.: posted 6/20/2002 ::: by webmdave :::   

 Anonymous wrote:

The Bible would also infer not to spend your money on vile things.

posted: December 02, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Anonymous! You could have chosent the "OTHER" radio button and put in a name - any name - any name at all.

However, since you chose anonymous, I'll address you as anonynony.

Anonynony - please quote the Bible verse that says you should never spend your money on vile things.

That's number one.

Now explain what you are calling vile. Is it me? Is it this website? Is it anything or anyone who doesn't believe in your god?

That's number two.

Finally, please quote the Bible verse that supports not obeying your GOD when you don't like it.

That's about it.

Waiting to read your answer anonynony...

posted: December 02, 2005 EST  

 Joel Dave wrote:

Hey Dave my name is Joel, I really whish I had the time to sit and comment on each and everyone of your mild arguments and anemic attempts to discredit the divinity of Jesus Christ, but I’ll just stick to blowing holes in the philosophy behind your article “No True Christians”.

For Starters I would like to make it clear that I will not be donating anything to your cause and yes that still means I am a true Christian. I guess that by not making a donation of $10 upon request my actions make me a sinner and by your definition no sinners can truly be Christians but as a true Christian I can tell you this misguided ideal is not factual. As I’m sure your aware, or should be, Romans 3:23 points out that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” that means that there is no hope of me ever getting into heaven by trying obeying all the rules and as we know by your philosophies it is only “true” Christians that can get into heaven. I am very thankful that the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of my sins (matt 26:28) and that it is only by the blood of Christ that any one person can truly be called a “Christian”. I’ve posted Romans 3:24 - 27 at the bottom of this note, please read it. It states that it is only through Christs grace that people on earth can be redeemed. Though contrary to your beliefs it is only redemption that truly makes any one person a Christian, it is grace not actions! The disciple John wrote “But to as many as receive Him (Jesus), to them he gave the power to become children of God (Christians), even to those who believe on His name: (Jesus)” (John 1:12). Thank God I only have to confess with my mouth and believe with my heart that Christ died and rose again to be called a Christian because I would hate to have to go tell for not supporting this web site.



Romans 3:24 - 27 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.


P.S. Personally if I were anonymous I would be referring to you and your website as vile. I hope this has cleared up a few things for you, its pretty basic!

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Well Joel, if it has nothing to do with actions and everything to do with unconditional and unmerited grace, then I have nothing to worry about, and my "vileness" will be covered under that wonderful grace you mentioned.

Now, if you tell me I must repent and believe the gospel, then you are telling me that there is some action I must preform to receive that grace, which means it's not really grace, but a quid-pro-quo arrangement.

Regardless of all that - your flying undead GODMAN has ordered you to give to all who ask, and you are disobeying - willfully! And, you are just a bit rude too. Perhaps you are right - perhaps you are a true Christian.

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 Joel Dave wrote:

Your missing the point, Christianity is much less about being perfect (though its good to try) than it is about building a relationship with Jesus Christ. The pharisees were so focussed on the wrong things (law) that they missed the coming of their saviour. See Christ came to be the fulfilment of the law because no one person could ever be perfect enough to keep it by themselves. When Christ died he made a way for a sinner like myself to come to know the father and have my name written in the lambs book of life. The focus is no longer on being perfect (though it doesn’t hurt to try) but is now on knowing Jesus Christ. So forgive me if I can’t get passed my sin issues and donate to your cause.

I can’t believe anyone who has known Jesus Christ at one point in their life could give up their relationship for any impotent argument. Your missing the point! and your not even defending your position with any valid arguments, I saw more a challenge from my first year philosophy classes in college.

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 Joel Dave wrote:

P.S.

Your right when you ask, albeit facetiously, if you have nothing to worry about while you suffer through the “vileness” of your actions on this web site. But your actions are no worse than mine I guess and I’m glad for the both of us that this unmerited grace does cover a multitude of sins. It just takes one action and believe you already know what that action is.

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Joel Dave: "I can’t believe anyone who has known Jesus Christ at one point in their life could give up their relationship for any impotent argument. Your missing the point! and your not even defending your position with any valid arguments, I saw more a challenge from my first year philosophy classes in college."

Joel, lets go to the advanced philosophy course... What is it to "Know" Jesus... That requires you to define epistemological foundations for knowledge... looking forward to your response... if you find it hard to formulate a coherent response, then you have beliefs without knowing the fundamental requirements for validating information... While you're at it, I'd like to know what you your version for an ontological argument...

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Joel,

Jesus said (at least it is attributed to Jesus anyway) that those who loved him would keep his commandments. He also commanded his followers to give to EVERYONE who asked.

I am asking and you are refusing to obey. It's really quite simple, there isn't much philosophy to be bandied about it.

Finally, if I have to do ANY action to receive "grace," then it is no longer grace - it is payment for an action performed. If I do this, then god will do that. An exchange of sorts - a contract - a deal.

Grace is unmerited. If I perform an act, even a small act, to receive the grace, then in a small way, the grace was earned.

Now, may I please have ten dollars?

posted: December 14, 2005 EST  

 Joel Dave wrote:

Hey Dave (webmaster) I think you should give up your arguments until you have the available knowledge or reasoning to substantiate the positions that you have been taking. If I were you I would do my best to track down this Dave8 fellow because he is the only one I’ve met on this web site that has asked a fair question that is deserving of a fair answer.

To Dave8, I will give your efforts to quiet my faith in Jesus Christ an A for you effort, however I would wager a bet that when you were pressed with this position from your professor in college there were no Christians around to defend their position, and it is because of this fact that I believe you’ve missed the basic precepts that have become the philosophic basis for Christianity, if that is what you want to call it. It took me a while but I managed to dig up an old article that I once read on this subject, to date this has been one of the best answers I’ve heard to question you’ve posed. I have posted a link to this article at the bottom, read it if you whish.

I would like to start by saying that there is as much epistemological evidence in the world today to support a belief in Christ as there is to dismiss this belief, but I am thankful that the scripture clears up this problem up for those troubled few who are in your position. James A. Fowler, the author of the article I’ve cited, does quit an excellent job of citing scripture so I will refrain from using any reference. It is a simple fact that the design of Christianity is not to have an epistemologically sound knowledge of every mystery but is however to come to the realization of the love of God which passes mortal understanding. Not in the epistemological sense of the word “know” as you desire but in the ontological meaning of the word know as it refers to a relational or experiential reasoning for the basis of knowledge. fowler writes in his article that “ Epistemological understanding is inadequate to comprehend the divine reality that is the essence of Christianity. The objective of the Christian message is not to encourage people to receive and accumulate and assent to information, but rather to receive the very Being of God into themselves (John 1:12) and allow Jesus Christ to be their life (Col. 3:4). . . The knowledge being considered is not just the knowledge of impersonal factual data and information, but the personal knowing of personal beings in personal relationship”.

If you would like a more in depth reasoning please see http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotepis.html, if you just want empirical evidence please check out a few of these titles.

The Twilight Labyrinth - Georg Otis Jr. (great use of quantum mechanics to explain the spiritual realm)

A Case for Christ - Lee Strobal

Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Josh McDowell

Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis

More Than a Carpenter - Josh McDowell

When you get done with these I’ve got more so please don’t hesitate to ask.


Thanks for all your time, but Dave8 I had a little trouble with the reasoning on your second question, if you could clear what it was you were trying to ask I will do my best to answer. And for the record I didn’t find it that hard to formulate this coherent response, thanks though.

posted: December 16, 2005 EST  

 Forever and ever wrote:

This will be good.The battle of the DAVES.(SAVED).Gentle men before you draw your swords.May I suggest.that Joel SAVED first provide unquestionable evidence proving the existance of the historical jesus.

Joel may the bright and morning star be your guide.You seem to have the same personality type.As per your -If I were you I would do my best to track down this Dave8 fellow because he is the only one I’ve met on this web site that has asked a fair question that is deserving of a fair answer.These questions require a fair answer
Joel Is infinte punishment a fair reward for finite sin.?
Do you have more compassion than god.?Would you torment someone Forever and ever.?

posted: December 16, 2005 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

Joel, you christians love to quote the NT. What do you make of the gospels? I'm talking about these particular passages:

Matt. 10:28. "Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Christ is telling us that the body will be in hell, not just the soul. How do you explain this, if the body turns to dust after death?

Matt. 19:12. "There be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Why would Christ honor such a deed? A eunuch, of course, is a man who has been castrated. He tells us that some men have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Why?

Matt. 19:17. "Why callest thou me good...?" Christ tells us that he himself is not "good." Only God is. (Meanwhile, God and Jesus are one and the same, according to the church.)

Matt. 23:13. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: For ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." How could the scribes and Pharisees, according to Christ himself, "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men?" He then goes on to describe heaven in the present tense, saying "...For ye neither go in yourselves..." Why?

It appears to me, from reading these passages and others, that there was some way to "heaven" or "hell" that was understood in those days and honored by Christ himself. It was not "Jesus saves." That doctrine (salvation by grace), again, is born in the NT times, after Christs departure.

I left christianity after reading the bible, because it appeared to me that the doctrine of salvation by grace is not what Christ taught at all. That doctrine appears, again, after Christ. For that reason, among many others, I left.

What do you make of the teachings of Christ? Notice how he describes the "Kingdom of heaven." Throughout the gospels, he does so in parables and mysteries. His descriptions defy the common understanding that heaven is a perfect place where anyone who has "accepted Jesus" will reside forever in perfect joy and harmony with others. Why?

It's getting late. Goodnight, all. I'll be back.

posted: December 16, 2005 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Nice answer Joel - didn't address why you so easily ignore the commands of your God, but that's typical of your ilk.

Now, about your arrogance.

Oh nevermind, I've wasted enough time playing with you.

posted: December 16, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Joel Dave: "To Dave8, I will give your efforts to quiet my faith in Jesus Christ an A for you effort, however I would wager a bet that when you were pressed with this position from your professor in college there were no Christians around to defend their position, and it is because of this fact that I believe you’ve missed the basic precepts that have become the philosophic basis for Christianity, if that is what you want to call it."

Joel, my efforts aren't to decrease your "faith" in your belief... "faith" is allegiance or loyalty to a cause, person or idealogy... Besides the words of a secondary, person, there is no logical or empirical test for "faith"... However, I can empirically and logically show, "how" you received your "faith", and what your foundations reside upon... For instance, you learned of a "god" from another person, and have accepted the words of "another" person verbally, and even the words of those who lived thousands of years ago...

Now, what makes your confidence in the person who told you about "god" greater than someones' who tells you there isn't a god... What makes you believe the words in "one" cannonized book, when there were many more writings of the early christian era that provide a different account for the nature of Jesus, i.e., as a mortal (Rabbinical Jews), a projective image only (Gnostics), an adoptive son (Ebionites), or those who just didn't accept him as a real person at all...

The easy answer is, the person who told you about "god", is someone you trust, and you also trust those of the First Council of Nicaea who voted on the Nature of Jesus over three hundred years after the life of a Jesus, and later the NT was formed as it stands today... Even with no evidence, you still "trust" what someone else told you regarding "god"...

Regarding religion, that's an entirely different matter, if you "chose" to believe in that which can't be proven through logic or reason, or were "taught" to believe in a certain manner, then you believe according to "one" person and their perspective...

"True" religions teach that there is only "one" perspective to be had, and that is the one based on "creed" and "doctrine", its the "truth" of the credo or doctrine that "define" the religion itself...

For those who pick and choose what to accept, and what to throw out of religious doctrine, etc., I don't see as religious, I see them as seeking truth, there's a big difference... The professors that provided my tuteladge in college, were not in the least concerned with "faith", that was a personal choice, they taught on the historicity of the bible, and knew full well the logical failings, and inconsistencies, yet still, they had "faith"...

They "desired" to believe in that which could not be logically or reasonably founded, and to them, that was enough... in short, it was a tradition of "hope" for them... The difference between the professors and educated (few as there were) religionists and the local community, was, that they knew full well the reasons why Other people didn't believe in the biblical versions of "god", and all of the other oral tradition thrown in over the years, i.e., trinity, original sin, etc., as these don't appear in the bible...

In short, they knew their "faith" was totally based on hope, and therefore, this excluded them most times from being "intolerant" of other views... Intolerance is supported by the fact that some person believes they have the "True" answer, a Universal Absolute Truth that others don't have..., or intolerance is nothing but a "defense" mechanism, where one persons' desire to have their "beliefs" justified, shows through their attempt to "reduce" other options, i.e., religious, logical, empirical, etc...

As an example; a distraught child who was protected and cared for by a parent(s) who suffered through misery in their life, may "feel" guilty, i.e., survivors guilt, etc... and therefore, to balance themselves psychologically, "hope" that their parent(s), etc., will be "justly" rewarded for their deeds, and be at "peace"... there are many reasons, why people choose to maintain "hope", in something greater for others... "justice" and a sense of "fairness" is one of the reasons...

Personally, I don' find a problem with the greater part of people "hoping" for the best..., however, when "hoping" detaches people from this natural reality, where logic and reason are neglected, it not only hurts them, many times, it hurts humanity, as the lact of logic and reason suport "intolerance"... There are many side affects to, assuming a belief not founded in logic and reason, self-abuse being one of the many... perhaps, the message of "hope" has been twisted and used like a tool, by many religious leaders of the past few thousand years, using a persons' pain, sorrow, etc., as a means to move the "flock" in the desired direction of the religious leader(s), and supporting their validity by attributing all that is good, and the good things in life, to the "origin" of their "hope"... god...

I no longer attribute, good things in my life to an external concept of "hope", I have learned I can do better than to "create" hope, I can actually "make" people comfortable in this life, by myself, and without the need to rely on some external origin of "hope"...

Joel Dave: "It took me a while but I managed to dig up an old article that I once read on this subject, to date this has been one of the best answers I’ve heard to question you’ve posed. I have posted a link to this article at the bottom, read it if you whish."

Joel, per the article you provided:

"Epistemology" is a philosophical term etymologically derived from three Greek words: (1) epi meaning "upon" or "on." (2) histemi meaning "to stand." (3) logos meaning "word," and indicating "logical consideration of or study of." The Greek word epistamai referred to the process of acquiring knowledge and understanding, as well as the significance of such information. Epistemology refers to the considerations of what we stand upon for our understanding. How do we know what we know? Why do we believe what we believe? Where do we take our stand concerning the opinions which we claim to believe and to know? These are the considerations of epistemology."

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/Xnotepis.html

The article hits ontology and the presence of being, as the foci for having a "true" christian belief, and states that epistemology in many cases causes christians to adhere to an epistemological heresy, seeking god through foundations logical or empirical...

I would agree in that respect, however, there then becomes the onus for this article to provide "information" (based on epistemological foundations), to support an ontological view of "being" and "nature/essence" of being, christianized as "soul"... In short, if epistemology is ignored as the foundation of faith (of which I can agree), but it then used to "support" ontological argument, then we must look at the epistemological support for the ontological argument... and what was provided on this web site, was "biblical verses" as the support...

Therefore, the foundation for truth, even for the ongological argument for religion, is based on what "other" people have said, a second hand revelation... The strongest "information" according to my philosophy, is "first hand" information, based on experience and logic...

Joel Dave: "I would like to start by saying that there is as much epistemological evidence in the world today to support a belief in Christ as there is to dismiss this belief, but I am thankful that the scripture clears up this problem up for those troubled few who are in your position."

The epistomological foundations for assigning the limits of "knowledge" and what is truly sound and what is purely hope, or speculation determines if that statement has merit... If a person believes that "experience" and empirical evidence are the strongest of "evidence" for knowledge, then there isn't as "much" epistomological evidence for, as well as against Christ... its quite apparent that a person with "experience" as the strongest validation for information, requires the "Sense" experience of a Christ in order to validate the claim of a Christ, and... that isn't happening, unless Christ pops up on my desk right now... waiting... "nope", stil not here... therefore, there is "far more" evidence, according to my "epistemoloigcal" limits and levels of strength I assign "information", against Christ... I have zero days in my life "experienceing" with my "senses", Christ, therefore, every day my confidence grows stronger on the non-existence of Christ...

Joel Dave: "James A. Fowler, the author of the article I’ve cited, does quit an excellent job of citing scripture so I will refrain from using any reference."

This author cites scripture, because this author like many have their epistemological limits loose enough to assign enough strength in second hand information, as to accept the information as "gospel"... I don't agree with the epistemological limit, of second hand information, as it would "over-ride" my first hand experiences and knowledge... This author has obviously discounted their "own" first hand experience, in order to accept a "second hand" revelation from someone else based on "faith", in that person, they have never met, known, seen, observed, senses, etc... So many books, all boiling down to the exact same philosophical premises...

Joel Dave: "It is a simple fact that the design of Christianity is not to have an epistemologically sound knowledge of every mystery but is however to come to the realization of the love of God which passes mortal understanding."

Then "why" would one place "faith" in the person that told them of god, when they were a child, or when they read about god somewhere... Historically, the design of Christianity grew over time according to rumors, etc... eventually being accepted and legalized by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in order to bring order into the empire, as there were "many" differing views of Jesus' nature, and if he had even lived... The statement you made, was, we can't ever really "know" god, but we must "know" of the love of god... That is an illogical statement, if one can't "know" god, then of course, the "attributes" of god can not be known either, to include, gods' intent, love, looks, etc., etc...

Joel Dave: "Not in the epistemological sense of the word “know” as you desire but in the ontological meaning of the word know as it refers to a relational or experiential reasoning for the basis of knowledge."

If "god" can't be known, then there can't be "relational" or "experiential" knowledge... As a matter of fact, Christianity in general believes "god" is transcendent beyond the bounds of this universe, in a metaphysically objective reality, where pure/true metaphysical objects reside, for example; heaven, hell, god, devil, etc... By definition, if god is transcendent, god does not reside in this natural universe, and therefore, can't be experienced, with reason, or relationally... Thus, the whole point of the early Roman Church fathers, saying that the writings in the bible were directly pulled from individuals who were "visited" by a divine spirit or divinely "guided", by gods' hand... still, it makes no sense by definition, notwithstanding, the huge gap, where the writings are supposed to have covered over a 2,000 year period, that'a a bunch of hand holding from a god, who wanted to get a message to people on earth...

Joel Dave: "...fowler writes in his article that “ Epistemological understanding is inadequate to comprehend the divine reality that is the essence of Christianity."

Right, divine reality presiding in a "metaphsyically objective" reality, separate and transcending the Natural Universe...

Joel Dave: "The objective of the Christian message is not to encourage people to receive and accumulate and assent to information, but rather to receive the very Being of God into themselves (John 1:12) and allow Jesus Christ to be their life (Col. 3:4). . ."

In short, you can never know "god" based on experience, and logical reasoning, hwoever, one can still "know" what a "being of god" is, and further, ask that "being" to enter into their life... If one doesn't have "knowleddge" of something, how does one ask for it, moreover, how does one "know" when they receive it, as there is no "epistemological" or empirical foundations required... Satan might just as well have entered someones' body, if they believe in a transcendent metaphysical objective reality wher all metpahysical objects reside...

Joel Dave: "The knowledge being considered is not just the knowledge of impersonal factual data and information, but the personal knowing of personal beings in personal relationship”.

Right, someone must be compelled to have a "need" for a personal relationship, and it doesn't matter if the "being" can be proven to "exist" or not... if the need is great enough, then one may be compelled to forego natural epistemological limits, and accept the "unknowable" as truth... some call this using creative thinking... This in and of itself isnt' terrible when one person has a personal belief, however, if one doesn't "know" god, then they shouldn't be condemning anyone else for their beliefs, especially if "their" beliefs are based on "first hand" experience... I haven't experienced the god described by christianity, and as far as the historical record, and even the author you provided, religions are looking to support evidence... to them, its more about the "message", based on "hope", once a person "desires" to believe...

Perhaps, one should ask, why some people "desire" to believe in a christian definition of god, and others don't... I don't have a need for a god in my life, I was given a brain, and ability to think, I don't admire those who choose to live their lives as innocent of worldly knowledge as a child... for they are the ones expoited by the religious leaders... In closing, if one really wants to "believe", why does it require "religious" affiliation... perhaps there's a social benefit, when one claims to be part of a group...

posted: December 16, 2005 EST  

 Forever and ever wrote:

Dave8
Please explan.As per your _I was given a brian and etc ?Who gave you the brain.?And where did they get it from.?

posted: December 17, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Forever and ever: "Dave8, Please explan.As per your _I was given a brian and etc ?Who gave you the brain.?And where did they get it from.?"

Brain "given" by Nature, and Nature is not a "They"... if implied, how long has Nature existed... I say, at a minimum, and with great confidence, Nature existed "before" I became conscious.... it continues to exist as I live... and it has existed long after people have left the earth throughout history, therefore, I can presume with some confidence that Nature will continue to exist, even after I pass...

I believe Nature has always existed, as there is no evidence to show otherwise... therefore, what I have, can only have come from Nature, and not Natures'parents... take care...

posted: December 20, 2005 EST  

 TripDaves wrote:

Interestingly enough, Dave8, there's no evidence FOR the idea that Nature (the Universe, we'll say) has always existed. The current thinking is that the temporal dimension is part and parcel of the Universe as it was CREATED (yes, created, at least in the form we know it today) during the Big Bang. Since, tracing the evidence back to the point of origin, the laws of physics break down, there is NO PHYSICAL BASIS for measuring what might have existed prior to the Big Bang. In the absence of measurement (analog of your "first-hand experience"), we must employ Ocham's razor and make no speculation about the existence of ANYTHING prior to the Big Bang. See Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" for an excellent treatment of this idea. In the sense, however, that time is an attribute of the Universe, the two are contemporaries; Nature has existed as long as time, that is to say, "always".

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

TripDaves: "In the absence of measurement (analog of your "first-hand experience"), we must employ Ocham's razor and make no speculation about the existence of ANYTHING prior to the Big Bang."

Premise:
"We don't exist"

There, now that seems to be concise... well, nihilism has its merits, even if to show, that some variables just can't be discounted for convenience sake... ;-)

posted: December 21, 2005 EST  

 Forever and ever wrote:

Thanks Dave8 and tripdave.I think I'll leave that one alone.However it does make me think that nature is the creator.
Good news Dave8 I have just found out that Australian english differs from american english.So my research has led me to believe that I am now only 3/4 as stupid as I had seemed to be before.

posted: December 22, 2005 EST  

 Forever and ever wrote:

Christians
Never before have so many done so little for so much.

posted: December 22, 2005 EST  

 Dave8 wrote:

Hey Forever and Ever, I definitely agree that Nature was my creator, even if I have to use a temporal time line, finite to my conscious existence... take care over the holidays...

posted: December 23, 2005 EST  

 David wrote:

Dave? I guess that's your name. My name is David. I just sent a $10 donation to your site from your challenge to a "true" Christian article.

I personally cringe at the label "Christian" as most Churches and Christians I have encountered do not try to live by the standard of love that Christ demonstrated and taught about. I struggle with what my spirit says about a loving, forgiving God and what is being taught and demonstrated by the Orthodox Christian community.

My long winded point is, yes I try to follow the message and example of Christ so I believe that makes me a "true" Christian and I wanted to encourage you to allow your intellect to rest and be open to the love of God that I know you feel in your soul and spirit. Please don't let difficulties of the mind stray you from what really is a loving, but misunderstood message of Christ.

I have struggled myself and was even an atheist for a few years before the love of God brought me back. If you are willing, I would love to communicate with you about your thoughts as I feel it would only be beneficial for both of us. I hope you don't think this email is preachy, I pray it's not, but I just wanted to reach out to a struggling brother as I am one, too.

posted: December 31, 2005 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

Luke 6:27-36 (NASB)
27 "But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 "Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. 30 "Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back. 31 "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you. 32 "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 "If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 "If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners in order to receive back the same amount. 35 "But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men. 36 "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
----------------------------------
Letter of Barnabas 19:8-9
(8) "Share all things with your neighbor and do not say that anything is your own. For if you are partners in what is imperishable, how much more in what is perishable? Do not be garrulous, for the mouth is a deadly trap. In so far as you are able, be pure within. (9) Do not be one who reaches out your hands to receive but draws them back from giving. Love like the apple of your eye everyone who speaks the word of the Lord to you."
-----------------------------------
I gave $10 because you asked....and as you have received....I have given you $10 more.

May peace and love find you in all hope of salvation in the blessed name of Jesus the Christ.

neoapostle.com

posted: January 05, 2006 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

Christ said those things so that one might free oneself from the karmic wheel of death and rebirth. Study Buddha.

The doctrine of salvation by grace is a fraud.

posted: January 19, 2006 EST  

 Anonymous wrote:

"Christ said those things so that one might free oneself from the karmic wheel of death and rebirth." Study Buddha.

The doctrine of salvation by grace is a fraud.

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty." (The Coptic Gospel of Thomas)

My brother, I'm glad to see you enlightened by teachings that for the most part do reflect peace and love. My God Jehovah is grace and love and His Son is the living example of that grace and love. Grace is “undeserved kindness”, and by example Christ has shown us that living a life of grace and love comes by choice. I wouldn't classify grace as a fraud, but rather a choice. Those who claim to live a life of grace and then do not strive for it would be the example of the fraud. When someone wrongs us in some way we are faced with only one choice. Naturally we all desire vengeance, but it takes a mind that is truly enlightened with the accurate knowledge of the truth to choose the path of love and grace. Salvation by Grace is not a doctrine it is the essence of hope. Ironically, if your belief is that salvation by grace is a fraud then by your own standards Buddhism would be classified as a fraud as well. From what I understand about Buddhism it is filled with teachings of anti-hatred and love as well as undeserved kindness (grace). I admit I'm not an expert in Buddhism, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Also, don't get me wrong I'm not judging or even condemning your beliefs, nor do I think it is your intention to contradict Buddhist teachings(as I understand them) so that wasn't designed as an attack. It is simply an observation of your comment and more or less a request of clarification.

The bottom line is, choosing "grace and love" is a choice that must be made by each of us every moment of every day. Choosing to show another human "undeserved kindness" in the face of "injustice" is the path to eternal life. Jesus is the path this is why he was called "the way" because he showed this to us through example. Buddhism seems to have elements of this path. You call it a "karmic wheel of death and rebirth." If rebirth means to be reborn in the spirit of "peace and love" I totally agree. If "death" is the result of living our natural desire toward hatred and vengeance this too I'm in total agreement. The only difference I suppose would be I put my hope in God Jehovah to give me accountability so that I may be perfected in love and grace. In my opinion without accountability peace and love cannot be achieved.

I believe Christ revealed this, but in addition all of God’s creation reveals it as well. It is testimony to the love of God when someone shows even the slightest bit of “undeserved kindness” no matter what label they prefer to use. The truth is I do not want to live in “poverty” and my hope rest in God Jehovah that “darkness” will be lifted and the more will come to understand themselves and to know God. Can you imagine a world that would live by the standards of love and grace? It would be nirvana or heaven or whatever you want to call it. It simply would be a world that would be glorious and it is attainable because it starts with you and me making the choice of love and grace rather than hate and vengeance.

Once again I pray that peace and love finds all of you in all hope of salvation in the blessed name of Jesus the Christ.

posted: January 21, 2006 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

I am talking about the christian doctrine of "salvation by grace" here, anon. You know the one: "He died for you. Accept him and you're 'saved.'" It is strictly a Christian doctrine and not a Buddhist doctrine at all.

The christian doctrine of "salvation by grace" is this:

Humanity is in a "fallen" state, being the descendants of the first man and the first woman, who committed "original sin." "Sin" is any action or word that displeases God. Because Adam and Eve committed sin, they were cursed by God and ejected from the garden of eden and into the wilderness around them with the garden of eden being closed and guarded. They went on to produce the human race and we, being desendants of Adam and Eve, are born "sinners," cursed by God. We then go through our entire lives committing "sin." Because we are "sinners," God hates us and will cast us into eternal burning fiery torment (worse than anything on earth) when we die (or come "judgement day" as some denominations of christianity teach.) At some point, God devises a plan of "salvation" from said torment, and sends "His only begotten Son," Jesus Christ, to earth to die the most excruciating death known to humankind in those times, so that, if anyone will "accept" Jesus, he or she will then be taken to "heaven," an eternal paradise, when they die instead. To "accept Jesus" is to accept Christ as ones "Lord and savior." One is "saved" for having done this. Whether or not one "repents of sin," or walks with Jesus," or "obeys the commandments," is irrelevant. One is "saved" from eternal torment for having performed the ritual of "accepting Jesus." This is what is known as the "doctrine of salvation by grace." "Accept Jesus, and you're 'saved.'" It is exclusive to christianity. It is also the only way into heaven, according to the christian church, and there is no other way. Buddha would have to be considered to be a "false teacher" to a "true christian."

posted: January 22, 2006 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

I do not believe in the doctrine of "salvation by grace," Anon. It is absurd and nonsensical. If one studies the gospels, it is not what Christ taught. It also makes God out to be sadistic. According to said doctrine, God has a place called hell where he (or she, or it, or whatever) condemns the sinners who haven't "accepted Jesus." God condemned everybody who lived before Christ, apparently. The only christian answer to this that I know of is that those who lived before Christ will be given the chance to "accept Jesus" on "judgement day." (One will not find this in the bible.) They would remain in hell until then, sort of Gods way of cooking them in order to teach them a lesson, I suppose.

posted: January 23, 2006 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

The christian God wants the blood and extreme suffering of "His only Son" in exchange for the individuals "sins." Why? They just won't stop committing "sin?" Gosh, darn those kids! So God decides, "I'll just have my son die in extreme agony instead, then let them into heaven, but only if they 'accept' him, whether or not they quit committing sin!"

The whole thing is absurd.

posted: January 23, 2006 EST  

 slingshot wrote:

When I speak of the cycle of death and rebirth, anon, I am referring to reincarnation.

posted: January 24, 2006 EST  

 Annie Carter wrote:

Hi there from the UK!
As a true Christian I found this site very interesting, as I'm attempting to teach my children about God and His truth. I don't want to brainwash them, and I definitely don't want to give them religion. I've told them that they need to work it out for themselves and find out the truth, and not just to believe something because I've said it.

I think many of you ex-Christians are probably plain sick to death of hypocrisy and double standards in the church.How about your relationship with your parents? Did you feel a lack of sincere love?

I guess I'm trying to figure out why you believe what you do. Disappointment, anger, dissatisfaction? My initial response would be that you are probably fed up wih the church (which is a poor advert for God) and had enough of Christians (sadly also a poor advert for God, me included), and definitely religion.

Religion is constraining, life with Jesus is freeing.
Religion is unsatisfying and flawed, Jesus is flawless and fulfilling.
Religion offers liitle hope for the future, Jesus offers hope and peace in all the confusion.
Sorry, am I preaching here?

Please give Jesus a second chance - not religion. He loves you, and remains faithful even if you are unfaithful. Nothing compares to God's love. I don't want to live without it. Yes, I'm a weak mortal. Theres's so much rubbish in this life, that the truth of God's love and his amazing interest in little me is beyond anything else.

And by the way, yes God could stop all the nonsense in the world, but that would be the end of free will, as he'd have to force each individual to do nothing wrong or bad.

Anyway, give me donate link or paypal link and I'll happily send $10 if it will in any way help you know that God's still there and that he loves you. I love to think outside the box and will hopefully never settle for second best in my faith by getting comfortable with the church and all the Christian blurb and nonsense out there (much of Christian TV seems atrocious, for instance, as well as all the Christian bling. God must be appalled at all that goes on in His name.

Anyway, enough of my rant,
I love you guys, I'm sorry religion messed you up. God won't mess you up - just people.

See ya,
Annie

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Frank wrote:

Annie please do not send any money to the WM because you have not read many of the comments here and you may thinkk that by sending $10 will give you some authoritive right to post your ignorant bullshit on this sight. As it stands right your comments are not wanted here because you are a brainwashed fundy, Jesus thought he was from god because everyone told him he was from birth, just as you think you're a messenger from god, but you're spewing your unwanted religious propaganda that we've all heard before, you've said nothing new that we've not all heard before millions of times.

Annie you're a brainless religious snothead. just go away.

posted: February 02, 2006 EST  

 Emma wrote:

Many Christians today know very little about the bible that they claim is unerroring. Perhaps if they actually read the damn thing, the Church would be a very different place. Many of them pick and choose what verses to follow and which ones to simply ignore, and when cornered about it simply start spouting nonsense about how stupid you are for not believing.

The worst thing is, that even after leaving Christianity, the little buggers follow you. This is evident from personal experience and this website. These answers to "No True Christians" are a good example. Not only will they disobey their bible verses but they will try to convert the heathen back to the safety of the 'saved'. Joel Dave's comments are a perfect example of this. It's best not to encourage their blather.

The best Christian is a mute Christian.

Oh, and I liked Annie's little rant about how those that de-converted were somehow abused etc. and this is why they left the church. Not because we actually have minds or anything. Another typical fundie comment.

posted: February 09, 2006 EST  

 Daniel wrote:

Wait a minute, let me get this straight, and at the same time, possibly debunk your theory. You claim that asking 10$ from me is backed up in the bible that I must give it to you... Okay... Why don't you just ask for some internet porn? Or maybe a night at the movies and later some hot kinky orgy? Honestly, even if you did, I think I'd be justified in denying you that. You're perfectly capable of doing that on your own I would assume anyway. Not to imply that you would, just making a point.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

So Daniel, I take it this means you are going to disobey the direct command of your god?

Give to anyone who asks, he says, and I'm asking for ten dollars - that's all.


Waiting...

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 south2003 wrote:

"Why don't you just ask for some internet porn?"

WM, I think Danny boy wants to have a reason to look some up for you..hehehe

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Daniel wrote:

I was hopeing someone would find my comment funny. If I had 10 dollars to spare I might just give it to you. Not like I care about so little anyway. It was not a command from God as per the commandments, so therefore it is an irrelavant, but completely valid, yet separate point nonetheless. It is said in the scripture of course, and from what I interpret, it is one of those moral up-standard codes to of which the 'ideal' Christian can be identified, not necessary a 'true' Christian, a true Christian to me is one with unfailing faith. If possible, could you expand further upon your initial point? I'd like to see a little before and after the sections you have mentioned, just incase I may have missed something.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

To the webmaster -

God have mercy on you (and those t.v. evangelists!) Context, context CONTEXT friend. I know what you have quoted and I believe it and seek to obey it but you must always back up scripture with scripture to get the CONTEXT.

The Bible says "servants, obey your masters." However, if my boss told me to shoot someone, would I do it? No, I would be violating another command, namely murder.

If someone told me that they were going to shoot themselves but had no money for the bullets and then asked me for the money to buy them, would I give it to them? No, for then I would be participating in this persons attempt at suicide/murder.

Likewise you ask for money to consume it upon your lusts. God HATES what you are doing (yes, HATES) so why should I help you in something my Lord and Saviour hates? Proverbs 6:16-19 "These six things doth the LORD hate...an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief..."

So you see, why should any believer contribute to your sin if God HATES it? I would not buy an alcoholic more alcohol, but I would buy him food and clothing and help him whatever honest ways I can. I would help a thief, but I would not help him in his deeds of stealing. And I could go on.

I WAS an athiest, but praise God I've found true satisfaction in the Lord Jesus Christ. May you come to know him too.

http://www.biblicalwitness.co.uk

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Biblical-Nonsense wrote:

biblicalwitness: "If someone told me that they were going to shoot themselves but had no money for the bullets and then asked me for the money to buy them, would I give it to them? No, for then I would be participating in this persons attempt at suicide/murder."

You have a problem enabling people engage in acts contrary to your values? Really, lets see.

Would you have the same problem, giving an instruction manual to someone that presented a case for killing witches, murdering those who didn't believe exactly as the instruction guide demanded, unnecessarily torturing people, shedding the blood of innocent babies until you were ankle deep in blood, etc, etc? If you would have a problem, then you wouldn't let someone get a hold of the bible.

Its easy, if you believe in the bible, give $10, and you get to continue living according to the bible which is full of hate speech. If you don't give the $10, then obviously, you really don't believe the bible and in its exactitude, and don't have any room to speak of its truth as the inerrant word of a god.

So, in short, its simple. Put up, or shut up. Sorry to be so blunt, but, that appears to be dilemna you are in as a person practicing religion.

biblicalwitness: "I WAS an athiest, but praise God I've found true satisfaction in the Lord Jesus Christ. May you come to know him too."

Really, lets see. So, define what your philosophy used to be as an Atheist If you have no clue, then you had a title, not a philosophy you understood. What you have done, is crucify personal logic, in order to receive some social salvation. Problem is, your loss of logic is the beginning of you living an illogical life, which may create social dysfunction, unless you find other enablers to support your habit. Seeing your first comment, I'd say you have already lost some ability to use logic, but, perhaps you feel socially popular and accepted by others who share in the same illogical belief.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Jesus said: "Give to EVERYONE who asks."

The context is asking for material things like coats, cloaks, etc.

I'm asking for ten dollars.

Are you saying asking for ten dollars is the same as asking you to murder? Do you really think that compares?

Please give me ten dollars - please.

Or, disobey your God bt refusing.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

You talk of HATE, biblical-bullshiter, but your GOD talks of love - love for evil and wicked people like me: "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

So, since you've labeled me as unthankful and evil, or whatever, please OBEY YOUR GOD and grant my tiny request. You have quite a mouth, so put your money where your mouth is.








Waiting...

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Oh, one final thought BW, everyone starts out life as an atheist - no one is born a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Saying "I used to be an atheist" is like saying I used to be younger. Well duh!

People have to learn religion - we all start out as atheists.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Biblicalwitness wrote:

I seem to have gotten to you...you have quite a temper. Is it because you are desperate for $10?

Yes I believe in governmental justice against the wicked. You can call it murder or whatever but God is a JUST God. And I didn't label you evil, I just quoted the scriptures and I'll do so again because even though I agree that God loves, he hates your sin and will punish you if you don't repent and believe in Christ. Psalm 7:11 "God is angry with the wicked every day".

Oh and I apologise for saying I was an athiest, there is no such thing, just agnostics which is what I assume you are. There is no athiest because no one can say "there is no God" because to be able to say that you need to have absolute knowledge of the universe and because no one even has 0.01% of ALL knowledge then no one can say there is no God. All you can say is that you don't believe there is a God. However, this will not change anything. Whether you believe in God or not, you'll still stand before him and give account of yourself, your sin and your rejection of Christ.

Oh and to comment again on your money making scam, you're acting just like the moneychangers and those who were buying and selling in the temple. They were rogue traders and Christ went in with a whip and scourged them and overthrew the tables.

Please friend, consider your ways!

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 freeman wrote:

biblical witness,

Your right, we cannot say with 100% that there is no deity just as you cannot say with 100% that there is a deity! Your odds go through the floor in trying to say that your god is the right god, probably less than 1%!

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

freeman,

true to a certain extent, but after having weighed both sides (is there or isn't there a God?) i have concluded beyond shadow of doubt that God MUST exist and that this God has created the universe. I mean to say that all genetic information of ALL life comes from a single celled organism, and that that organism came from some sort of 'soup' and that the earth came from a rock wherein lay all the matter of the whole universe and that this rock just exploded giving what we have today...it's ludicrous!

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

webmaster -

No, by choosing the verses I am giving you the mind of God, not my mind. I can't see where I have been rude but whatever.

I shall cast no more pearls other than one, "let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him RETURN unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

BW, read something besides your Bible. Atheist simply means "a lack of belief in a god or gods." It is not a statement of faith, it is a statement of a LACK of faith.

I find no evidence to believe in a god or gods, so I don't. For much the same reason - no evidence - I don't believe in UFOs, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, the mysteries of Bermuda Triangle, the lost continent of Atlantis or that ancient astronauts visited our ancestors.

By your definition of atheism, you should be believing in UFOs, the Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn, Allah, Zeus, and every other god or goddess ever invented.

Why?

Because you cannot possible traverse the entire universe to PROVE those things don't exist.

That is so stupid!

You are every bit as much an atheist as I am. The ONLY difference between you and me is that you believe in one more god than I do.

Oh, there is one other difference. You're extremely rude. You see, this is OUR website, and you are an uninvited guest. You are in our house - yet you have no problem being aggressive and nasty.

Ah, I love "TRUE" Christians like you. "I did not call you evil, I just quoted the Scriptures," you say. Yes, but you chose the verses to quote, now didn't you? You picked them with your mind. You decided to type them with your fingers. Your intention was to label me as evil. You did that, and you enjoyed it, didn't you? How about this: "I am only quoting the Koran and doing the will of Allah!" Does that convince you of the truth of Islam? If not, why not? When you understand why the rantings of an Islamic fanatic mean nothing to you, you'll realize why your rantings mean nothing to us.

However, go ahead, quote away. You disobey the command of your GOD to give to everyone who asks, and you hold fast to the verses that condemn people. You don't want to give away your money to wicked strangers, so you ignore those verses, but you have no problem condemning others, so those verses are "right on" - apparently.

Frankly, quote all you like. Islamics do the same thing, and not one of their verses, or your verses, have the slightest impact on me. From what I understand, Allah's hell is a lot hotter than Yahweh's - perhaps we should both convert to Islam!

Seriously, please study some Christian history - the Bible keeps has been re-interpreted so many times, you'd might be surprised to realize that your brand of fundamentalism, and many of your doctrines, are relatively new.

How do I know this? I studied. Nearly all the doctrines floating around today are relatively new on the scene. That knowledge helped free my mind after 3 decades of slavery to the Christian Meme.

Sadly, in my Christian hey-days, I used to sound just a little to much like you.

It's embarrassing.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

"Polly want a cracker, polly want a cracker - -- wraaaack!"

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

A picture version of BW, AKA "SUPER FUNDIE!"

A little middle-aged man wearing a self-righteous smirk, his hands plastered against his ears, shouting at the top of his lungs: "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA."

Please, please, please, please obey your GOD! I'm only asking for $10. If you refuse to do what's right, especially you, since God is your buddy, then you risk all for a meager ten-spot.

I guess a pharasitical condemnatory approach to religion is cheaper and easier than the obedience route.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

"I can't see where I have been rude...I shall cast no more pearls other than one."

Is calling someone a swine a compliment?

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

oh and I just read something other than my bible. The definition for athiest is (as I was correct in saying) - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

Jesus calls those that reject his truth 'swine' not me. You take it out on him...if you dare, but I wouldn't advise that.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

"I am giving you the mind of God, not my mind."

So it's GOD who is rude bastard!

That makes sense.

So, in that case, when the Nazi's acted out the words written in Mein Kampf, it was only Hitler's mind that was being touted, and the SS were guiltless.

BW, the Bible was written by men - bronze age men - ignorant men - men. You are quoting the words of MEN!

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

oh, and I am 23. Hardly middle-aged

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

My first guess was a high-school graduate, B-C average.

You should have left it at middle-aged. At 23, you really have a lot to learn.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

"I shall cast no more pearls other than one"


Another broken promise.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 Armen wrote:

perhaps....but if you were to compare your apparant knowledge to all the knowledge in the universe, then saying you have 0.000000000000001% would be generous and the difference in my knowledge would therefore be almost insignificant so you're almost as dumb as me. Or I could say that you're an educated nitwit and i'm an uneducated nitwit, but that might not go down to well. However, what matters is what God thinks of us and the bible says "the FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no God"

posted: February 10, 2006 EST  

 .:webmaster:. wrote:

Do you disbelieve in Allah BW? If so, then you are an Atheist in regards to Allah. Do you deny Allah BW? If so, then you are an atheist in regards to Allah.

Perhaps you should admit you are agnostic towards Allah, for you cannot possibly explore the entire universe to be sure Allah doesn't exist!

I'm still waiting for my $10. I don't think you believe in your Jesus either - you certainly don't find ignoring his commands a problem.

posted: February 10, 2006 EST