To know......Is empowering


To take the film off my eyes.......Is awakening


To let your ears hear......Is refreshing


To feel it.......Is better then any drug


To live it........Is easy


To Love Him......Is a no brainer


To know He loves me........Is magic


To know He watches over me.......Is a comfort


To always have Faith in Him........Makes me complete

nice lips

If you’re going to run Jesus like a marionette doll on your knee you need be prepared to show where he says what you claim.

That fact that you can't doesn't surprise me in the least.

"It must be that either SpiderCMB is a liar or the Bible is fake."

I don't think SpiderCMB is a liar. I think he actually believes what he says.

So I'll go with the second option, "The Bible is a fake."

JB

I just came up with a wonderful thought!

Imagine a debate contest, with two marionette Jesus dolls.

One marionette doll is run by a team that is trying to argue for bigotry and hatred.

The other marionette doll is run by a team that is trying to argue for brotherly love.

Both teams are only allowed to use quotes from the Bible to put words in the mouths of their Jesus dolls.

Which Jesus would win the debate?

The one that preaches brotherly love?

Or the one that preachers bigotry and hate?

Who find more 'ammunition' for their marionette doll?

That would be an interesting debate. Someone ought to make that into a serious documentary.

They could find fundamentalists who love to preach fire, brimstone, and hate to run one of the dolls, and find some loving Christians who believe that Jesus stands for love to run the other doll.

The entire debate could actually be run by Christians. There are enough Christians who hate one another that there wouldn't be any problem finding people willing to square off this way.

I think that would be a great idea for a documentary.

Truly, I would love to hear what they come up with. It would be quite a site watching Jesus argue with himself using only words that are supposedly attributed to him.

Which team do you think would win the debate? The team with the loving Jesus, or the team with the hateful Jesus?

Ahh man I really love you Abra. You really made me day!

I would have the most fun EVER directing this bit of Drama.

To the Original poster. You should really Read a new book by Christopher Hitchens.

Its called "God is not Great" and he is probably one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable people to really rip religion a new one in our modern day.

Its fine to believe there is a god . . . but as soon as its called religion . . . it poisons everything.

Oh and while we are all sharing, my mother was born and raised hell fire Baptist, and she swore she would never teach a child such fear as long as she could draw a breath . . . and so me and my brother where raised spiritual . . but not religious. We where allowed to analyze the world around us without that filter of fear and ask questions that would be looked down upon under any religion, and for that I am eternally great full.

MUAHHHHHAAAA sweet tribo

You appear to be confused. I'm SpiderCMB, not "wood man" and I didn't post any scriptures in the post you responded to.

You said...

"Since basically Christianity teaches that everyone is a sinner that means that everyone will be destroyed.

But then you say: UNLESS they believe in Jesus. "

I wasn't sure if you were saying:

Everyone will be destroyed UNLESS they believe in Jesus.

-OR-

Everyone is a sinner UNLESS they believe in Jesus.

A little good will goes a long way, sometimes a post which is clear to us might not be clear to another.

JB,

You are confusing Christianity as it is in the Bible and Christianity as taught in Catholicism. There are no links between Mithranism and Christianity as it appears in the Bible. Mithra was born from a rock, not a virgin. Mirthra was a warrior, Jesus was a pacifist. Mithra killed a bull to create helpful things for humans, Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins. There are no similarities.

No Similarities? WRONG WRONG WRONG. In MOST major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) are all but identical.


Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven.

"BORN FROM A ROCK" (Virgin dawn)

The theology of Mithraism was centred upon the dying/rising Mithra, emerging fully grown from the ‘virgin dawn’ or rock.

The association of gods with rocks or stones is not surprising: fiery rocks falling from the sky (meteorites) and even sparks released by colliding stones would equally strike the simple mind as ‘evidence’ of a godly presence. Holy stones were anointed with oil. Mithra was fathered by the creator god Ahura-Mazda.

Mithras’s supposed creation had occurred in a ‘time before men’, a cosmic creation in a celestial heaven. At no time was it believed that he had lived as a mere mortal and trod the earth. Mithraism's failure to have anthropomorphised its god into a man – something which was to be accomplished so successfully by Christianity – weakened the cult's appeal to the uneducated and opened the door to the competition.

In all other major respects the theology of the two cults (Mithra and Christianity) were all but identical.

Mithras had had twelve followers with whom he had shared a last sacramental meal. The evidence from a mithraeum at Dura Europus suggests members of the congregation and thiasos (sacred company) held a banquet in which eating, drinking and musical performances featured as well as religious ceremonial.

He had sacrificed himself to redeem mankind. Descending into the underworld, he had conquered death and had risen to life again on the third day.

The holy day for this sun god was, of course, Sunday (Christians continued to follow the Jewish Sabbath until the fourth century).

His many titles included ‘the Truth,’ ‘the Light,’ and ‘the Good Shepherd.’ For those who worshipped him, invoking the name of Mithras healed the sick and worked miracles.

Mithras could dispense mercy and grant immortality; to his devotees he offered hope. By drinking his blood and eating his flesh (by proxy, from a slain bull) they too could conquer death. On a Day of Judgement those already dead would be raised back to life.

jesus is also caled "the ROCK" and chief cornerstone.

I apologize spidey, my mistake, but you did use dogma and theology did you not?

You nailed me. I was asked a question about my religious beliefs and I answered to discussing them.

"God established a prohibition against incest in Leviticus 18:6-18. Prior to that time, human genes were pure enough to allow close relatives to have children without passing deformities to the children."


Spider what is this now? Its sounds like a load of crap we might potentially need a dump truck to haul out of here. Care to elaborate?

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html

Mithra had 1 or 2 followers, depending on the version of Mithranism you are talking about, but not 12.

Mithra didn't die.

Mithra wasn't called "the shepherd"

Mithra wasn't called the truth or the light.

Sunday was only holy to Mithranians of the Roman variety. Since all Roman gods had a holy day once a week, it was a 1 in 7 chance that it would match up with the traditional day of worship for Christians. But as the New Testament makes clear, all days are equal to the Christian, because they all belong to the Lord.

You have choosen to believe lies. Look up any book about Mithra or any SCHOLARLY source and you will see that the similarities you are convinced of are lies intended to delegitimize Christianity.

No, not to you.

it's ok easy to do on a forum. all of us do it hahaha.

I guess what i'm getting at spidey is this - i wont say absolutely for sure - but if i was looking to become a christian i would not be drawn to a Q&A type of discussion on line to find out if a faith based religion is real or not.

I say that because it would take some kind of intervention from a bieng for me as it did originally. If i had not seen an extremely drastic change in a close friend, i would have never even concidered christinity or eead the bible or anything.

that is why i question a cold hard faith fact discussion/arguement/debate type format for faith based things.

try and look at it from this way - if the bulk of christians found jesus strictly from the book and then decided to start attending church and the people were acting very non christian for what ever reasons either in church or after church what would the faithful have accomplished?

to me actions speak much louder than words - show me a mans words and i understand his speech, show me his life and i'll understand his heart.

It was sarcasm. I was asked about my religious beliefs and I answered. What? My beliefs aren't legitimate because they agree with a book? Beliefs are legitimate only if I made them up on my own? Seriously man, that's very bigoted and closed minded. I'll end there, because I won't let the shortsightedness of you or anyone else here bring me down to your level.