Scout
Read my post again. I said that our opinions dont matter. What you believe, or what I beleive. Whether the truth is my beleif, or the truth is your belief. In the end, if Im wrong, no consequences, if your wrong, huge consequences. neither hypocrisy nor contradiction in that statement. You beleive you just need to "be a good person", I beleive in what the bible teaches. What does it matter in the end. It matters what God, if there is a god, says. where do you get your "standards" of good from? By our standards, we're good people cos we do good to others, and love others (except those who hurt us of course). Cos we're comparing ourselves with those murderers and child molesters. Of course we're good. Gods standards are wayyyy higher.
A little analogy. little girl riding past a field of sheep, and thinks 'wow, how white the sheep are, and then it suddenly starts to snow, and against the lovely fresh white snow, the sheep dont look so white anymore. We see ourselves as white and pure, but against gods standards, we're filthy.
And yes, scout, you are just as vital and valid as any christian. Christians are not better people, just forgiven, because we've asked for that forgiveness.

Pericles, Scout, nice posts.

coach, still thinking about the value and content of any response to your post. Perciles made some of the points well. Courage is so often a matter of perspective. Personally I found the journey I am on tough to start out on.

edi and Genesis, both of you seem to suggest that there are only two possible options for an "after-life", the christain heaven or nothing. Whilst I personally think that the odds are heavily in favour of the "nothing" option I can't see any reason to exclude the possibility that any one of a myriad of other possibilties are just as worthy of consideration as the christain heaven.

The gamble is not so different for any of us, for those like Genesis who are convinced life is a christain is all that it can be regardless of the truth or otherwise of your faith then nothing lost. For me that option was loss. So from my perspective I've kept as much of a certainty as exists in this world (my life) and face similar odds to you in the afterlife stakes.

If there is an after-life it could be that for some of the possibilities of what it is your choice to follow the concept of God you have chosen rather than live your own lives will count against you. A version of reincarnation which allows us to progress more as we put away childish things like a "father God" for example.

Given that most of humanity has not believed in your particular version of an afterlife it is something worth serious consideration.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert: You do not know what you are talking about - ETERNITY IS A BLOODY LONG WHILE! numbat

I'm a newcomer to this forum, but one post interested me - "What do "jesus" Aslan, the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny, Daffy Duck and the Rugrats all have in common?

"They are all essentially cartoon characters used to entertain and perhaps "educate" young children. They all belong to to the comic book and cartoon channels on TV."

If the writer checked into history, they would discover that Jesus really lived and is written about by other people separate and apart from the Bible. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about him around 100 AD (forgive me, I'm not much good at dates) Pliny the Elder also wrote about him and then there are the Church fathers who wrote about him, all within 100 years or so of his life. We're therefore left with three alternatives for Jesus. Either he was a lunatic, a liar or Lord. Usually, an open-minded, unbiased reading of the 4 gospels will reveal that he could not have been lunatic or a liar. If we still can't accept him as Lord, then perhaps that will come once the lunatic and the liar have been dealt out of the equasion.

I know one thing - the life without Christ in which I once lived has no comparison to the life he has given me now!

Val, with the greatest respect, your "three alternatives" are a product of evangelical brainwashing, and are not in the slightest degree logical.

(By the way, you are only allowed two 'alternatives'; any more than two become choices, or possibilities)

For a start, the "facts" on which you base your argument are themselves suspect.

The texts attributed to Josephus - who was not a first-hand source, since he wasn't born until 37AD - have been disputed by scholars since the seventeenth century. Relying upon two brief sentences to "prove" anything historical is anyhow risky.

Pliny the Elder did not write anything about Jesus. At all. Check it out.

You will also find, if you look very carefully, that there is absolutely no contemporary account of Jesus' life, only retrospectives written by interested parties. Surely - surely - if someone went around today healing the sick, raising the dead and turning water into wine, we could expect a word or two to leak out into the press?

So your conclusion "Either he was a lunatic, a liar or Lord. Usually, an open-minded, unbiased reading of the 4 gospels will reveal that he could not have been lunatic or a liar" cannot possibly be justified.

Val, before you jump in with disingenuous commentary on someone else's observations, make sure that you do some thinking for yourself. I'm sure your pastor at Hillsong approves of what you are doing, but be aware you are using their thoughts, not your own.

Hi Val
A few corrections to your post.
Pliny [writing in 112 CE] merely mentioned that he wrote for advice on how to handle troublesome christians in his area. There is NO mention of Christ in any of his works.
The Roman historian Suetonius mentions trouble being caused by "Chrestus" while he [chrestus] was in Rome. No record of Jesus ever having been in Rome therefore it is unlikely to have been him.
Tacitus mentions the apostles following Christ. But there is a problem here. He seems to have got his information straight from the christians themselves, not from independent evidence. How do we know? Because he writes that Jesus lived while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. Pilate was NEVER procurator he was the prefect. A stela has been found with the inscription "Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judaea". So Tacitus is ruled out as an independent witness.
How about Josephus you ask? He mentions Jesus twice! The only trouble is the first mention [in "Antiquities of the Jews"] of Jesus seems to be an insertion by christians themselves done centuries after Josephus' death - most probably by Eusebius. How can I say that? For two reasons.
1) There is no mention of this passage in any christian defence of the faith before Eusebius - and some of them knew Josephus very well.
2) Most importantly in the Antiquities Josephus is arguing that the prophets have been misinterpreted. That the messiah would come from Israel but not from the Jews because the messiah was the conquerer of Israel Vespasian. Right in the middle of this Josephus seems to break off, talk about Jesus as the Messiah, then go back to arguing how Vespasian was the true messiah. What does that sound like to you?
The last place where Josephus seems to mention Jesus is in the Jewish Wars. To Quote the historians Freke & Gandy "These spurious passages are confined to an appendix known as the "Slavonic Additions".
To be continued.