different faiths all lead to god?

Post Reply New Topic

Not sure if that was directed at me. But... Jesus is just one of the many paths, up to you to choose the one that fits. What you see when you travel yours is up to you. But this path I speak of, knows no religon. It's even open for aithiests I don't preach it, couldn't if I wanted to.

Christians have a mandate from our founder to share our faith. And have a right to free speech. If you don't like it, that's fine. But saying it's tantamount to a "crusade" is just paranoia.

Certainly there's violence in the old testament. But it was never a blanket violence, but meant for specific purposes and at specific peoples. As far as stoning, which was the traditional capital punishment... Jesus more or less put an end to that. The only stonings and violence in the new testament were against Christians, by the Jews and Romans. Christians in the New Testament never instigated violence, and Jesus never advocated it.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me' " (John 14:6).

Was Jesus fibbin'?

Also, He said: "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matt 7:13-14).

So, if He's a liar, then He can't be one of the paths to the afterlife. But if he was a moral man, and not a liar, then He is the only way to God and the afterlife.

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 Aug 2007, 10:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

...or this whoe story is a work of fiction writen 40 years after the death of some rabble rousing carpenter from Judea.

"Then he (Jesus) called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it'" (Mark 8:34-35).

Jesus said be ready to die for the faith, and specifically said not to kill for it.

So, the Crusaders and Inquisition got it "back-assward".

Ragtime: you keep missing the point; your posts about what is said in the scriptures ONLY applies to those that believe along those lines; others such as myself (pagan), and the muslims etc shouldn't be coerced into believing that too, if we don't choose. By continually preaching your way, you are saying all of us are wrong. Don't deny it, it's there in black and white.

Not true. Every document can be judged on its own logic, regardless of whether it is known to be an accurate document. And, since it's quite untrue that every non-Christian rejects the entire historicity of events in the Bible, my argument is well-directed to the majority: those who believe there's a fair amount of truth and accuracy in the Bible. But again, even if it's deemed false from cover-to-cover, its logic can still be evaluated and conclusions drawn therefrom. Besides, I didn't invent my theology; therefore, when referring to it, I naturally and responsibly allude to its source.

Last edited by Ragtime on 21 Aug 2007, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

how are you being coerced?

Bazza: the back-handed way they lay a guilt trip on us for not conforming to their viewpoint ('he's damned if he doesn't believe' or 'I'll pray for him to repent' repeated ad nauseum).

Ragtime: Those events like the earthquake and volcanic eruption that caused the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are well documented, as with the flood that later became the Black Sea (Noah's Ark). The God-spin was later added to make it more sensational. Natural explanations can be found for most if not all of the events, but when you add folklore about mystical beings affecting events being fact, that's where the credibility tends to wane. Another one that can be easily explained is the 'Nile turning to blood'; iron oxide from the digging to form the pyramids similar to the iron oxide found in the Rio Tinto in Spain after the mining operations late last century.

How about the shortly-following deaths of every firstborn Egyptian male, both humans and cattle, in the same night? (Exodus 11) A little selective and coincidental, don't you think?

And how about the fact that the Egyptians let the Israelites -- thousands of FREE SLAVE LABORORS -- simply escape? Israel was a totally-subjugated and resourceless people at the time -- why could not the well-armed and well-fed Egyptian army recapture them, if Israel somehow all fled secretly?

More to do with the pharoah's law than anything else. I think it occured around the time of 2800 BCE, which would have made it during either Seti 1 or Rameses reign. It's just that people were unable to explain for themselves the whys and wherefores of anything that was happening, so to explain it they said 'God did this'.

Also, don't forget that most of the workers on the pyramids were volunteers, who were gladly working on the tombs for their kings. Sure, if the Egyptians had needed the Palestinians, they would have rounded them all up, but it could have been that they had enough workers, and the slaves they had had become unreliable.

Doesn't answer my question.

And BTW, check your historical terms. There were no "Palestinians" until 135 AD, when the Roman Emperor Hadrian named part of the western portion of what is now called Israel "Philistia", or "Palestine", after the Jews' then-archenemies, the Philistines. Hadrian ordered that portion of land to be named "Palestine" as a hateful insult to the Jews.

And, as an aside, modern so-called "Palestinians" are no relation to those people occupying "Philistia" in 135 AD. The modern appropriation of the name is also meant as both an insult to the Jews and a denial of their history in the land.

Same goes for 'Israel', there was no state or country by that name until 1948. The area may have been Philistia (hence Philistine) before 135 CE, but it has been known as Palestine up until 1948, and even then it's questionable as to what the proper borders are.

And the reason they want the land is because they had inhabited it for a far greater time than the current Israelis had. It would be like saying that you lot had to give the States back to the Red Indians, or we Aussies having to give our land back to the abos, simple 'cause they were here first. Sure, maybe the current Palestinians haven't done a lot with the land, but to be unsettled just because of some 'promise' that they don't even acknowledge would piss anyone off. If you were in the same boat, wouldn't you be pissed at someone trying to take what you'd strived to make you own? That's how I think the Palestinians must feel. I don't however agree with the terrorist aspect of it, or the continual bombing by Israel to prove a point.

As for answering your question, I feel I did.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

At least I get Monty Python humour. But if I were to quote a few Life Of Brian quotes, like 'he's not the messiah, he's just a very naughty boy', or 'crucifixion? Line on the left, one cross each', or even 'alright, so I am the messiah then. Now f*ck off!' you would be screaming blasphemy and calling for a stoning.

Anyway, the New Testament may not have had any punishments by Christians, but it didn't stop the Inquisitors back in the middle ages from handing out some. Jesus was said to have taught things like humility, love thy neighbour, forgiveness, compassion and turning the other cheek. Pity then there are so many 'Christians' who can't even obey those simple laws. I, on the other hand only have a couple to obey; i) take responsibility for my actions, and ii) do no harm to others as it may be visited back on you, and if you do harm take steps to rectify it. Pretty simple, when you think of it.