I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
ah well sorry for spamming. 314d1 that was still before Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. God was merciful to man and sent his only begotten son to die on the cross for us. All the sin's punishment was on that cross. Jesus was whipped forty-nine times with a whip. Men spit on him, and cursed at him. he was rebuked. He carried the cross up calvary hill. He had nails hammered into his hands and feet and he was put on the cross to die. the romans spat on him and stabbed him with a spear to make sure he was dead. Then His disciples buried him in a tomb. then on the 3rd day, He rose from grave. and the angel told them He's not here, He's not here!
314d1 that was still before Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins.
Look at what L33t said, what Jesus said, and what Moses said
Numbers 15:15 One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Sooo who should I listen two, two of your Bible's prophets, or an apologetic?
The rest of your post is truly just annoying Christian tape recording and not even worth my time.
I wasn't adding to the bible! if it's not worth your time then leave! "If anyone acknowledges me publicly here own earth... I will openly acknowledges that person before my Father in Heaven ... "But if anyone denies me here on earth, I will deny that person before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10;32-33 think about that 314d1.
I wasn't adding to the bible! if it's not worth your time then leave!
It was just 90% of your post that I have heard a thousand times. And no, you where not adding to the law, but you where taking away from the law.
"If anyone acknowledges me publicly here own earth... I will openly acknowledges that person before my Father in Heaven ... "But if anyone denies me here on earth, I will deny that person before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10;32-33 think about that 314d1.
Where does that say "Oh, and by the way, it is O.K to ignore the OT now!"?
Ah, yes. They 'receive' information. You mean, arrive at a conclusion and claim it as divine inspiration so it won't be questioned. Seriously, please apply a bit of your critical thinking to the processes of religion and the accompanying traditions.
I did apply criticism here, and the criticism failed. By the way, you have spoken about 1 Cor 2:11. Reread 1 Cor 2:3-2:16, this is the exact explanation of how this tradition appeared.
and following all 50 some odd of his commandments, in addition to the original 10.
Jesus gave only one extra commandment - Jn 15:9-15:17, "love each other as I love you". This is the source of those "50 odd commandments", including "reject yourself, take your cross and then follow Me" Lk 9:23.
And where is this stated? Or is this (yet another) personal opinion?
Church has never stated about any person that that person is in Hell, so this is a shared opinion, You can still count it as a personal one. We believe that God, being an all-loving entity, being merciful, can grant His mercy to whoever He wants, and since we don't know His plans, we can hope for that mercy to be granted to any particular person who passes from this world, and we pray for this. But since we know of Him existing, and know of His love, and know what price did He pay for us in Jesus Christ, we will be asked for more when we'll arrive at His court of judgement. So, since you are the one who have heard the Good News, you are bound by His laws. The person who have never heard of Him is bound by the laws of his conscience and his society. There are people who had received a closer contact with God, and He said that they will be judged more strict than those who are not that close. Also God cannot be bound by human's binary logic, or else that human claims he knows the ways of God, which is impossible.
But since we know of Him existing, and know of His love, and know what price did He pay for us in Jesus Christ, we will be asked for more when we'll arrive at His court of judgement.
You do not KNOW you BELIEVE. There is a very drastic difference between those two word. One which you seem to either fail to understand or, choose to ignore. No matter how much you believe something does not make it so. It may be true to you and others like you, however that does not mean it is knowledge, that means it is a belief. Popluar albiet, but a belief it remains.
So, since you are the one who have heard the Good News, you are bound by His laws.
I've heard a few different versions of this "good news" which laws should I be bound by? I mean, assuming I give a care. Personally I bind myself to the legal laws and the laws of my own morality.
Many historians support the idea that without Rome christianity would not have flourished.
You know, you are appealing to the unreliable sources, including personal opinions of some unnamed people. This is not a valid base for an argument.
Because the Big Bang essentially caused these things to exist
In fact, the Big Bang theory is still a theory, it is not completely proven, and it actually states that the Big Bang's moment is a completely unknown state of the universe. We can derive the condition of matter after the Big Bang, and such experiments are ongoing on the LHC, but we can't simulate the Big Bang itself to determine anything about what happened there in detail. Also, God can create universe in the form of a Big Bang. My question about why are the laws of physics like what we observe and deduce, remains open.
Ah, I seem to have gotten your point - you say if there's no time before the Big Bang, then the cause-and-effect law should start with Big Bang being the cause of everything, while I state that Big Bang is the first event and it should be based on something that does not need a cause to be. But this is an unprovable and undeniable statement, it's the question of what appeared first, time or the Big Bang. We can't deduce the answer because we're locked in both time and BB aftereffects.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
This passage is wrong, since "malevolent" is human-only classification. You can't classify anything but the human as malevolent, because you don't know the laws of behavior for anything but the human.
And since you agree that sex in a marriage is a good thing, then you won't be opposed to gay marriage then, right?
Wrong :P A marriage is a conjunction of a man and a woman, designed for the good of both and for the good of their children, which are the result of this conjunction. Two men can't bear their own children, therefore "gay marriage" is not marriage.
IF anything, a good christian would lobby against divorce.
We do, maybe not lobby in form of hidden influence, but we display our own families as examples of life without divorce.
Leviticus
The main trick with Leviticus is explained in Mt 19:3-19:9, where Jesus used the words "hardness of heart" referring to old ways of moral. We have evolved in moral aspects since then. and are primarily guided by New Testament in family relations. You might want to read Paul's letter to Galates about the laws of Old Testament, and Eph 5:22-5:33 about family relations.
Pretty much everything else has been addressed, so I'll just toss this one out there for you to ponder.
Jesus gave only one extra commandment - Jn 15:9-15:17, "love each other as I love you". This is the source of those "50 odd commandments", including "reject yourself, take your cross and then follow Me" Lk 9:23.
In fact, the Big Bang theory is still a theory, it is not completely proven,
How many times does this have to be pointed out? A theory is the highest thing you can have in science as it's an explanation. It has to remain falsifiable in order to remain open to the possibly of being wrong so that mistake can be corrected if one is found.
This passage is wrong, since "malevolent" is human-only classification. You can't classify anything but the human as malevolent, because you don't know the laws of behavior for anything but the human.
So send a bear to kill a couple kids is malevolent only if a human sent it, but if it's God he get's a free pass? Sounds like a double standard to me.
Wrong :P A marriage is a conjunction of a man and a woman, designed for the good of both and for the good of their children, which are the result of this conjunction. Two men can't bear their own children, therefore "gay marriage" is not marriage.
First of all this is a more modern definition, in the past or even in the Bible it was often more of an ownership of a woman and the rich often had multiple wives. It had nothing to do with the good of the child at all. As for your your reasoning that a homosexual couple can't reproduce, thus can't be considered a marriage is ridiculous. There are plenty of heterosexual couples who, for one reason or another are unable to have their own biological children, yet are regarded as being married. If we are to regard the heterosexual couple who can't have kids as married, we have no reason to say the homosexual couples can't be married because they can't have kids.
