News1 min ago
Why Did Jesus Come To The Earth?
170 Answers
Jesus was not an imaginary person. He really lived as a man on earth. “In ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the [actual existence] of Jesus,” notes the Encyclopædia Britannica. So just who was Jesus? Was he really sent by God? Why is he so well known?
Answers
Having just spent the last 30 minutes reading through this thread and having a good laugh, I have realised that the original question hasn't really been answered. So, for those who are really interested, and I am sure Goodlife is, I will give my tenpenn'th. If you read John 18 v 33 -37 you will see that Jesus himself said that he came to the earth to bear witness to...
13:44 Tue 09th Jun 2015
Well you did mention feelings - when you said about feeling guilt and fear.
I said that you are criticizing/rubbishing/making disparaging remarks about - take your pick - people.
You said - No
I said - but you are - because only people have feelings.
You then backed out of the conversation as it had reached an impasse -
Me saying you are talking about people.
You saying you are not.
One last attempt at rationality.
Naomi - Do you agree that only humans (and animals maybe) are capable of having feelings.
A yes or no will do, and no Ask the Audience or Phone a friend!
I said that you are criticizing/rubbishing/making disparaging remarks about - take your pick - people.
You said - No
I said - but you are - because only people have feelings.
You then backed out of the conversation as it had reached an impasse -
Me saying you are talking about people.
You saying you are not.
One last attempt at rationality.
Naomi - Do you agree that only humans (and animals maybe) are capable of having feelings.
A yes or no will do, and no Ask the Audience or Phone a friend!
Grasscarp, no, I said religion imposes a burden of guilt – but far be it from me to be pedantic. I never back out – I simply saw no point in going through all this palaver with you yet again – but here we are. Why don’t you just be honest and say you’d rather anyone who disagrees with you would just shut up? We’d all know where we stand with you then. Oh, and yes I do agree that only living creatures are capable of having feelings – although what that has to do with this conversation is anyone’s guess. Are we done?
-- answer removed --
baza, //one or two on here say that the big bang started it all but fail to say where all the gases etc. came from to cause it, yet they believe that they are correct.//
The same could be said of people who believe that God created it all. They fail to say where he came from yet they believe they are correct. The difference between those who believe the big bang was responsible and those who believe that God was responsible is that on production of further evidence the former are willing to change their minds.
The same could be said of people who believe that God created it all. They fail to say where he came from yet they believe they are correct. The difference between those who believe the big bang was responsible and those who believe that God was responsible is that on production of further evidence the former are willing to change their minds.
Finally Naomi concedes
"I do agree that only living creatures are capable of having feelings"
So when you talk about feelings of guilt etc etc you are talking about people and not dogma. As a non believer yourself I wonder how you are so sure what we are feeling?
As for saying to me
"Why don’t you just be honest and say you’d rather anyone who disagrees with you would just shut up"
I have time after time asked you to answer a straight forward question with a yes or no. I never said shut up. Just the opposite.
Anyway thank you for finally agreeing that to talk of feelings is talking about people, so when I said you are disparaging about people, I was spot on.
"I do agree that only living creatures are capable of having feelings"
So when you talk about feelings of guilt etc etc you are talking about people and not dogma. As a non believer yourself I wonder how you are so sure what we are feeling?
As for saying to me
"Why don’t you just be honest and say you’d rather anyone who disagrees with you would just shut up"
I have time after time asked you to answer a straight forward question with a yes or no. I never said shut up. Just the opposite.
Anyway thank you for finally agreeing that to talk of feelings is talking about people, so when I said you are disparaging about people, I was spot on.
Seeking redemption through blood sacrifice of another living being, human or otherwise, makes those seeking the unconscionable no less culpable for whatever it is they seek redemption.
If humans are fallible by their very nature, such fallibility is not a choice. The only choice we have in the matter of being imperfect beings is to acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of our errors and attempt to rectify those errors and compensate for our mistakes in as much as and to the extent that such is humanly possible.
Forgiveness is by virtue of those who have been wronged, who acknowledge our common human fallibility and seek reasonable compensation from those who have wronged them. Belief in a universal redeemer only circumvents the justice we are all due for having been misguided and lied to as children and denied the understanding essential to becoming responsible adults.
How anyone can swallow the myth that simply believing in the existence of a universal redeemer somehow buys them a ticket to ride the escalator to heaven simply defies reason.
If humans are fallible by their very nature, such fallibility is not a choice. The only choice we have in the matter of being imperfect beings is to acknowledge responsibility for the consequences of our errors and attempt to rectify those errors and compensate for our mistakes in as much as and to the extent that such is humanly possible.
Forgiveness is by virtue of those who have been wronged, who acknowledge our common human fallibility and seek reasonable compensation from those who have wronged them. Belief in a universal redeemer only circumvents the justice we are all due for having been misguided and lied to as children and denied the understanding essential to becoming responsible adults.
How anyone can swallow the myth that simply believing in the existence of a universal redeemer somehow buys them a ticket to ride the escalator to heaven simply defies reason.
Grasscarp, don't let the 'truth' get in the way of the truth. Naomi's observations about the characteristics of believers might well be true. The fact that you find them unacceptable doesn't alter their veracity one jot. It is a sad fact that there are a lot of peope who think that their beliefs alter reality, yet they all believe different things....please explain.
Jomifl - you comment that
"Naomi's observations about the characteristics of believers might well be true."
You try getting Naomi to admit that she is making remarks about believers though. I kind of got a semi-admission in the end but it took many posts and some hours!
Then you say:
"The fact that you find them unacceptable doesn't alter their veracity one jot."
I find them offensive. That is true. As for veracity. I, for one, am not gullible, nor am a sycophantic, nor do I live in fear and I do not feel any guilt (what am I supposed to be in fear of or guilty about?)
So if I do not have any of these characteristics I think we could assume that not everyone does have all, or even any, of these traits. Does Naomi writing things on here make them true? Not it clearly doesnt. If Naomi said I think that, or in my opinion I find that ......
but no, she writes daily on what we (believers) are (supposed to be) feeling and thinking and doing while not really knowing, and not being a believer is not even speaking for herself.
"Naomi's observations about the characteristics of believers might well be true."
You try getting Naomi to admit that she is making remarks about believers though. I kind of got a semi-admission in the end but it took many posts and some hours!
Then you say:
"The fact that you find them unacceptable doesn't alter their veracity one jot."
I find them offensive. That is true. As for veracity. I, for one, am not gullible, nor am a sycophantic, nor do I live in fear and I do not feel any guilt (what am I supposed to be in fear of or guilty about?)
So if I do not have any of these characteristics I think we could assume that not everyone does have all, or even any, of these traits. Does Naomi writing things on here make them true? Not it clearly doesnt. If Naomi said I think that, or in my opinion I find that ......
but no, she writes daily on what we (believers) are (supposed to be) feeling and thinking and doing while not really knowing, and not being a believer is not even speaking for herself.
Jomifl
Why do you find Naomi's alleged remarks offensive?
Because she calls us gullible, fearful, guilt ridden sycophants.
If she believes them to be true then they have as much validity as your belief in god.
Sorry you have lost me there. Naomi doesnt say I believe that, or I think that, she states it as fact. As such, and for the reasons I already gave you, they are not valid "truths" they are opinions of one person.
There is no point in being offended by the truth, if you are then do something about it.
I am offended by the the fact they are so far from the truth.
As for doing something about it, I am trying to point out the inaccuracies.
I do not have any first hand knowledge of atheism and I do not have enough interest in atheists to make stuff up.
I think that Naomi feels the need to keep on and on attacking religion because she worries that maybe she is missing out on something better than what she has. That is only my opinion though, and does not make it true!!!!
Why do you find Naomi's alleged remarks offensive?
Because she calls us gullible, fearful, guilt ridden sycophants.
If she believes them to be true then they have as much validity as your belief in god.
Sorry you have lost me there. Naomi doesnt say I believe that, or I think that, she states it as fact. As such, and for the reasons I already gave you, they are not valid "truths" they are opinions of one person.
There is no point in being offended by the truth, if you are then do something about it.
I am offended by the the fact they are so far from the truth.
As for doing something about it, I am trying to point out the inaccuracies.
I do not have any first hand knowledge of atheism and I do not have enough interest in atheists to make stuff up.
I think that Naomi feels the need to keep on and on attacking religion because she worries that maybe she is missing out on something better than what she has. That is only my opinion though, and does not make it true!!!!
Grasscarp, no one person's belief has any more validity than another's. You believe in god, others don't, some have no beliefs at all. Some people are offended by others believing in god, would you stop believing so as not to offend them? I should say at this point that I have no beliefs in gods of any kind but have no problem with the christian churche's attitude towards me (simple minded though it is) though if you were in my place you might find it offensive.
Jomifl, you speak a lot of trust and I agree with you
You say: no one person's belief has any more validity than another's
Quite. But if you just believe/think something but put it down as a fact, then that does not make it true.
When it is just your opinion have the courage to start with I think that, or in my opinion etc.
That way I (for one) will just ignore it, but when it is stated as an absolute truth it provokes a response and causes offence. (Made all the more frustrating by those who will not accept that it was just a misguided opinion rather than an absolute fact)
You say: no one person's belief has any more validity than another's
Quite. But if you just believe/think something but put it down as a fact, then that does not make it true.
When it is just your opinion have the courage to start with I think that, or in my opinion etc.
That way I (for one) will just ignore it, but when it is stated as an absolute truth it provokes a response and causes offence. (Made all the more frustrating by those who will not accept that it was just a misguided opinion rather than an absolute fact)
jomifl;// no one person's belief has any more validity than another's.//
What absolute rubbish! I believe that cruelty to defenceless children is utterly wrong and indefensible. If some halfwit thinks it is acceptable, then he is wrong and I am right by every standard of humanity, or do you disagree?
What absolute rubbish! I believe that cruelty to defenceless children is utterly wrong and indefensible. If some halfwit thinks it is acceptable, then he is wrong and I am right by every standard of humanity, or do you disagree?
