Hmmmm...interesting dialogue here :)

*ouch* good 1 CG.. but glad you are mocking 'me' rather than 'He' :)

Bushy... A few points.

1/ Most of what you said was wise. but... qualification needed.

a) Marshall plan.. they are trying day in day out to re-construct Iraq.. Al Qaeda and Iran are the problem, not the Iraqi people.
b) Mandela's forgiveness of 'white' surpemo's..... Well I was considering doing a new topic.. NEW APARTHIED IN STH AFRICA where the current victims are the colored. The peck order now is as follows:
i)Blacks
ii) Whites
iii) Colored.
Ask the drug gangs among the colored group why they are resorting to such means of survival? "aparthied" where now it is not the blacks but THEY who are left to scroung around the tip for survival. Forgotten by the blacks.. ignored by the whites.. they are the new 'victims' of a very real aparthied.

TRTL.. we can always discuss the human condition. No problem there. But what I cannot discuss very meaningfully is the idea of mankind pulling themselves up by their moral bootstraps to a point of acceptability before the Almighty. Sure there are some wonderful people around. But if you dig deep into their minds and hearts, like Ghandi, you will see that they are not universally praised. So, they are not perfect.

You question the critical source about Ghandi... and yes, I agree, that Sikh bloke is surely biased. But why? Because of how Ghandi's policies impacted HIS people. Of all those qualified to criticize Ghandi, say out of me, you, runner and that Sikh, I suggest he is the most qualified to express valid opinions.

But this is not a 'crucify Ghandi' exercise, so lets not 'run' down that path ok :)

CJ.... :) ur a terror arn't you. The...*point* was your use of very colorful adjectives of an extremely negative nature.

"Deranged"
"Sexually Obsessed"
"Miserable Position"
"Abject world view"

I was not trying to besmirch a great man, I was showing that Runner was not simply grabbing stuff our of the deep recesses of his head when he criticized Ghandi. There are many critics of Ghandi. So? show me a man, however great who does not have weakness or points to criticize. I've not said anything 'myself' about Ghandi, I showed what others much closer to his world say about him.....rightly or wrongly.

CG...back to you :)

2 major issues appear to trouble you about the Bible/God/Christianity.

1/ Trinity.
Let me try :) the approach I take is this.
a) The 'trinity' is a human doctrine. It is not mentioned in the Bible.
b) There are 2 verses which are often questioned in regard to the 'Church' having 'embellished' the source material.. only 2 that I know of. One has a strong case, the other does not. The questionable one is 1 John 5:8 (please read)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31
see the footnote. "a".
The textual position is quite strong, in that any such modifications are actually KNOWN... and the more important issue is.. "how do they effect the final result"? Pretty much 'zero'.
My approach is NOT to begin with the doctrine of the Trinity. I begin with the Lord Jesus... if you simply put the 'Trinity' out of your head, and come to know the Lord from the Gospels, you will come across this "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" (John 14:1-13) and many similiar verses.
The Church constructed the doctrine, because of many heresies which arose, which defined Jesus as either "Only" man..or "Only" God.. when the true picture is "If you have seen me, you have seent he Father" ie... both. The best solution is to put down accumulated 'Church' or denominational baggage, and goto the source :

Boaz,

You said:
“The Church constructed the doctrine, because of many heresies which arose, which defined Jesus as either "Only" man..or "Only" God.. when the true picture is "If you have seen me, you have seent he Father" ie... both. The best solution is to put down accumulated 'Church' or denominational baggage, and goto the source”

A couple of questions:

- Are Jesus sayings to be taken literal or contextual? Doesn't the Bible also quote him saying: “you people have not seen or heard God” even though they were staring right at him.
- Muslims Holy book contains verses like “he who obeys the messenger, obeys God”. Why aren’t Muslims worshipping Mohammed? Similar quotes can be found in the Jewish books re their prophets but not Jewish person I know consider Abraham, Moses or David as anything more than prophets.

PS: pre Roman Catholicism (325, 381 AD), the followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be a mighty prophet. Why did you label all early Christians as ‘heretics’?

Care to clarify?

Peace,

"show me a man, however great who does not have weakness or points to criticize."

That could be a man who the only things we know about come from the words of his followers. Someone who's followers have held a lot of power for almost 2000 years and who are quite strident in their attacks on criticism of him.

Clearly we know the man was not universally popular in his time, he was executed with some form of public support. Not normally the mark of someone with no critics. The voice of his critics have been silenced by time and by the actions of those who will not hear criticism of one who must be considered blameless.

Boazy, if I spend some time comptemplating his death will you spend some time comptemplating the nature of a father who would set things up so that the only one who qualified was his son and who then required the death of his son to make things right. I won't take much time comptemplating his death as it's had plenty of my time in the past and there are countless others who have given their lives for others who I could also spend time thinking about.

R0bert

boaz, I'm not deifying people to the level of god or anything of that nature - what I'm getting at, is how belief can be regarded as more important than simple kindness.
This has enormous ramifications for issues like fundamentalist Islam and Christianity.

You often post about the dangers of extremist Islam - setting that aside for a moment, and focusing on the better aspects of the human condition, we see that there is another aspect of fundamentalism.

I asked you earlier - which is more important:

a) making yourself a good person who cares for others and attempts to improve the world.
b) becoming a christian.

In speaking of this fundamentalism I'm not equating extremist christianity to extremist Islam as many relativists have done.
I realise that on the violence side of the equation, these days at least, Christians are less fanatical.

On the good side however, I see a distressing belief that being a christian is in some way, just as important as being a good person. This has extensive ramifications for relations between faiths.

Which is why I ask - to you boaz, would you have more respect for somebody who honestly let christ into their heart, but lived a simple existence looking after his family, or alternatively, a secularist who lived among the sick and wounded, and spent his life healing them.
Which would be the higher priority, and which is more highly regarded under your god?

You began this thread to discuss the image problems with christianity - this issue, far more than any movie, weighs on the minds of those outside the faith.

I know you probably have a variety of biblical tracts you can pull on, but to be honest, when you seek to engage with someone, this is offputting - I'm trying to discuss this with you, a believer, not the bible.
Have you ever rung up an insurance company or transport service and instead of a person, you've had to deal with a machine as an automated response?
This is what the bible tracts are like for the rest of us.

Golly... all of the last 3 posts deserve a 2500 word essay to respond :)

But.. the 'torah' here says 350 only.. so I will abide.

FH. you said "The early Christians" aaaah my friend.. you need to pay close attention to 2 things:
1/ Your own sources for this view.
2/ The real story :)

The point you made well was.. "There are apparently divergent verses describing Jesus in the Gospels" and this is where the doctrine came from. Apparently, there were those who could not accept that there was 'more' to the Lord's real nature than their perceptions and predispositions would allow. Hence, they latched onto one set of verse, OR...the other..and ran with them.
Refer Wiki on 'Nicene Creed, Athanasian creed, apostles creed, early Christian documents, Church councils of the early church for some info.

TRTL.. *bingo* :) you absolutely hit the nail on the head. But please forgive me.. I just HAVE to use scripture to support your case.

That is exactly the issue which Jesus encountered, and it is a pivotal issue in the nature of faith.

'Is it more important to be a good person'...OR.. 'to accept Christ'.

The pharisees had the view that it was more important to hold to their traditions, than look after their parents. Jesus attacked this without mercy.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=15&version=31

Please take the time (1 minute) to read those first few verses. You and the Lord are on the same page.

It can never be a 'which is MORE important' question. One relates to the human realm alone, and the other both the human and eternal.

Eternally.. the most important thing is to repent..and place our faith in Christ. This then... MUST translate into acts of kindness and compassion as per James "if a brother is hungry and cold and I say 'be warmed and filled' withouth meeting his need, is my faith of any value?"

Its so very very clear TRTL.. that the Bible is very much 'pro' what you are saying, but it also recognizes the human condition of sin from which we must be saved.