There are Christians that don't have a problem with Homosexuality.
There are Christians that don't proselytize and judge.
There are Christians that don't agree with every little thing that is fed them....
The problem I find with these three statements is that they can apply to anyone...
This makes you wonder where everyone gets there information from on a daily basis... if many people really did believe that they read, what else do they believe from their fiction books?!
"My experience is that many Christians grasp at incredibly thin straws in an attempt to support their sad and often harmful dogma."
I haven't seen much like this article. Have you? There are legitimate Christians, yet also ones that will distort things : and as a hint we don't buy it either.
"If you can come directly to God without having to go through Christ then wouldn't you want to ?"
You make Christ sound like so sort of burden in the way of God. To Christianis... it is the exact opposite! Besides the fact that he says he is the only way - I don't see why you'd want to "find...
Off the topic of the Bible :
If you go and read other holy books from people who say the Bible is just plain wrong, you'll see they're not being equal sided.
The Gnostic texts, Taoist texts, Confuscian texts, etc...
I suppose we can't trust any books/documents we find from the past.
Jesus does not appear to be a past king deified, though. He is fully God and fully human in the NT, if that's what you mean by demi-god. He wasn't any lesshuman though. Satan could still tempt him, and he needed to be tended...
The way I see it is if he existed, even in the stories, he wasn't that important to the world as they saw him.
He was hanging out with the lowest of the low in society.
Of course, I am biased, because I believe he existed. I don't see any reason really NOT to though - and with who is...
I would say it's midleading if you don't follow it's OWN instructions and dtudy everything it says in depth.
Even the most fundamentalist Christian Science site I know of said, "The most dangerous book ever written is, along with the best, the most dangerous"
It has been argued so many times - the four gospels really should be taken as evidence. To say there's no "real" evidence he existed is like arguing the first Buddha never existed - kind of pointless to.
There is hard evidence for the existance of Pontious Pilate though, hm?
The "Father" is a title. "Mankind" describes male and females. It's kind of a jump to say something was changed delibratly.
It's not a mistake... in a literal sense either. They did not want to say God (i.e. G-d)
I don't buy in to what a lot of people like to say about how the Bible changed so much at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church and translators. Simply because there is not evidence of any change. The Dead Sea Scrolls, althought not the original documents, match up and are pretty old. If we had...
Time and Space are interwoven deeply in to Spacetime.
I don't see see Quantum Mechanics as showing we are all interwoven. We're still not even sure what to make of it. Entanglement is interesting though.
All events do not happen at one time in the universe at one spot. This is far from...
One reason I am not a Pantheist is, of course, just science. Everything being God takes away any mystery - unless, of course, you show there's something more to everything.
But this Spacetime we call The Universe (NOT our personal "reality") can be studied and follows laws - however strange...
I don't see a demi-god picture of jesus from the four Gospels.
I'm preety sure, myself anyways, that they were left out because there must have been problems with their authenticity.
That would actually be encouraging to me...
Of course, the Catholics wouldn't be happy, but it would make his birth more human and Jesus more understanding.