If Jesus is necessary and sufficient for getting to heaven, why be moral?

[HumblePie]

Ah...sweet distain. You know...we have similar educational backgrounds in many ways believe it or not...although it appears that my studies were a tad broader than yours not that that means anything about my perspective being more valid than yours. But...it's quite clear that we have very different perspectives. And it's also clear that you don't like being called a bigot and l can understand that. My apologies.

You claim that, and yet somehow your posts have yet to exemplify such claim. I have posts regarding other religions, and links to various religious topics not dealing specifically with Christianity. I have yet to read anything posted by you that was not rooted in Christianity nor was something you typed with drivel, tripe, accusations, or name calling.

It has been strange how every time I make points or counter points, or others with a similar agreement to my points, and I do so with links and facts, you get all huffy and start spouting, "BIGOT! WRONG! LIAR!"

Now I am exaggerating slightly, but not much. It comes off very unseemly when you do this and typically only furthers my point in most of these debates.

Back to the original discussion. Since I got an agreement that believing in Yeshua as a deity is the definition of being a Christian, the next more opinionated topic is this. Does being a Christian "absolve" you of actions? Some Christians believe it does. There is much in the bible and corollary writings that points this out. Does this, along with many other things regarding the Christian belief, make some Christian into "bad" Christians? Sure does. As pointed out by the demonstrable actions of Ann. Should be an excuse? Absolutely not.

 

[Lanyap]

Nice speculation. I've seen this before a possible theory of the start of "religion" along with many others. The most presiding theory with any merit is this. Religion was created to explain the unexplainable. Actually, considering most religions in human history had very little to do with morals and behavior of mankind in general, this is why the theory I presented is more universal than the one you, and most modern religious practitioners, present.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that many religions today do try to incorporate moral behaviors into their baliwick. However, let me ask you this. What is the very fist thing in the Christian bible? Does it have anything to do with behavior or morals? Usually when people make something, they put the most important item they wish to discuss either first or last. So then, what is the very last thing in the Bible? Does it also have anything to do with moral guidelines?

To those with the Doc Savage Fan mindset, here is a warning. Those questions I just asked were rhetorical. I know the answer and by asking them I am using the Socratic method of teaching my point.

That's an acceptable theory.

All well and good. I personally have nothing against the "good" preached in religions. However, I do have problems with the bad. Deny all you might, the majority of religions out there preach both good and bad. In many, the bad outweighs the good. There are some religions that do not have bad or very little. I've pointed a few of those out above. There are others. The problem is, these are not in the majority despite them teaching the same "good" points as other religions. Also, no religion has withstood the test of time. Even Christianity has changed much in the centuries since its inception. How many times has the Bible been rewritten?

My opinion is that it's mostly good. While we are speculating and opinionating, do you believe that we would be better off now if religion had not taken the course that it did throughout history? What would have been reasonable alternatives?

84% of the population of the world may believe in some type of religion is a nice statement of fact. But it hardly proves anything. Another nice statement of fact is that most of the population of the world is still uneducated, third world, and impoverished.

Now if you were to look at First World nations, you'll see a huge change. Also, if you were to start taking into account things like education level, it changes ever more. You see that more people move to not believing in a deity (ie the definition of a religion) and are either more spiritual (typically a form of agnosticism), or are atheist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

The last numbers I looked at indicate that 90%+ of the US believes in a religion. We are a First World nation and highly educated. Atheists are at 1%.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

 

[HumblePie]

My opinion is that it's mostly good. While we are speculating and opinionating, do you believe that we would be better off now if religion had not taken the course that it did throughout history? What would have been reasonable alternatives?

I can't say. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened and it is impossible to speculate. How would humans have evolved without religion is not an answerable question. It would be easier to answer how the Universe was created unless you have invented a machine that can not only go back in time, but view additional timelines if such a thing as other timeline realities are real. Which are about a real a scientific theory as Creationism.

Either way, discussing the merits of the impact of religion on humans is something else. Do I feel it was good to some extent? Yep. Could it have been better? Sure could have. Could it be better today? Damn right. Do I think humans can finally evolve beyond needing religion? Yep. Do I think life, society, and human evolution would be better in the future without religion? Hard to say but I am going to say yes as long as we still teach morals and ethics, which I don't think will never be stopped.

The last numbers I looked at indicate that 90%+ of the US believes in a religion. We are a First World nation and highly educated. Atheists are at 1%.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

Ahhh.. the Good Ol' US of A. Are we a First World Nation? Yep. Are we highly educated? Well in comparison to what? To third world nations we are. To other first world nations we are not. Not as a collective average.

Umm... and your atheist at 1% is um... wrong. Who's number did you use for that? Gallup? ARIS? Last one I checked had it at 15%, not 1%.

 

[woolfe9999]

The last numbers I looked at indicate that 90%+ of the US believes in a religion. We are a First World nation and highly educated. Atheists are at 1%.

http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html

Statitics vary. One survey on that page puts atheists and agnostics at 7%. That is about where the most recent surveys seem to come in for the U.S.. The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is pretty blurry. It generally comes down to subjective preference over how someone wants to be identified.

These kinds of surveys get highly varying results depending on what questions are asked and how many options/alternatives are given. Generally the more alternatives provided, the less likely someone is to identify themselves as atheist. Is someone who doesn't believe in a "deity" but does belief in a hidden "life force" - a tie that binds everything in nature - an a-theist? Depends on how you define theism. Etc. etc.

- wolf

 

[HumblePie]

Statitics vary. One survey on that page puts atheists and agnostics at 7%. That is about where the most recent surveys seem to come in for the U.S.. The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is pretty blurry. It generally comes down to subjective preference over how someone wants to be identified.

These kinds of surveys get highly varying results depending on what questions are asked and how many options/alternatives are given. Generally the more alternatives provided, the less likely someone is to identify themselves as atheist. Is someone who doesn't believe in a "deity" but does belief in a hidden "life force" - a tie that binds everything in nature - an a-theist? Depends on how you define theism. Etc. etc.

- wolf

That, and many people just do not know what the word atheist means. In the our current PC centric society, it has been given such a negative connotation, that many have tried to disassociate themselves from the word regardless if they are exactly what that word means. Instead they use another word with the same meaning.

When you look at simple polls that ask, "Do you believe in a Deity?" you'll find the number of people that do not is fairly high in all first world nations. The US does typically have the least number of non believers for a first world nation though.

 

[woolfe9999]

That, and many people just do not know what the word atheist means. In the our current PC centric society, it has been given such a negative connotation, that many have tried to disassociate themselves from the word regardless if they are exactly what that word means. Instead they use another word with the same meaning.

When you look at simple polls that ask, "Do you believe in a Deity?" you'll find the number of people that do not is fairly high in all first world nations. The US does typically have the least number of non believers for a first world nation though.

The numbers in your link suggest that if "theism" is defined as believing in a deity or deities who possess a personality/intentionality, then in Europe at least, A-theism (defined as not theism) is extrordinarily high, even the majority viewpoint in many countries. I think we are seeing a trend of secularization in the west, including in the U.S. (but at a slower pace than Europe), whereby traditional "theism" devolves into a sort of vague mysticism without belief in "deities" the way they are classically defined, and from there drains into strict atheism and/or agnosticism.

I think if the question is asked as a simple bifurcation - e.g. you either believe in one or more "deities" defined as supernatural beings with personaltieis and intentions, or you do not - you'll find relatively high numbers of "atheists" here in the U.S., probably between 10 and 20%.

- wolf

 

[HumblePie]

Err woolfe9999,

Did you look at that demographic chart for Europe? All the first world nations listed there are at 50% believing in a deity or less. There was quite a few that only believe in a "spirituality" or life force. However, France has a listed rate of 33% atheists. Even a few second world nations like the Czech Republic is at 30% atheist and only 19% theist.

Now are there some first world nations that have a lower atheist rate than even the USA? Sure. Ireland for one. Italy for another.

Then again neither Ireland nor Italy are typically known for their collective intelligence. That's not to say they don't have smart people. Just that their average education level, IQ scores, and other barometers used to measure intelligence levels are about on par with the US or lower.

 

[Moonbeam]

How many atheists can stand on the head of a pin. Truth is not in numbers, conformity is.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You claim that, and yet somehow your posts have yet to exemplify such claim. I have posts regarding other religions, and links to various religious topics not dealing specifically with Christianity. I have yet to read anything posted by you that was not rooted in Christianity nor was something you typed with drivel, tripe, accusations, or name calling.

It has been strange how every time I make points or counter points, or others with a similar agreement to my points, and I do so with links and facts, you get all huffy and start spouting, "BIGOT! WRONG! LIAR!"

Now I am exaggerating slightly, but not much. It comes off very unseemly when you do this and typically only furthers my point in most of these debates.

Back to the original discussion. Since I got an agreement that believing in Yeshua as a deity is the definition of being a Christian, the next more opinionated topic is this. Does being a Christian "absolve" you of actions? Some Christians believe it does. There is much in the bible and corollary writings that points this out. Does this, along with many other things regarding the Christian belief, make some Christian into "bad" Christians? Sure does. As pointed out by the demonstrable actions of Ann. Should be an excuse? Absolutely not.

Yes…I "claim" that. LOL. And yes…I imagine that my posts don't exemplify such a claim. These discussions are difficult as can plainly be seen from our previous "discussion". You misunderstand what I'm saying and I'm misunderstanding what you're saying on such simple, simple things. I've spent about 35 years immersed in religious study in one way or another…sorry it doesn't show. But your insinuation is duly noted...lol.

And now for your question "Does being a Christian "absolve" you of actions?" The simple and easy answer is 'no'. But...since the question is so simple...I've got to believe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say again.

Please elaborate on the "demonstrable actions of Ann". Do you consider her to be a "bad" Christian? I don't know much about her except that she's incredibly politically abrasive. Did she kill a few million Jews lately?

 

[woolfe9999]

That, and many people just do not know what the word atheist means. In the our current PC centric society, it has been given such a negative connotation, that many have tried to disassociate themselves from the word regardless if they are exactly what that word means. Instead they use another word with the same meaning.

When you look at simple polls that ask, "Do you believe in a Deity?" you'll find the number of people that do not is fairly high in all first world nations. The US does typically have the least number of non believers for a first world nation though.

13 of 35 countries have more than 50% "believing in God." So I suppose you could change the word "many" to "most" in the first sentence of my post. It's a little more complicated, however, if you want to assume everyone in the middle or right column is an atheist. For one thing, the left column says "God" - implying strictly monotheism and excluding polytheism. For another, the middle column says "spirit or life force." I tend to personally delimit theism to believing in a God or gods who act with intentionality. In other words, a being that is an agency, a subject rather than an object. A "deity" in the classic sense is analogous to a human, i.e. a sentient being, whereas a "life force" might be more analogous to oh say, a rock. Yet I don't know what "spirit or life force" means to each person answering. Still, it's fair to say that many in the middle category could fairly be described as atheist. We just don't know how many.

Anyway, my broader point is that the west has been in secular transition for a couple hundreds years now, starting at about the mid to late 19th century. If you go beyond the simple atheist/theist dichtomy, it runs like this:

Fundie theism -> non-fundie theism -> vague mysticism/spirituality -> strict atheism.

Gradually over time the demographic shift shows people moving from the left most category to categories further right on the spectrum. Even over the past 20 years in the U.S. numbers have shifted in that direction, and I think by the end of this century we'll be right about where Europe is now, while Europe will be more or less strictly atheist, with religion holding on as a fringe.

- wolf

 

[mattpegher]

Interesting discussions.
1. Actions vs faith. I find it more illogical that an Omnicient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-benevolant diety would punish those who act rightously yet worship their own regional understanding of its nature. Ie, the definition of the judeochristian god makes it impossible for this diety to favor one faith over another.
2. Murder/killing is inherently an evil act as defined by "any action that results in the suffering of a sentient being". This definition leaves room for quantification; and qualification regarding what may be sentient (plants, insects or just humans). So this implies a scale of evil. Therefore, is intention and defense mitigating as to the severity of evil? The argument go as so... Killing a living thing may be necessary for your own survival or the survival of others. Food is the prime example. However, defense also may be considered, when attempting to prevent suffering/injury it may become necessary to kill an "active perpetrator".
As many differ on the assignment of sentience, and there is no logical argument to include or exclude other life forms, the particulars get rather debateable.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting discussions.
1. Actions vs faith. I find it more illogical that an Omnicient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omni-benevolant diety would punish those who act rightously yet worship their own regional understanding of its nature. Ie, the definition of the judeochristian god makes it impossible for this diety to favor one faith over another.
2. Murder/killing is inherently an evil act as defined by "any action that results in the suffering of a sentient being". This definition leaves room for quantification; and qualification regarding what may be sentient (plants, insects or just humans). So this implies a scale of evil. Therefore, is intention and defense mitigating as to the severity of evil? The argument go as so... Killing a living thing may be necessary for your own survival or the survival of others. Food is the prime example. However, defense also may be considered, when attempting to prevent suffering/injury it may become necessary to kill an "active perpetrator".
As many differ on the assignment of sentience, and there is no logical argument to include or exclude other life forms, the particulars get rather debateable.

Totally agree with #1. You fail to differentiate between murder and killing...they are different. Killing is not necessarily evil.

 

[Zorkorist]

The people that believe in Religion, are the people that want to be governed, and think it good to be governed.

Right now they accept Government from God, but they are moving (forcibly) to Government by State.

It's very little change for them.

The rest of us that might do something immoral will be "sinning" against the State. Which is better than Sinning against God. At least there are courts and stuff.

-John

 

[nobodyknows]

And why are you motivated to share your thoughts about her. Is there something in it for you?

Funny you should ask.

 

[Zorkorist]

And to answer the ops post... Religion doesn't absolve you of anything. Accepting Christ, absolves you of nothing.

The state will take your plea bargain and give you life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Your eternal life? What eternal life... lol.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Edit: Or why Ann Coulter is a textbook psychopath who doesn't care about the welfare of others.

It seems I've heard it over and over and over again from the perversely religious: If you don't believe in God, you can't possibly have any motivation to be moral. But I was watching some videos of Ann Coulter in which she stated that she was a religious Christian and that good deeds won't get you to heaven; only the acceptance of Jesus will.

Yet if you look at Coulter's behavior, she's clearly devoid of any sense of dedication to the truth (find the video where Al Franken slam-dunks one of her outrageous lies, and she squirms in her chair trying to claim she was just paraphrasing). She's clearly motivated solely by greed - sell books, get speaking engagements, stay in the public eye. Even if she's just an act, she's an evil act.

And then it struck me: Ann Coulter can rationalize her disgusting behavior because she believes that her acceptance of Jesus immunizes her from hell; her morality is irrelevant.

Isn't that ironic?

Can you not find a politician that does the same thing?

-John

 

[Moonbeam]

Matthew 25

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
+++++++++++++

I don't quite think I get this. It strikes me that the least among us are the goats, right, and they are goats because they didn't care about some other least among us. So they are even less than the least they ignored. But they are going to hell. Now isn't that a hell of a way to treat the least among us? Why would God punish folk who are emotionally dead and save innocent lambs? The folk who are innocent and pure are lucky. They didn't get traumatized as kids, they weren't fucked over. So the people who are mentally ill from life's damage go to hell, and folk who got lucky go to heaven. Interesting indeed. I don't see where people have a choice as to whether they are mentally ill or not. It's chance in operation. But angry folk who can't forgive, I can see where they would want to believe this.

 

[Nemesis 1]

No, I know the answer. I've been to church. Many members of my family are devout members of various churches and I respect them and they respect me. However, pointing out the fallacies and hypocrisies of a religion doesn't make me a bigot despite your over use of the word. Being rational and having a discussion on it doesn't make me a bigot despite you using that word to lam-blast others the moment you start losing ground.

The answer is those soldiers are still Christian if they want to be. They murdered people and repent. They pray to Jesus and God and ask for his forgiveness. According to the bible it is not up to you or me to decide if they are Christian or not. Even if they are to go out and kill again for their jobs, they still remain Christian to the "book." Look, I know all the teachings. I know all the words, I've attended the sermons and I've read the book probably more times than you. That doesn't change the fact that I find the religion absurd after coming to that rational conclusion. It doesn't change the fact this is one of those absurdities and that you and others "perpetuate" it by disavowing all association with who you decide doesn't "belong" with your group.

Oh, and for the record, there are many religions I actually have no problem with people following. While I respect many things "taught" in Christianity, too much of what is taught is counter to itself. There are other religions that aren't so crazy in my opinion like Confucius, Deism, Unitarianism, and others that preach only spirituality, reason, and morals. It's the religions with the ugly underside to which is continually denied that I find irrational.

Forgiveness is not without cost. The Cost . repentance. . If you repent and not contiue on your present road gets you forgiveness. If you think just asking for forgiveness. You recieve it your a fool and believed a lie . For forgiveness has a price . repentance. Repentance is an ACT of Faith.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Matthew 25

31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
+++++++++++++

I don't quite think I get this. It strikes me that the least among us are the goats, right, and they are goats because they didn't care about some other least among us. So they are even less than the least they ignored. But they are going to hell. Now isn't that a hell of a way to treat the least among us? Why would God punish folk who are emotionally dead and save innocent lambs? The folk who are innocent and pure are lucky. They didn't get traumatized as kids, they weren't fucked over. So the people who are mentally ill from life's damage go to hell, and folk who got lucky go to heaven. Interesting indeed. I don't see where people have a choice as to whether they are mentally ill or not. It's chance in operation. But angry folk who can't forgive, I can see where they would want to believe this.

Yes moonie . Its hard to understand, That one most help and love those who would harm us as a whole.

 

[Madwand1]

James 2:18: But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

More simply, James 2:26, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

It is true that theists are by large complacent in their faith -- that they feel by faith that everything will be fine in the end, and that they need only busy themselves materially and avoid obvious failings. Add to this that the message of Jesus seems to at odds with others', the errors and failings of some of its most ardent claimants, and that the most vocal atheists often claim to have had rigorous education and broad exposure, and you see the problems.

But that is only hypocrisy.

The messages of Jesus and others resolve when looked at deeply; the apparent contradictions and fallacies show truth by negation when seen by an open heart and mind. The challenges to faith are to be risen to, not as entrenched dogma, but as faith in something much better and greater, which all of us already have, and need only enrich, as we can, perhaps easier now than ever in this much-shruken world where ancient wisdom is no farther than our fingers and we need only give up some tired excuses of insularity and complacency to attend to our soul.

 

[Noobtastic]

Edit: Or why Ann Coulter is a textbook psychopath who doesn't care about the welfare of others.

It seems I've heard it over and over and over again from the perversely religious: If you don't believe in God, you can't possibly have any motivation to be moral. But I was watching some videos of Ann Coulter in which she stated that she was a religious Christian and that good deeds won't get you to heaven; only the acceptance of Jesus will.

Yet if you look at Coulter's behavior, she's clearly devoid of any sense of dedication to the truth (find the video where Al Franken slam-dunks one of her outrageous lies, and she squirms in her chair trying to claim she was just paraphrasing). She's clearly motivated solely by greed - sell books, get speaking engagements, stay in the public eye. Even if she's just an act, she's an evil act.

And then it struck me: Ann Coulter can rationalize her disgusting behavior because she believes that her acceptance of Jesus immunizes her from hell; her morality is irrelevant.

Isn't that ironic?

The concept of morality was established by religious beliefs.

The Bible is the ultimate progressive book. 5,000 years go there were no rules or laws. Men could rape their wives, children could be killed, and it wasn't considered "immoral."

The Bible stipulated rules - when you can kill your wife or rape her. It was the first time our actions now had legal and social consequences.

Of course today we read the bible and it probably qualifies as a fairy tale garbage, but back in the day it was the ACLU.

Do you think morality is innate? That we are born with the will not to go out and murder people? History doesn't support this argument. Neither do genetics.

 

[Nemesis 1]

We have the Bible. Faith in or not. Than we have the early writtenrecords of the earlier periods set in clay and stone Of the same stories . You know how Tinfoil hats are needed not long ago you would have gotten a tinfoil hat . But not to worry you would have lost your head anyway , Religion gone bad

 

[Nemesis 1]

The concept of morality was established by religious beliefs.

The Bible is the ultimate progressive book. 5,000 years go there were no rules or laws. Men could rape their wives, children could be killed, and it wasn't considered "immoral."

The Bible stipulated rules - when you can kill your wife or rape her. It was the first time our actions now had legal and social consequences.

Of course today we read the bible and it probably qualifies as a fairy tale garbage, but back in the day it was the ACLU.

Do you think morality is innate? That we are born with the will not to go out and murder people? History doesn't support this argument. Neither do genetics.

5,ooo years ago we had semerians who have our scientist shaken up. Didn't have morality 5000 years ago really they had law and order and a place they had called Eden.
What makes ever one think there is only one so called god.
The God I believe in hasn't talked to any one the God I believe created the gods as they created us.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If you believe all the UFO sightings are lies thats cool . But if there real and I was them studing us . Not a chance I would let Us out there. Not a chance in hell would I let the virius known as man looose in the universe until we change.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You claim that, and yet somehow your posts have yet to exemplify such claim. I have posts regarding other religions, and links to various religious topics not dealing specifically with Christianity. I have yet to read anything posted by you that was not rooted in Christianity nor was something you typed with drivel, tripe, accusations, or name calling.

It has been strange how every time I make points or counter points, or others with a similar agreement to my points, and I do so with links and facts, you get all huffy and start spouting, "BIGOT! WRONG! LIAR!"

Now I am exaggerating slightly, but not much. It comes off very unseemly when you do this and typically only furthers my point in most of these debates.

Back to the original discussion. Since I got an agreement that believing in Yeshua as a deity is the definition of being a Christian, the next more opinionated topic is this. Does being a Christian "absolve" you of actions? Some Christians believe it does. There is much in the bible and corollary writings that points this out. Does this, along with many other things regarding the Christian belief, make some Christian into "bad" Christians? Sure does. As pointed out by the demonstrable actions of Ann. Should be an excuse? Absolutely not.

But thats not true. Christ was the SON of MAN. Christ was the living word the light the way nothing more.