Sorry. I really did think it was the dude from family feud.......

Oh yea, oh yea..."(christians) don't try to rule people's lives"

Your rippin Santa. Whats next the Easter Bunny.... Heaven forbid kids have a little fun because of adults opinions..........

I removed it...lol...had a better one....but I so want to believe in Santa Claus....but then I HAD to grow up...G-dammit man!

But since you liked it:

Richard Dawkins said:

Is Santa a paedophile?

I mean he has all the characteristics, some old man that nobody knows gets children to sit on his lap. A paedophiles heaven wouldn’t you agree?

No Christians don't try to rule you. You will NEVER find a Christian going up to someone and somewhere along the lines religion being brought up, and the Christian finds that this person is of other belief so therefore the Christian kills him. Or anything of examples as such.

And yes i know their was those Christian Crusades and such, but they were just as wrong as the other beliefs that do as such. Those people that did the crusades weren't truly Christian, for in the basics of Christianity the 10 commandments "Thou shall not kill". So obviously those can NOT be used as a stereotype to the Christian belief.

So, are you saying all the Christian soldiers in the military are doomed because they aren't following "Thou shalt not kill"? Kind of a crappy thing to do to them.

I'm not judging anyone, that is the job of Jesus. Those people will have to answer up to Jesus when the time comes.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What you say here is way over-simplified. You merely refer to the 10 Commandments "Thou shalt not kill".

However, if you read the full dogma you'll quickly learn that there were a myriad of exceptions to that commandment. The Biblical God also commanded people to judge and stone sinners to death. He also told them that it is their duty to seek out heathen and kill them as well. In fact, he even directed men to totally destroy everyone in the village from whence the heathens came.

So you can't just point to the Ten Commandments. If you're going to uphold this entire religious doctrine then you have no choice but to acknowledge that God has commanded us to kill all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons.

You "version" of "Christianity" simply doesn't stand up to the doctrine upon which it is based. If you would take the time to actually read the Bible you'll see that your Yahweh wasn't any better than Zeus. In fact, he was worse! The Biblical God is male-chauvinistic, jealous, and hates heathens.

He's far less civilized than Zeus was.

Beside, you were talking about why we should put our faith in historical events like having gone to the moon. Yet why do you reject the Greek Religions as mere "mythology"? The Hebrew mythology doesn't have any more merit than the mythology of Zeus.

You're just picking out a story that YOU would like to support and then rejecting all others for no good reason.

It does support Christianity thank you very much. Give me one incident where God had someone judge someone in the NEW TESTAMENT.

In the old testament people were judged on earth for their sins, eg., being stoned to death.

The coming of Jesus changed that, Jesus is now the judge and has specifically told us not to judge anyone, for with what judgement we judge others it will be judged towards us as well now.

The Old Testament is where the 10 Commandments are. They were given to Moses. So anyone after that time was disobeying God's Law when they slaughtered people wholesale.

Interesting.

Have you told any soldier friends about your view on this and what they do?

You seem to miss the point here entirely.

You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late.

You can't have a schizophrenic God. Either the God of the Old Testament has validity in its own right, or it doesn't. Jesus can't fix a badly written mythology after the fact.

I agree with you that Jesus did indeed reject the teachings of the Old Testament. But as far as I'm concerned that just serves to prove that he couldn't have possibly been the son of that God. He didn't even agree with those teachings!

He was obviously teaching the wisdom of Buddha and not the absurdities of the old Hebrew folklore. Absurdities that even YOU recognize and would like to separate Jesus from.

The best way to do that is to simply recognize that Jesus was not the only begotten son of the fictitious godhead of the Old Testament but instead he was teaching the wisdom of the ways of Indian Buddhism.

That solves everything right there.

You can't use Jesus as an excuse for the Biblical God. If the Biblical God had commanded people "Thou shalt not Kill" and then went on to give a myriad of exceptions where this commandment doesn't hold. Then it truly doesn't matter what Jesus might have done at all. That would have been way too late.
=============================================

With your kind of logic all the judges and the executioners should be put to death as well.

As in someone kills a few people and the judge gives him the death penalty, with your thinking the judge and the people that carry out the sentence should also receive the death penalty.

There is a huge difference between a judged execution and just killing someone. So therefore still no conflict, contradiction, or anything that doesn't make sense.

I do not know any soldiers, but if i did i would express with them the same way i do here.

I didn’t know Jesus rejected the teaching of the old testament?



KJV -Matthew 5:18-19 “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Jesus didn't reject the teachings of the old testament.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus came to fulfil the old testament, not to destroy it, not to amend it, not to do anything with it but complete it.

Exactly, so that would suggest that the old and the new Testaments are binding.

They are binding?........ can you be more specific? I don't comprehend what you're meaning. Binding in what way? The old testament was the laws for the people before Jesus, with the prophecy of a saviour coming. Jesus "the saviour" came thus fulfilling the old testament and gave us the new testament.

you are not correct here Jesus keeps telling the prophets that he did not come here to rewrite or make any new laws but to uphold them.

John 10:35 the scripture cannot be broken

referring to Matthew 5:17 again - Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.

Luke 16:17- It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid