. From my viewpoint, chances are, that Bible`s account of Jesus being cricified have high probability to be truth - other sources suggest, that this punishment was common in Roman empire, and that Jesus certainly could be sentenced to crucification. Similarly, the account of Jesus being resurrected is most likely a folklore. Beautiful story made up to give a bad tale a good end. If Jesus just died, it would not be all that good for those, who believed in him, no? And so, they "resurrected" Jesus to support their belief. No other sources offer similar accounts of resurrection, and modern medical knowledge suggests, that it`s highly unlikely. Therefore, I do not think that part with resurrection is true. ____ There is one problem. Christianity puts forward entirely too rigid sins. One of the reasons why people not like Christianity all that much, is because Christianity demands they ask forgiveness for what they deem to be correct and acceptable.

Well... Shiloh, you seem to be unable to read what I say. Check out points. 1) I define Christianity as society of people subscribing to teachings of Christ, which were represented in Bible. 2) Anyone, who identifies him/herself as Christian, and presents a Bible as his basis should be considered Christian. 3) An mass, Christianity, AS the society of FOLLOWERS of Christ Teachings, is xenophobic, hostile and bigoted. 4) You, personally, propagate this stereotype. ____ Simple enough? Try to understand at last. I can`t care less for your "relationship with Jesus", as I do not believe it is real. I assess you and Christians as persons. PERSONS, for crying out loud. And as PERSONS, most of you are unpleasant to deal with. As for KKK, Westboro Baptists and any other christians you`d rather not acknowledge, they add additional weight to my assessment. Knowing of them, I can NOT be sure, that you do not entertain same thoughts. I can`t read your mind, and verify your intentions. And your wording is ENTIRELY the same, as theirs. ___ You do NOT show in your actions, that you are benevolent. In fact, quite the opposite. (On a side note, if I were in doubt, I would decide against joining Christianity after a talk with you.) While you MIGHT be showing to Christ, how good you are, you sure don`t do so to people, and thus, people who do not accept Christ have NO reason to think of you kindly. You are pushing them away. ...Which, ironically, is directly opposite to what Jesus did. He could make the unbelievers feel comfortably with him. ___ Glory: My facts can`t be biblical, if they contradict Bible, now could they?

Ook, let`s deal with it in turns. _____ Cobalt: There is a difference between respecting beliefs and accepting them. Let me assure you, I have absolutely nothing against YOUR belief in Christ, and I wholeheartedly support your freedom to do so. However, I myself do not subscribe to such belief. What I want to find out, if there IS some way to communicate across this ideological difference without compromising either of our systems. You may notice, that I in NO way infer that YOU are wrong in your assessment of Jesus. Instead, I say, that it does not applies to me, as I have different set of axioms, and explain my own views, so some common language could be developed. I`m entirely willing to consider the possibility of Christ existing, and I can construct models, which include such possibility (see my earlier posts about how`d I interact with him at Supreme Judgement). What I am asking for, is for you to account for my disbelief, and try to put your arguments with regard for this disbelief, as I make my theoretic constructs where Jesus existing is considered a fact. In short - try to imagine for a second, that I am right, and there is no Jesus currently. What would you do? _____ Wayne, historical texts are not meant to be taken for bona fide truth. USSR had taught me, that history can be rewritten entirely too easily. Thus, I can`t take the 'eyewitness' proof. If that was true, then hundreds of millions of people had witnessed that communism is the true and only path. Any historical account bears the personal attitude of a person writing it. So does Bible. Bible was written by devout believers - those people had practically created the basis for the Church. Would it not be prudent to recognise their bias towards Christ? They sincerely believed, that all that happens was the work of Christ - could they not explain by Christ`s intervention that what had other reasons, in their fervor? Thus, I can`t take Bible for the accurate source, much less as infallible truth. There is too many contradictions and inaccuracies in it to do so. And yes, Bible was refuted time and time again. If you want, take a look around the net. You`ll find more then fair share of articles pointing out Bible`s fallacies. _____ Glory: Jehovas` Witnesses are the worst offender. I`ve had to toss two down the stairs before they learned not to try and force their way into my door. Though, I can`t really say much for other denominations. I remember I was once escorted out of church by priest, when I went in to put a candle by my friend`s request. _____ Undone: Catholic church practiced "indulgence" selling in the middle ages. Putting it simply, "indulgence" was the paper, sealed and signed by cardinal or Pope himself, which "by Christ`s will" absolved the buyer from all and any sins he had committed priorly to buying said "indulgence". In my opinion, notion that "Jesus forgives your sins" is similar to the practice described earlier. Aka, in exchange for your allegiance, Jesus dismisses all the facts that might`ve caused you guilty conscience. Maybe it is welcome for people... But in my opinion it`s dishonorable. Should I feel a guilt before a certain person, why would Jesus (which is not that person) do anything with forgiving it? I`d need forgiveness of a person towards which I feel guilt. That boils down to simple fact, yet again - I don`t think Jesus has any business forgiving my sins. They are mine, and it is my duty to account for them. To weasel out by Jesus would be low. Of course, you have to take in account, that my understanding of sin is radically different from what is prescribed by Bible, and I in NO way feel guilty for such "sins" as lust, sloth or wrath. (In fact, my opinion of seven mortal sins is that the problem is addressed from the wrong side. Sins would be the consequences of experiencing any of those in inappropriate manner or time.) _____ FreshnoJoe: Please, do NOT post on languages you do not understand. As far as I can make it out, you wanted to post Russian translations of some of the verses. There is no need for that - first, I understand English just fine, and second - you had posted on several Cyrillic languages. Russian, Ukrainian, and I think Kirgisian or maybe Mongol. Suffice to say, that last one I certainly can`t read.