I really love Jesus

[Hockeycowboy]

As a coward. Even without the Satanism, the pre-Christian Vikings called Jesus "white Christ", which was an insult meaning "coward", as opposed to "red Thor" (meaning he was covered in the blood of his enemies). To be a coward was the worst thing imaginable in pre-Christian Germanic society so Jesus' teachings and known life are basically the polar opposite of what my values are.

So...you want to be ‘covered in the blood of your enemies’?

Peaceable does not mean coward.’Praying for your enemies’ is not a bad thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So...you want to be ‘covered in the blood of your enemies’?

Peaceable does not mean coward.’Praying for your enemies’ is not a bad thing.

Yes, I want to be covered in the blood of my enemies. Mind you, that's not necessarily literal. I have external enemies who I'll never see again. I have internal enemies that exist in my mind. I wish both categories of them a fate worse than death.

 

[nPeace]

Disregard it.



I'm saying if you want to build a city and so forth, it can't stop at the first brick. Creation evolves into more creation. The bricks pre-existed so the building was formed into being not created from nothing. Although the term sustainer sounds off putting, I like that word better because it doesn't describe the cause of the universe (since things don't come from nothing) but the momentum and formation of it. So, creation, in this sense isn't the "first mover" but movement itself.

No. I actually don't.

Am I misunderstanding you? I don't think so.
Are you not understanding me? That seems to be the case.
Quoting you...
I don't see a difference in god working 2,000 years ago but stop working today. If god did these historical things, and god is the creator, he would still be "literally" involved in the world and everyone would "know" this whether they want to believe in him or not.

This has less to do with what's written and more to do with how life works. For example, the laws of physics don't change in the past 2,000 years. Our understanding of it, yes but not the laws itself. So, if jesus literally walked on water (for sake of point) that would be false since time period doesn't change how physics work.

Raising from the dead, and other like miracles would work the same-therefore, they're not historical. Mythological I'd say but that doesn't devalue the bible.

Take the Pantheon for instance:
End quote.

Jesus and his works in the past. + God and his works in the past - i.e. creation = Bulldozers, Cement mixers, Laborers, Bricks and cement, etc.
Those works were finished. So just as you would not see a bulldozer running through the finished building, you will not see God creating, nor Jesus walking on water, nor his apostles raising the dead, and opening physically blind eyes.
Like the Bulldozer digging trenches... the cement mixer mixing and pouring concrete... the laborers busy at their work, having accomplished their purpose, Jesus and the apostles performing signs, accomplished their purpose.
The finished building that you see, afterwards = the spiritual building that came out of the works of God, Jesus, and the apostles.
Just as one can see the physical building, and have clear evidence that there were construction workers and equipment used to accomplish it, there is clear evidence that God, and Jesus were involve in the spiritual building seen today. For example, Jesus said his disciples would be identified by the love they have among themselves - the whole association of brothers in the world.
He said the good news of the kingdom will be preached to the ends of the earth.
He also said that his followers will be hated, and many will not believe.
So the evidence is not dependent on everyone saying, "Oh. It's true."
Is that any more understandable for you?

Now I think about it, you didn't answer my questions...

Sorry. What question did you want answered?

To answer your question, no. I feel the bible talks about god not a diction from god. So, the killing of women and children would be something god wanted as it is written. If he actually did, I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with who/what god is in personal respects.

Many people have the same feelings you do.
The Bible writers say otherwise ... whether people accept it or not. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 ;2 Peter 1:20, 21 ; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11

I mention colonization because going from one land to the next and taking lives to do so is basically what the people did for their promise land in scripture. It's not specific to what god said but (If historical-I haven't looked into it), but what's written. So, I would assume that the people went to another land because that's what they "believed" god told them not god as an outside party telling them what they should do.

Are you discussing the Biblical narrative, or what you can verify as history?

With this, for example, the laws of physics are the same regardless the time period. If jesus let go of a rock he held, it would fall just as if I did so or you did so.

That doesn't make me any less clueless as to what you are trying to say.

I was replying to this: I believe it's historical. It is written as such. Why do you dismiss it as anything else but history (44)?

I would say god has no influence in history. I believe the two are separate in regards to events happening in the bible. This had to do with this comment: If that were true, God could make the deserts the Israelites walked, the most luxurious of all the land, and have his people colonize it.

When I'm talk about colonization, I'm speaking of history rather than god.

You just quoted me talking about history. You were the one who brought in God, remember?

When I read these chapters, the colonization (the "4... possess [of] land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey" by nature of history involved killing the people on that land in order for one to claim it. The people on this foreign land where also women and children.

From God's point of view, the people of the land did detestable things - men, women and children, as a part of their worship to idol 'gods'. Sodom and Gomorrah was an example of how children were not innocent and untarnished.

Remember. I see the bible written about god not written by god. So, historically, yes they killed women and children but according to christians god didn't condone it even though it was written that he did (above). I assume they say this because they have a personal relationship with him to know the difference between his edict and history (the context of it from a spiritual light) that I, reading it verbatim, would not have.

Interesting that you say, according to Christians. Since I and my brethren of close to 9,000,000, believe that God condoned it, what does that make me... a cushion?

 

[nPeace]

1. The Flood (Genesis 6-8)
2. The cities of the plain, including Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19)
3. The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
4. The Canaanites under Moses and Joshua (Numbers 21:2-3; Deuteronomy 20:17; Joshua 6:17, 21)
5. The Amalekites annihilated by Saul (1 Samuel 15)

Um... See the last comment here... and which one of those texts says that God wanted the killing of women and children?
I read that men women and children were killed. I never read that God wanted the killing of women and children.
Appears you are missing the point.

 

[nPeace]

I disagree with you. The two commands you have to keep is
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

If you follow those two commandments you are saved.

I do not believe the whole bible is literally God's word.

I'm not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. Are you disagreeing that love of God means obeying his commands? What does it mean to love God, and what does it mean to love one's neighbor?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I disagree. You do not need to believe in Jesus to be saved. The most important is to be kind and loving to others

Many people agree with you, but yours is not a Bible doctrine/Bible stance:

Here's one way I share Bible doctrine outside RF:

No one disagrees with the gospel’s logic of perfection vs. imperfection:

1) Ask someone, “Are you, like me, morally imperfect, and you disobey your inner voice?”

2) After their “Sure!” say “If there’s a Heaven or utopia [long pause] we can’t go! If I hurt your feelings in Heaven or vice versa, it’s not Heaven. How can imperfect people get to Heaven?” People usually respond, “Do you have a solution?”

3) Say “The solution is a person. The Bible explains that Jesus Christ, being God, innocent and perfect, switched places with us on the cross. He died a horrible death by torture to take our sin, guilt and shame, our imperfection. He then rose from the dead, and as the Bible says, “God loved the world in this way--He gave His Son [I hold one hand up], so whoever trusts Him [I raise my other hand] shall not perish but has eternal life [I fold the fingers of my hands together].” (Trust is clearer than “believe” for John 3:16.) Put another way, “God made Jesus, who was perfect, to be imperfect [I cross my arms over each other] for us, that we who are imperfect might become as perfect as God.”” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who is going to resurrect those ones? That’s the promise the Bible holds out even for the “unrighteous”. — John 5:28-29; Acts of the Apostles 24:15.

No one will be resurrected.
And the Bible promises much. In vague, non-specific, open ended ways. Basically since the inception of Christianity it has been a thing for Christians to attach Biblical prophecy to their time. And as for resurrections, the dead do not return to life.

Many seem so quick to judge, but few are willing to reason on the why’s, or discover the purposes that the Bible reveals for such actions.

I did explain one of my objections. Realistically, the "Golden Rule" as a guiding moral and ethics has the same shortcomings as Nietzsche's Übermensch. Sounds great at first. Sounds horrible after you've thought it all out and realize it requires great responsibility and being basically a good person to begin with or the justifications for horrible behaviors or right there in front of you.

I’m still curious as to what motivated you to reply in such a way to a post that wasn’t hurting you at all?

It would be clear, apparent, and obvious if you read to the end of the OP.

No Christian needs to be (money) poor to please Jesus. The evidence is, there apparently were rich Christians in Bible times. — 1 Timothy 6:17

Jesus is recorded multiple times telling those following him to sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor, and living off handouts from others.
It's one of those things Christians will eagerly dismiss and downplay and ignore even though it is right there in red and white.

Your claim, which many believe, of Jesus’ God, Jehovah, being “a savagely cruel and heinously violent god”, I think it suits them (you?) to believe that He is unjust, to somewhat justify their own behaviour. If people really want to know why God acted in certain ways, examining the reasons why, they’ll realize that Jehovah was protecting His people, from those who would kill them.

Jehovah committed genocide multiple times, he ordered the first born of Egypt dead, he commanded the Hebrew army to kill everyone except the young women they were to enslave, and says there will be more wanton destruction and genocide by his hands in the future.
And when one of the "key figures" writes "happy is he who dashes your little ones against the rocks" then, yes, this heinously cruel, violent, amd wicked. Doesn't matter this or that. That is hideously evil.
And that sounds similar to the Muslim claims that barbarously repressive laws were requires then and there. They weren't.

Back then, He was just protecting His people!

That doesn't include tearing the unborn from the womb, slaying children and cattle, enslaving women, and killing all the men. It doesn't include drowning the Earth.
And we know violence begets violence and two wrongs do not make a right.

FYI, love is never ‘squandered’. It costs nothing to give it.

It is wasted on our enemies. I would much rather reserve that for those deserving. Emotionally it is not healthy or good to stretch ourselves thin. Loving our enemies will do exactly this.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jesus loves you

Nah. Not only am I an apostate and anti-Christ, I have committed the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the holy spook.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you missed the point. What you personally do should not just be selfishly motivated. That is the whole point....you should do to others what would be in their best interest, not just your own. Your scenario above demonstrates this well I think...

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What you want is a very poor starting point for a proper basis of ethics and morality.

Having a bunch of shopping carts carelessly left where they would cause inconvenience or damage would not be in anyone’s best interests.

I gave that as an example of when what I would want others to do unto me is definitely not what I should do unto others. That is because the golden rule falls apart under critical analysis.

 

[halbhh]

I don't understand how any person can love a stranger they have never met and got to know.

Yes, I wouldn't either, myself.

It was only after what happened that that changed, for me.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes, I wouldn't either, myself.

It was only after what happened that that changed, for me.

How so?

Meeting in spirit and flesh has more fulfillment that spirit. If jesus were here, we would meet the same person. But spirit sounds more like interpretation. How I experience jesus would be different than yours therefore Id wonder who is the right jesus.

Since jesus isn't here, it sounds more like what you want him to be rather than who he is flesh and blood.

You as in believers.

 

[halbhh]

How so?

Meeting in spirit and flesh has more fulfillment that spirit. If jesus were here, we would meet the same person. But spirit sounds more like interpretation. How I experience jesus would be different than yours therefore if wonder who is the right jesus.

Since jesus isn't here, it sounds more like what you want him to be rather than who he is flesh and blood.

You as in believers.

Well, we don't usually share personal things precious to us on the internet. Instead I share things that I can share on the internet.

But suffice to say: if a person does the things Jesus says to do, then surprising things begin to happen.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well, we don't usually share personal things precious to us on the internet. Instead I share things that I can share on the internet.

But suffice to say: if a person does the things Jesus says to do, then surprising things begin to happen.

Can you make up an example that might mirror what you mean?

 

[halbhh]

Can you make up an example that might mirror what you mean?

Better is to give a real example that did happen, one of the kind I can share on the internet.

Suddenly one year about 3-4 years back my left foot began aching every day, so it was painful to walk on. Very occasionally my other foot, my right one would also, but less intense.

That serious pain in my left foot would sometimes not hurt at first during a day until I walked around. There was hardly any day without that severe sharp pain or a dull ache (not small).

So I went through about a year and a half of that until...one day I thought: I could pray about this(!)

At that time my other foot had not hurt for days, so I only prayed for my left foot, and I actually did say 'left foot' in the prayer, for some reason.

What happened: the next morning, when I woke up, my left foot tingled a little. And there was no pain that day at all. Or the next. After about a month I began to realize it was for real.

My other foot, the right one, wold still hurt a little now and then. But the left foot, the one I prayed for, ceased ever hurting at all. And a year passed, and then another...and that's remained true.

So, it was a situation of ~ 500 days of pain, and then 1 prayer, and then an end of pain, and years passed without it returning.

500 days: 100%

then

over 500 days: 0%

Like flipping a light switch.

If it had been only natural alone...then the right foot -- the one I did not pray for -- should have changed also, naturally, if that had been the reason.... The right foot did not change. It continued to very occasionally hurt some, but never enough to push me to pray for it. I decided finally I didn't want to pray for the right foot, because I wanted to remember, always, just what had happened.

By itself, this is only suggestive, nothing more, to me.

But it's one of dozens of things that are very hard to explain away I've experienced first hand.... And I'm referring to things that aren't the more special kind that I won't share over the internet.

So, draw your own conclusions. But I'd suggest at the most skeptical absolute minimum, one would have to admit, no matter what they'd prefer to think, that Jesus must have known something about how prayer works.

It's a suggestive thing that one might try to learn from Him, and find out what else He knew.

 

[Deeje]

A complete falling away in just 20 years?

Why 20 years? Try from the second century onwards....the apostles were dealing with its beginnings back at the close of the first century. Once they were out of the way, the rot set in and took over like "weeds" always do. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Praying for your enemies’ is not a bad thing.

I find it useless. Love for the deserving and disdain for the undeserving is more honest and does not require us masking and bottling our true emotions and feelings.

 

[Deeje]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What you want is a very poor starting point for a proper basis of ethics and morality.

Its not "a poor starting point" if you really understood what Jesus said.....it is selfless, not selfish. It has the wellbeing of others as a priority, rather than just your own. If you love violence for example, and enjoy bloody fisticuffs, does that mean that you can use that as an excuse to pick a fight whenever you wish? This seems to be what you are implying....?

I gave that as an example of when what I would want others to do unto me is definitely not what I should do unto others. That is because the golden rule falls apart under critical analysis.

Again it isn't about "you" and what you want others to do (that could open up a very unsavory dialogue) .....its about what is good for others generally speaking, what would benefit 'them', not just 'you'. Your "critical analysis" is way too critical IMO, and misses the simple point of the recommendation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you love violence for example, and enjoy bloody fisticuffs, does that mean that you can use that as an excuse to pick a fight whenever you wish? This seems to be what you are implying....?

Yes. If someone wants it done to them they are fulfilling the Golden Rule.
Proper morality must begin with considerations to others. What I want is very open for abuse.

Your "critical analysis" is way too critical IMO, and misses the simple point of the recommendation.

No, it merely reveals a woeful shortcoming.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Better is to give a real example that did happen, one of the kind I can share on the internet.

Suddenly one year about 3-4 years back my left foot began aching every day, so it was painful to walk on. Very occasionally my other foot, my right one would also, but less intense.

That serious pain in my left foot would sometimes not hurt at first during a day until I walked around. There was hardly any day without that severe sharp pain or a dull ache (not small).

So I went through about a year and a half of that until...one day I thought: I could pray about this(!)

At that time my other foot had not hurt for days, so I only prayed for my left foot, and I actually did say 'left foot' in the prayer, for some reason.

What happened: the next morning, when I woke up, my left foot tingled a little. And there was no pain that day at all. Or the next. After about a month I began to realize it was for real.

My other foot, the right one, wold still hurt a little now and then. But the left foot, the one I prayed for, ceased ever hurting at all. And a year passed, and then another...and that's remained true.

So, it was a situation of ~ 500 days of pain, and then 1 prayer, and then an end of pain, and years passed without it returning.

500 days: 100%

then

over 500 days: 0%

Like flipping a light switch.

If it had been only natural alone...then the right foot -- the one I did not pray for -- should have changed also, naturally, if that had been the reason.... The right foot did not change. It continued to very occasionally hurt some, but never enough to push me to pray for it. I decided finally I didn't want to pray for the right foot, because I wanted to remember, always, just what had happened.

By itself, this is only suggestive, nothing more, to me.

But it's one of dozens of things that are very hard to explain away I've experienced first hand.... And I'm referring to things that aren't the more special kind that I won't share over the internet.

So, draw your own conclusions. But I'd suggest at the most skeptical absolute minimum, one would have to admit, no matter what they'd prefer to think, that Jesus must have known something about how prayer works.

It's a suggestive thing that one might try to learn from Him, and find out what else He knew.

Thank you for sharing. What always boggled me is I've had experiences too but never believed in god not near christ at all to attribute my experiences with. I had a "protection" experience (somewhere in the archives when it happened) from my grandmother who had recently passed at the time. I almost got hit by two cars twice the second near inches away and the former almost a two car collision. I didn't think of god or jesus just my grandmother.

What's interesting is, if I believed in god or jesus and said my experiences came from jesus, people would believe me. So, meeting jesus by spirit and not in the flesh is highly interpretative (and personal).

I've noticed when you describe your experience there isn't a direct connection but a close personal association based on your personal belief and biases. So, if I didn't know your belief system, I could say it's your family member protecting you or a stranger across the street. We can believe near anything so close it seems what we actually believe is true, but if we were skeptical (which many people are not because of cognitive dissonance) we'd see there is no direct connection but a biased association.

The bias and belief drops when you meet someone in person and in spirit. That's probably why the apostles had a better relationship with jesus because they were his friends and he was there with them in spirit.

I wonder how our individual experiences can determine from an outsider whether it's jesus that caused them, ancestors, or an alien in space.... if it was actually from god and when we tell our experiences it should be clear-cut. (For example, if two people came to a doctor with the same symptoms, the doctor may guess they have the same illness but would not know until there are tests to put direct cause to distinct symptoms).

That's just my skepticism. For me, it helps me understand what I believe and not devalue my experiences because I'm biased towards them. Though I've met a friend who didn't like questioning her beliefs and experiences because she felt she'd loose her belief.

I know many believers say they have doubts and they have questions, but I'm not sure if they questioned their experiences not their theology. I feel there's a difference when one grows in faith-to not take our experiences for granted (that is, to those who believe this, but not necessary for everyone to question contrary to popular RF opinions).

 

[Valjean]

No,

Why 20 years? Try from the second century onwards....the apostles were dealing with its beginnings back at the close of the first century. Once they were out of the way, the rot set in and took over like "weeds" always do. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)

Jesus said something like "there are those among you will will not taste death till the son of man returns." (paraphrase)
There are several places in the Bible where the imminent end of days is mentioned, and the early Christians expected the lord's coming within their lifetimes.