100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: do you believe you love Jesus or think you do | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I always wanted to know what 3:16 means funches? Is this March 16th? Is this your personal scripture number and you have created a whole bunch of them to write the next great book? Curiousity is a ***** for me sometimes 
"smiles" ...funches 3:16 represents the quotes from The Third Testament until it's completed and I give each quote it's own passage number .... What is the third testament? "Nubby" ...it's the bible minus the fantasy and the irrationality ...anything in The Third Testament has already been debated to the point that anything in it cannot be disputed logically or rationally it's a third testament thread floating around the forum somewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always wanted to know what 3:16 means funches? Is this March 16th? Is this your personal scripture number and you have created a whole bunch of them to write the next great book? Curiousity is a ***** for me sometimes
"smiles" ...funches 3:16 represents the quotes from The Third Testament until it's completed and I give each quote it's own passage number .... What is the third testament? "Nubby" ...it's the bible minus the fantasy and the irrationality ...anything in The Third Testament has already been debated to the point that anything in it cannot be disputed logically or rationally it's a third testament thread floating around the forum somewhere Funches I would love to here your best argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your asking the wrong person smiles. "Nubby" ...yep "smiles" should either ask God or Stan Lee the guy that write the spiderman comics No offense, you dont know much about the New Testament. "Nubby" ...everything you need to know about The New Testament you can learn on Star Trek (kirk,spock) .... ask anything about the bible from non-existence to man being God and I can give you the episode of Star Trek about that same concept and without those pesty confusing parables the bible have |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like you though Funches, so I hope you dont take offense. "Nubby" ...there's no need to fret...I've been called every name but Jesus |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does hate exist? "nubby"....hate is the degree of non-tolerance one has for a person place or thing .... as Mr. Spock would say....it's an irrational emotion captain I like you. You will admit to hate, but you wont admit to its opposite. LOVE? "Nubby" but I did... in fact you commented on my definition of Love love is the degree of stupidity that one endure for a person place or thing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like you though Funches, so I hope you dont take offense. "Nubby" ...there's no need to fret...I've been called every name but Jesus Lay your best one on me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 can't believe you just said that funches.
All parents love their kids and when i have my own if i am alive will be saddend because of loss of the one I love dearly and Unconditionally. "Kojak" ..someone's child are going to be the next serial killers murderers rapists child molesters and if the parent do love them only proves statement that love is the degree of stupidity one is willing to endure for a person place or thing even the bible say to stone some of the little unruly monsters to death ...so Kojak do you not agree with God Hold on. Funches you cant have one with out the other. Can you? "nubby" ....er...what you talking about willis? have what without what |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe in God and all his works, miracles and love he has for me and you, he is all forgiving . Where did you come up with that? According to the Bible, blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Therefore God is not all forgiving according to the doctrine you claim to worship. Clearly you haven't read the fine print. Christians are always making claims about God that the Bible simply doesn't support. Clearly they just make up things that they would like to believe and toss the rest back. Protestantism is a "Salad bowl" religion. Take what you want and leave the rest. Maybe even make up some new stuff. Also you stated that God gave his ownly begotten Son. But clearly there was no sacrifice. The checked bounced. Jesus supposedly survined the whole ordeal and went back home to sit at the right-hand side of his Father. There was no sacrifice at all. Nothing was lost. Human soldiers have endured greater pain and agony over far longer periods of time for their own countries and loved ones. Many of them died and never went back home. The sacrifice of mere mortal soldiers makes the so-called sacrifice of Jesus look like a tea party. Besides, if you pay attention to the whole story is was nothing more than a dirty trick to begin with. It was God's wrath that we are supposedly being saved from. If Jesus was God he was sacrificing himself to himself to appease himself for his own wrath. Talk about a mentally disturbed God! And the whole thing rests on the idea that God is appeased by blood sacarifices in the first place. But that idea was actually a very common idea in all ancient mythologies. That idea was clearly an idea that was made up by superstitious men. Why would the God of Abraham just happen to be appeased by blood sacrifcies just like Zeus? 
Why would the real creator of the universe turn out to just coincidentally be precisely like mankind had always dreamed up in many different mythologies? Why did the orientals in the Far East not dream up these demented ideas? In fact, the very idea that the creator of this universe would have been peeing around with the arrogant male chuanistic pigs of the Mediterranean region and not have inspired the obviously more intelligent oriental people is absurd beyond absurdity. Cleraly the Mediterranean picture of a blood thirsty God who becomes angry and casts people into an place of eternal damnation is a fraud. You say that God so loved the world that he sacrificed his own son to save it. But the problem with that notion is that this God would be saving you from nothing other than his very own wrath. That's an oxymoron right there. If God so loved the world, and is indeed all-wise and all-powerful, then surely he could have forgiven people without any need to be appeased by a blood sacrifice. Even I can forgive people wihtout the need to be appeased by a blood sacrifice and I'm not even a God. Clearly I would be superior to the God of the Bible. But we can't have that. So we must conclude that the Bible is false. Besides, the Biblical God is supposed to be unchanging. Yet the Bible claims that God so hated the world that he flooded out all of humanity at one point. Then he has a change of heart and sends his son as a sacrifice to save it later? Clearly if God were truly unchanging he'd be dependable, and trustworthy to always react and behave in a consistent manner. But that would mean that he would have had to have sent his son to save the world the first time. But the story claims that he didn't. Therefore the story shoots itself in its own foot and is clearly a contradition and therfore a lie. This has been a public service annoucement for the betterment of humanity through education and the wisdom of seeing the fallacy of demented mythologies that claim that our creator lusts for blood sacrifices and teaches by example that the only way to solve problems is by violent methods or nailing someone to a pole. There are better philosophies and ideas of God. Many of them came from the spiritually loving people of the Far East, and India. Not to imply that their entire culture was refined, but clearly their spiritualists were sane. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do believe in God and all his works, miracles and love he has for me and you, he is all forgiving . "Kojak" there are no miracles ..and if God was forgiving it wouldn't be a need for Hell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so funches...may I ask some thing here???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funches I would love to here your best argument. "Nubby" ...like Clint Eastwood would say ....go ahead ...make my day |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright I started a thread, why I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like you though Funches, so I hope you dont take offense. "Nubby" ...there's no need to fret...I've been called every name but Jesus Lay your best one on me. heck what about Funches ...imagine going through public school with a name like that ....people would call my all kinds of names but only when they called me funches did they get a reaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so funches...may I ask some thing here??? "awolf" .....er..sure ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so funches...may I ask some thing here??? "awolf" .....er..sure ... its not like one day I will sway you over. and its not like your going to do much but cause alot of people to pray for you.....either way....I see no moment of enlightenment for either side..... the sayin goes...agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright I started a thread, why I believe. ok..."Nubby" ...you asked for it ...so none of that pushing the report abuse button and reporting me to the moderators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so funches...may I ask some thing here??? "awolf" .....er..sure ... its not like one day I will sway you over. and its not like your going to do much but cause alot of people to pray for you.....either way....I see no moment of enlightenment for either side..... the sayin goes...agree to disagree. "awolf" ...well if religious beliefs never had an influence to cause millions of people to kill each other then I just might agree with you .... imagine if kids killed each other because of the belief in Santa Claus ....would you not speak up or debate it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The real problem with this whole thread is the fact that those who believe in said "love" however they define that relation can not provide evidence to support those beliefs. Yet at on the other foot those who believe that such beliefs are "delusional" becuase of the lack of physical evidence are commiting an error themselves. They can not prove beyond a doubt that the said belief is not indeed reality. I would remind them in particular that the absence of evidence is not in any way the evidence of a absence. Essentially it makes this whole debate/discussion trivial and meaningless. just something to think about ...  You can love the whole and yet never see it. Ones mind can be given to compassion and yet never have been touched by it. That is the power of love for better or for worse. May we all be granted the wisdom to understand that.
"Maikuku" ...someone making a claim that they love someone that lived 2000 years before they existence could be possible ..since love is only a concept not an emotion and for someone to them make claims that the person that they never met loves them because they read it in a book could be regarded as being fantasy ..I mean look at the story of cinderella but once the person make claims that the belief is truth with the only proof being that of faith...is an indication that they are ...er...how can I say this nicey..... delusional Actually funches love is a concept which indicates emotional attachment. One can be "attached emotionally" to someone they have never met past, present and future. Example: Do you admire Lincoln or Kennedy as a president? A lot of people would answer yes. Even if they never met lincoln or kennedy their admiration is no less real. If i say i respect everyones opinion and i mean it that means everyone past, present and future. That respect is no less real just becuase i will never meet everyone. The only time their is delusion in making such statements is if the individual you admire has not ever existed. I am sorry funches but your wrong on this one. So unless you can provide proof Christ never existed you have no right to go around calling people delusional for their devotion to someone they have never met. Just so there is no confusion on how love is defined here: Love is any of a number of emotions and experiences related to a sense of strong affection[1] and attachment. The word love can refer to a variety of different feelings, states, and attitudes, ranging from generic pleasure to intense interpersonal attraction. The word love is both a verb and a noun. This diversity of uses and meanings, combined with the complexity of the feelings involved, makes love unusually difficult to consistently define, even compared to other emotional states. As an abstract concept, love usually refers to a deep, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person. Even this limited conception of love, however, encompasses a wealth of different feelings, from the passionate desire and intimacy of romantic love to the nonsexual emotional closeness of familial and platonic love[2] to the profound oneness or devotion of religious love.[3] Love in its various forms acts as a major facilitator of interpersonal relationships and, owing to its central psychological importance, is one of the most common themes in the creative arts. Ja ne!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually funches love is a concept which indicates emotional attachment. "Maikuru" and emotional attachment is no different than an addiction ..and people do stupid things to feed their addictions ...which is why Love is the degree of stupidity one is willing to endure for a person place or thing ...it's a mind frame and/or commitment that one willingly enters into One can be "attached emotionally" to someone they have never met past, present and future. that's called fantasy Example: Do you admire Lincoln or Kennedy as a president? A lot of people would answer yes. sorry but I answer no Even if they never met lincoln or kennedy their admiration is no less real. "Maikuru" ..your analogies are way off base on this one ...this is not about ex-presidents and it's not about if Jesus existed or not ... this is about those that claim that someone that lived 2000 years before their existence loves them because they either read it in a book or heard voices telling them so ..either way it points to delusion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually funches love is a concept which indicates emotional attachment. "Maikuru" and emotional attachment is no different than an addiction ..and people do stupid things to feed their addictions ...which is why Love is the degree of stupidity one is willing to endure for a person place or thing ...it's a mind frame and/or commitment that one willingly enters into Sorry funches i believe we already clarified that Love is emotional attachment that varies from person to person. If your read the definition of love, no where in it will you see an association with drug addicition. In fact you should look up the definition of addiction. Here i will save everyone the trouble: Find more about addiction on Wikipedia's sister projects: Learning resources from Wikiversity Heroin bottleThe term "addiction" is used in many contexts to describe an obsession, compulsion, or excessive physical dependence or psychological dependence, such as: drug addiction, video games, crime, alcoholism, compulsive overeating, problem gambling, computer addiction, pornography, etc. In medical terminology, an addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning and develops physical dependence, as in drug addiction. When the drug or substance on which someone is dependent is suddenly removed, it will cause withdrawal, a characteristic set of signs and symptoms. Addiction is generally associated with increased drug tolerance. In physiological terms, addiction is not necessarily associated with substance abuse since this form of addiction can result from using medication as prescribed by a doctor. However, common usage of the term addiction has spread to include psychological dependence. In this context, the term is used in drug addiction and substance abuse problems, but also refers to behaviors that are not generally recognized by the medical community as problems of addiction, such as compulsive overeating. The term addiction is also sometimes applied to compulsions that are not substance-related, such as problem gambling and computer addiction. In these kinds of common usages, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life One can be "attached emotionally" to someone they have never met past, present and future. that's called fantasy No its not funches, the terms you should be referring to are worship and admiration. Here are the definitions: Worship usually refers to acts of religious devotion typically directed to one or more deities. It is the informal term in English for what sociologists of religion call cultus—traditional beliefs and practices, the individual study of which is one of the chief concerns of theology. An act of worship may be performed individually, within informal groups, or as part of a formal meeting. Religious worship occurs in a variety of locations including houses, rented venues, out in the open, or in purpose-built structures identified as places of worship. Most religious traditions place an emphasis on regular worship and many organize meetings for the purpose at frequent intervals, often daily or weekly. Evelyn Underhill defines worship thus: "The adoring acknowledgment of all that lies beyond us—the glory that fills heaven and earth. It is the response that conscious beings make to their Creator, to the Eternal Reality from which they came forth; to God, however they may think of Him or recognize Him, and whether He be realized through religion, through nature, through history, through science, art, or human life and character."[1] admire Show phonetics verb [T] to respect and approve of someone or their behaviour, or to find someone or something attractive and pleasant to look at: I admired him for his determination. admiration noun when you admire someone or something Example: Do you admire Lincoln or Kennedy as a president? A lot of people would answer yes. sorry but I answer no well i certainly hope there is someone whom you respect or admire other than yourself.... 
Even if they never met lincoln or kennedy their admiration is no less real. "Maikuru" ..your analogies are way off base on this one ...this is not about ex-presidents and it's not about if Jesus existed or not ... this is about those that claim that someone that lived 2000 years before their existence loves them because they either read it in a book or heard voices telling them so ..either way it points to delusion no, no funches that is exactly what this is about. It makes no difference today, tommorow, a hundred years ago or even 2000 years ago. My analogies and arguements are to the point exact and logical. There is no time limit on devotion, worship, admiration or love. I would even go as far as to say your statements, definitions and reasoning on this issue are fabrications of your pyche and mind. something to think about...
|
|
|
|
|
