*if Jesus Christ is not Lord and Saviour in ones life then they will not go to heaven-have eternal life.*

That's what they sell people, to suck them into religion. Fact is,
you'll die just the same as the rest of us, turning into good old
worm food. We can prove that. All the rest is basically snake
oil. But believe what you will, if it makes you feel better.

my dear piper
wether we write xtian
or christ-ian...means specific things

if your a christ..doing the things christ does
then maybe you have EARNED an honourable title..as a christ

but really..if its opnly that he got hung out to die..on a 'x'
that he died so they can sin..so they can kill/make war

[NOT DO..WHAT CHRIST DID..then the best i can give them is an 'x'
because they got no idea..of the love/works..it takes
to earn the honourum 'christ'

if xtians diod as christ does
then with one billion christs there COULD be no war
could not be mass slaughter of americans[50 million]..by abortionists

if xtians were christ-ians
none could say....quote

""..That's what they sell people,
to suck them into religion.""

cause thats all they got
i dont need to think..dont ned to do good works
cause god died for us...[lol]..as if god could..DIE...!

but let continue the quote..""Fact is,
you'll die just the same as the rest of us,""

and if your not doing good works
ie like the servant...who only gave back..WHAT HE GOT...!
ie didnt multiply 10 fold..or double HIS own..*SAVING
what good in saving the retch anyhow?


they are right..about ALL OF US turnibng..into,,""worm food.
We can prove that.""

just as we can prove christ[a man]

died YET WERNT DEAD...
he lives on..like we all live on
thus even those who gave nothing..get more of the same

""All the rest is basically snake/oil.""

see how by being..just..a little wrong
we allow greater wrongs

THEY KNOW...that xtians only honour good/god with their lips
thus jesus said...by their work*s will ye know THEM
ie the CHRIST-ians...from the xtians..!

by wrong works
by wrong egsample
those REJECTING not only xtians AS WELL as christians
as well as god..[god DAMMMS no-one..!..god LOVES all*]

we are asked to be a good sheppard
and we let the wolf eat the children..in wars
murder the unborn..cast blame and reap shame

how right they are in saying the obvious truth

AJ,

There is a problem that permeates all response. EVERYONE has presuppositions! It is very, very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to interpret evidence without letting your presuppositions get in the way!

Since I’m exceedingly sceptical of anyone’s ability to truly think freely, I would advise you to avoid jumping on your high horse and claiming that you can complete this near-impossible task, and instead demonstrate your ability to do so through your writings.

You claim that I am indulging in “mental gymnastics” by building assumptions on top of assumptions. But really, all you’ve done is bang on about the objectivity of evidence and the worthlessness of opinions (whilst giving your own opinions to counter mine!) but obviously that will get us nowhere.

Now,lets get to the root of my “assumption”. Earlier you made the claim that monotheistic religion is a divisive force (an opinion). Now, we know that Christianity and Islam are the world’s two biggest religions and have both grown exponentially since their beginnings- Christianity in the first century and Islam around 600 years later. Their followers total 3.6 billion people (including many nominal followers, of course).

Now, given half the world follows one of these two religions, and given the assumption (your opinion) that they are both divisive forces, would we or would we not expect to see more than 7% of wars fought in the name of religion? I say yes, of course we would!

Half the world is either Christian or Muslim, and lets say a quarter of the world does more than just throw it on their census form. So a quarter of the world aligns themselves and their identity with Christianity or Islam, and looks to these for guidance in life and conduct. Now if they really were such divisive forces, why are only 7% of wars religious wars? Why wouldn’t we expect more? Billions of followers basing their lives on divisive teachings, and yet 7% of wars are fought in the name of these divisive belief systems? Something seems wrong here.

(cont’d)

You’ve suggested that no one “thinks 100% along the lines of their religion in absolutely every aspect of their lives”.

This is weak for two reasons:

1. It is objectively wrong- there ARE plenty of people who try to think of their religion with virtually every aspect of their lives.

2. The phrasing you’ve used is actually misleading because it shows a misunderstanding of the way people function. A person’s worldview and life experiences can impact their overall view of life and their understanding of everything, so that EVEN WHEN they aren’t directly thinking “What does my religion say about this aspect of my life” their worldview is still impacting upon them by shaping the lens by which they view the world.

Religions deal with fundamental questions and thus they impact how people see things at a basic level. So if billions upon billions are seeing their world through the “divisive” lens of monotheistic religion, then it would make sense that that divisive lens would assist them in violence.

Yet, it’s atheist countries who have the biggest militaries, and it’s atheist leaders who committed most of the worst crimes of the 20th century, and only 7% of wars have been categorised as religious wars. Which makes your claim that religion is divisive, and the claim that the world might be more peaceful without it, seem silly.

Changing topics, I asked for arguments or evidence to support your implication” that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters”. All of those three specific arguments for God could fail miserably (as you believe they do) and that would still be rather irrelevant to the general question I posed.

(cont’d)

Just on Hitler, you say “Hitler never renounced his faith”.

Here are some quotes from Hitler from the book Hitler’s Table Talk.

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure”

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....”

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains”

“Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."

So, Hitler might not have renounced Christianity, but maybe that’s because he never actually believed it and instead used it for his purposes!

Pericles,

[That's is a superbly silly and pointless question.]

No, it isn't.

Surely, considering that you are an enlightened homo sapien at the top of the animal kingdom, your powers of imagination are sufficient to provide a hypothetical scenario whereby you could come to believe in some kind of higher power.

To my way of thinking, this could quite possibly be the most integral question in discussions about God. Why? Because it seems to me that the atheists I observe claim that there is no evidence for God yet they are rarely willing to thoughtfully consider what kinds of evidence we would expect to see if God did exist. Atheists claim to see an absence of evidence for God and they claim this is evidence of the absence of God, but they miss something major! The absence of evidence for any given thing is only evidence of absence if we would expect to see that evidence in the case that the given thing existed! Otherwise, how can it be evidence of absence?

[ Assuming that "rising from the dead" was as unusual an occurrence back then as it is today, it is pretty amazing to find that no-one actually noticed.]

Plenty of people noticed, that's why the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8 that he "received" the message that Jesus rose again. And he goes on to list witnesses to the event.

Corinthians was written around 20 years after Jesus, and an analysis of the language used in the text, combined with other historical knowledge of Paul strongly suggests he "received" this message within a few years after the resurrection.

In other words, people noticed and they were proclaiming the Christian message pretty much straight after it happened. The fact that something strange happened is rarely even disputed by professional historians, the question then just becomes a more philosophical one: WHAT happened? My view is that the evidence is highly compatible with a resurrection and difficult to explain with other explanations.