what is your definition of a christian

True Islam does teach jihad and to hate Christians and Jews,

What was that comment about taking the speck out of your own eye? In the same way that a Christian would rightfully resent ill-informed and prejudiced comments being made about their faith, I think a Muslim would too.

Can you be a Christian if you have never heard of the name of Christ or the words of Christianity?

I think so, but it would be one heck of a coincidence if you chose to call yourself a Christian :).

What was that comment about taking the speck out of your own eye? In the same way that a Christian would rightfully resent ill-informed and prejudiced comments being made about their faith, I think a Muslim would too.

Not only that but I feel that a lot of Christians would resent Muslims trying to convert them to Islam. So where's the need for any Christian to go to a Muslim country to preach the gospel? What's the point. Muslims have their own faith already; why should anyone have the arrogance to think they have the right to try to change this? Years ago, I worked with an American couple who told me that they had spent some time in India trying to convert the natives to Christianity. I couldn't stop myself from asking why they thought they had to do this. To me, it simply illustrates the lack of tolerance displayed by many Christians. I find this very sad and I'm sure Jesus does too.

xxx

Not only that but I feel that a lot of Christians would resent Muslims trying to convert them to Islam. So where's the need for any Christian to go to a Muslim country to preach the gospel? What's the point. Muslims have their own faith already; why should anyone have the arrogance to think they have the right to try to change this? Years ago, I worked with an American couple who told me that they had spent some time in India trying to convert the natives to Christianity. I couldn't stop myself from asking why they thought they had to do this. To me, it simply illustrates the lack of tolerance displayed by many Christians. I find this very sad and I'm sure Jesus does too.

xxx

Why do Christians have to do this?

Mark 16:15 Jesus says to his disciples “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Christ calls on Christians to do this. They are only being obedient to the Bible by standing up for their faith - they are not being arrogant. Now, there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. I wouldn't share Christianity or my faith with people who obviously were not interested. However, if it came up in conversation or people asked me questions, I would be more than willing to share my faith. I wouldn't hand out literature at the workplace. We have couples in our church who gave up their rich life in America to move to Cambodia, and many people are becoming Christians in Cambodia, as they are very open to the Gospel.

What was that comment about taking the speck out of your own eye? In the same way that a Christian would rightfully resent ill-informed and prejudiced comments being made about their faith, I think a Muslim would too.

I wonder how many of you truly know what TRUE Islam teaches. I will take the word for it of people from Morocco, Lebanon, and Algeria over the folk Islam that many people here think is true Islam...I'm not saying the majority of Muslims are bad or violent, but just that the extremists are actually following true Islam. Fortunately, many Muslims have moderated their stances to fit popular culture.

I will take the word for it of people from Morocco, Lebanon, and Algeria over the folk Islam that many people here think is true Islam

If a Muslim sat in on talk given by a Protestant from Belfast, a Baptist minister form Alabama, and a Mormon from Utah do you honestly think he would know all there was to know about TRUE Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flit [url][/url]
Can you be a Christian if you have never heard of the name of Christ or the words of Christianity?

Barafundle said......I think so, but it would be one heck of a coincidence if you chose to call yourself a Christian :).

Barafundle, I am trying to word something which I feel..... but for now, this is the best I can do.... I don't have a point but am just trying to share a feeling...

There were times within the confines of "Christianity" when I experienced a feeling of Love.

There are also many many times when there is a feeling of Love just when it happens.

I try to remain open to where Love just is and I try not to look just where I think it might be.

I think that Jesus came here as a human embodiment of Love.

I am thinking of the energy of Christ.... is the word Christ simply a name that some may follow or is it more? I think Christ is the energy of Love. I also think that every one of us is more than just our name.

So... to know the energy of Love I would say you do not have to be a Christian or have heard of the name of Christ.

Might it not be sufficient to just know the energy of Love where ever that may manifest itself in our daily living?

I am only just learning to share...
but it gives me hope to think that
we are more than just our name.

Starshower, please don’t leave this thread – I for one feel I understand where you are coming from.

Jesus himself, of course, was not a Christian. Dogmatic Christianity, with a laid-down creed, was born nearly 400 years after he left thie earth for a while (though not in Spirit.)

I totally, utterly LOVE his 2 equal Great Commandments: to love the Divine with all our heart, mind, soul & strength ... and to love others as we love ourselves.

What saddens me Starswhower is that you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater! It’s not Christianity that you are rejecting, but CHURCHianity! (And actually, worse than that, it’s the way men have used the church for political ends in order to gain power and control)

As you say above, Jesus put all those Mosaic commandments into just two simple and beautiful life-guides and he also gave us his sublime Sermon on the Mount, which, to my understanding is the greatest guide as to how to live a life of goodness, love, spirituality and true worship. To find the description of how a true Christian should behave, just read the Sermon on the Mount!

I understand that it was actually around the year 313 when everything changed after Constantine. so that would be slightly less than 200 years after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension. You may find this website helpful – it is dedicated to all Christians who wish to understand what original Christianity was like:

and in particular, this page that shows how war was viewed by some early Christian leaders before AD313War - as viewed b

Here’s something else, this time on that I hope you will read. I find this article by a young woman who had also rejected orthodox Christianity (though for different reasons) absolutely inspiring. To me, it’s about what Christianity should be about – following Jesus’ works as well as his words with our lives. Christianity should be practical and provable. Jesus didn’t come to give us a new religion, but to show us a way of thinking and living that would free us from sin, disease, death and all other suffering and material limitations - in other words, to bring salvation to mankind, but salvation here and now, not, as is now preached, only after death! Jesus said: “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31,32)

[url] Now my heart sings[/url]

Love and peace,

Judy

I try to remain open to where Love just is and I try not to look just where I think it might be.

True Love is internal, Flit. It is safe and will never leave you. And the more you acknowledge and return this Love the stronger you will feel it coming back to you, bringing you peace and harmony.

I think that Jesus came here as a human embodiment of Love.

Yep I agree. An embodiment of Love just like you, me and everyone else.

It matters not, to me, how you or anyone else define themselves through religion or spiritual path etc. Show me your Heart first and foremost. This is far more powerful to me than any scripture you can quote. But I would love you just the same.

Keep shining, honey,:)

RxXx

Cirrus you are so right....

Show me your Heart first and foremost. This is far more powerful to me than any scripture you can quote. But I would love you just the same.

What lovely words!

I wonder how many of you truly know what TRUE Islam teaches. I will take the word for it of people from Morocco, Lebanon, and Algeria over the folk Islam that many people here think is true Islam...I'm not saying the majority of Muslims are bad or violent, but just that the extremists are actually following true Islam. Fortunately, many Muslims have moderated their stances to fit popular culture.

I would think that you would have to be a follower of true Islam yourself to know this. I'm guessing you're not, so your statement can only be speculation based on what you've been told by others.

Have you ever considered that true Islam teaches just as much goodness and kindness as Christianity. It's just that some fundamentalists have twisted the teachings for their own benefit.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

Christianity is the summons of divine Love for man to be Christlike

That's says it all I think. Living up to it is the challenge.

:hug: Well i thought this topic would give lots of replys,

and it certainly has all differ but all make a point .

i was told this morning that when i went to the meeting that i opened a porthole of evil ,so i asked why they should think that , there reply was because you are a spiritualist, how narrow minded can some people be is beyond me,
they said they had to cleanse the house because there was a feeling of abuse there, so i asked how they knew it was a feeling of abuse and they said because i could feel it and séance it , i asked how they could say things like that if they didn't believe in spiritualism, thet said i could tell by my spirit,
so i said we are all spirit, all our bodies are is a form of transport for our spirit ,i think i will stick to saying i am proud to be a spiritualist,and let them get on with it dint you?

take care

Of course there are thousands of Christian Spiritualist in the UK

That's generalizing, I believe. Islamic fundamentalism is far different than Christian fundamentalism. You don't see Christians blowing themselves up and others with homemade bombs, do you? Sending women and children into the street to blow themselves up and others?

American neoCons are Christian fundamentalists, though, as a result of which they've invaded Iraq (one reason) and got up to all kinds of no good in the Middle East, helping to lead to bloodshed, yes.

V

American neoCons are Christian fundamentalists, though, as a result of which they've invaded Iraq (one reason) and got up to all kinds of no good in the Middle East, helping to lead to bloodshed, yes.

V

Much of what you and others on this board ascribe to Christians is really political. It's almost like you assume all political leaders in America are all Christian - nothing could be further from the truth. Saddam killed a million people in his lifetime. He chemically gassed the Kurds in the north. He tried to obtain a nuclear bomb from and Indian scientist. He violated his sanctions from the first Gulf War, when he invaded Kuwait, kicking the inspectors out of his country. He was a dangerous man to the world and needed to be taken out of power. This is a guy that excuted people in front of women and children in soccer stadiums, just so people lived in fear. And keep in mind, at the time, many other countries besides the US thought he had weapons of mass destruction.

You really think the US lost all these lives for oil? Our own country won't even let us drill for oil offshore or in Alaska, even though we know there is oil there. George Bush has given automakers money towards finding alternative energy. What I object to is the idea that America is run by Christian fundamentalists...nothing could be further from the truth. A lot of Muslim people actualy overseas see Hollywood and think that is what most of America is like...again, nothing could be further from the truth...

The subject in part has naturally gone political so we maybe have to follow it there.

We'll have to agree to (partially) disagree, ace. That's OK, as people never always agree.

I really couldn't find the time, sorry, to find references to then quote chapter and verse about the fact that neoCons are Christian fundamentalists. It's so well-known that they are IMHO. But by no means does that mean that all fundamentaists in America are highly-politicised, no! 🙂

Further, it looks like you'll be getting a change (we hope), to a new President who at least, hopefully, won't be governed by neoCons.

He was a dangerous man to the world and needed to be taken out of power.

He certainly committed atrocities as you say.

He was not a danger to the world - to the UK, or to the USA, in any respect at all. That's been fully admitted for years. So it brings us to the question of whether nations can invade others to take out their leaders. (Has it helped in Iraq??!) Who gives one nation the right to invade another? That's an act of war, and mind you, it's very clear now that the invasion was carried out on known-to-be trumped-up reasons.

Where would it end, the invading, on the pretext that one nation doesn't like another leadership? If the UK turned highly Left-wing, would you bomb us? France?

There are atrocities going on, and genocide, right now, in Africa. America's not invading - because there's no mineral wealth in it. I have to say that if it's unclear to you that the USA invaded Iraq purely and only for oil, then you aren't looking at the right informed sources. The oil wealth there is simply gigantic, and who's getting it out of the ground? (The wealth is certainly not being ploughed back into Iraq, BTW.)

By invading Iraq, despite the local atrocities, the USA, with the UK, defied the United Nations - not a good precedent. It's led to disaster in that country, with atrocities just continuing. It's a vacuum for the creation of more anti-Western terrorists.

Bush Senior and the neoCons planned to invade Iraq right after the first Gulf War, from the early 1990s. This is documented. It was always for the oil. But it took them a decade, till 9/11, for the American public to become supportive of the action.

It's a difficult dilemma, I admit, how and when to invade and topple regimes which aren't even a threat to you. We did it in Yugoslavia ... through the UN. I'd just suggest that it becomes a much more dangerous world when the USA just decides that it can invade any nation, becuse someone is "a dangerous man to the world and needed to be taken out of power". Who's next?? Where does it end? And where does rendition end, and Guantanamo, both of which are a vile overturning of freedom, democracy, and human rights?

I'm certainly not against Christianity. But fundy neoCons certainly rule in the White House right now, and practise rendition, and keep even UK citizens locked in Guantanamo without trial - because they think that God's on their side. I think it's a clashing we see of fundamentalism on both sides: of the present American leadership head-to-head with militant Islam, both doing wrong and both with no thought as to human rights. A retreat from fundamentalism is the answer.

V

The subject in part has naturally gone political so we maybe have to follow it there.

We'll have to agree to (partially) disagree, ace. That's OK, as people never always agree.

I really couldn't find the time, sorry, to find references to then quote chapter and verse about the fact that neoCons are Christian fundamentalists. It's so well-known that they are IMHO. But by no means does that mean that all fundamentaists in America are highly-politicised, no! 🙂

Further, it looks like you'll be getting a change (we hope), to a new President who at least, hopefully, won't be governed by neoCons.

He certainly committed atrocities as you say.

He was not a danger to the world - to the UK, or to the USA, in any respect at all. That's been fully admitted for years. So it brings us to the question of whether nations can invade others to take out their leaders. (Has it helped in Iraq??!) Who gives one nation the right to invade another? That's an act of war, and mind you, it's very clear now that the invasion was carried out on known-to-be trumped-up reasons.

Where would it end, the invading, on the pretext that one nation doesn't like another leadership? If the UK turned highly Left-wing, would you bomb us? France?

There are atrocities going on, and genocide, right now, in Africa. America's not invading - because there's no mineral wealth in it. I have to say that if it's unclear to you that the USA invaded Iraq purely and only for oil, then you aren't looking at the right informed sources. The oil wealth there is simply gigantic, and who's getting it out of the ground? (The wealth is certainly not being ploughed back into Iraq, BTW.)

By invading Iraq, despite the local atrocities, the USA, with the UK, defied the United Nations - not a good precedent. It's led to disaster in that country, with atrocities just continuing. It's a vacuum for the creation of more anti-Western terrorists.

Bush Senior and the neoCons planned to invade Iraq right after the first Gulf War, from the early 1990s. This is documented. It was always for the oil. But it took them a decade, till 9/11, for the American public to become supportive of the action.

It's a difficult dilemma, I admit, how and when to invade and topple regimes which aren't even a threat to you. We did it in Yugoslavia ... through the UN. I'd just suggest that it becomes a much more dangerous world when the USA just decides that it can invade any nation, becuse someone is "a dangerous man to the world and needed to be taken out of power". Who's next?? Where does it end? And where does rendition end, and Guantanamo, both of which are a vile overturning of freedom, democracy, and human rights?

I'm certainly not against Christianity. But fundy neoCons certainly rule in the White House right now, and practise rendition, and keep even UK citizens locked in Guantanamo without trial - because they think that God's on their side. I think it's a clashing we see of fundamentalism on both sides: of the present American leadership head-to-head with militant Islam, both doing wrong and both with no thought as to human rights. A retreat from fundamentalism is the answer.

V

The war is against governments that are run by dictators, which are a threat to society as a whole. I know a lot of people have died in Iraq, but it is amazing to me, how people how many people died in Iraq before the United States invaded. We seem to forget that it was Saddam first that invaded Kuwait unprovoked and tried to take over the country. One of the conditions of the first Gulf War coming to a halt was that Saddam let inspectors into the country - which he allowed for awhile and then he kicked the inspectors out. Saddam could have easily stopped this war by just letting the inspectors in. It doesn't concern you in the least that Saddam already used chemcial weapons and tried to obtain a nuclear bomb? To me, Europe, just like before Hitler took over, is doing nothing. I'd love to sing and hold hands and hope everything will be peaceful and OK, but I just think that is simply nieve. Terrorists don't negotiate and they wanted to eradicate the west...many of them Muslim fundamentalists who want to eradicate anything non-Muslim. Think about how many people's lives would have been saved if Hitler had been stopped well before he was. That is why the US doesn't want to depend on the UN when our national security is at stake..

Maybe there are neo-cons in the government, but I believe George Bush, who is a Christian, actually believes he was doing the right thing. He's ridding the world of a very dangerous man, and as President of the United States, national security is the #1 goal. Don't think he doesn't feel bad about US soldiers dying..he's visited many of them in the hospital. He had to know this war would kill his popularity, as no wars are popular wars, for the most part...but he did what he thought was the right thing. The new US president, if it is Obama, will make the world more dangerous by relaxing regulations and giving people more rights, allowing terrorists to seep into the United States more easily..There is no reason I think the US would have invaded only for oil...Keep in mind, Bush has given manufacturers in the US money to look into other alternative forms of energy...

If you've noticed in recent months the number of deaths or both US and Iraqi soldiers has went way down. (of course underrreported by the liberal press) The outcry against the US to an extent has turned more against the extremists inside Iraq. The problem with the press and media is that they rush to judgement. Look at Iraq in 20-25 years, and then tell whether the war was worth it, not now. These are people who lived in fear, who watched their relatives shot, beheaded, women and children used to watching public executions. You can't change that type of mentality overnight. If in 20 years Iraq is unstable and a dictator who is an Islamic extremist is in charge, I will fully admit the US government made a big mistake, especially if the violence is higher then. But I don't think it is fair now.

I think the way the news is presented in Europe can be a little biased against the United States..but that is just my opinion...

The war is against governments that are run by dictators, which are a threat to society as a whole.

IMHO, since both Bush and Kerry, the two last candidates, were both members of the sordid secret society of very few members, Skull and Bones, and given Guantanamo and rendition, the present White House regime can almost be called dictators also. I'm afraid it just doesn't work to say, "We will invade all dictators". I'd guess that half the regimes in the world are run by dictators. You can't invade them all - and then there'd be quasi-dictators, or regimes you simply don't like. That's a never-ending war, sorry.

I know a lot of people have died in Iraq, but it is amazing to me, how people how many people died in Iraq before the United States invaded.

That is not why the invasion happened. I and most people say it was for oil - politicians say it was due to WMDs, the non-existence of which was being covered up as we now know.

People were dying in Iraq, but they are killed by regimes literally every day. Did we intrude into Cambodia during the killing fields? No, as there was no known oil.

This may seem such a far cry from Christianity (sorry, folks), but it still is fundamentalism which often justifies these attitudes, that "invading is good with God on our side".

To me, Europe, just like before Hitler took over, is doing nothing.

LOL, the cheek! :eek::p We were at war with Hitler for two whole years before the USA deemed that they'd enter it too! (You took all our gold reserves in response for keeping us fed and in arms, with the result that the UK was bankrupted and lost its world status.

Terrorists don't negotiate and they wanted to eradicate the west...many of them Muslim fundamentalists who want to eradicate anything non-Muslim.

It's documented that many Christian fundies also want the whole world to share their 'religion'. I'm not being emotional in these posts, ace, but trying to tell it as many believe it to truly be.

Think about how many people's lives would have been saved if Hitler had been stopped well before he was.

It would have been nice to have had your help in that case, from 1939, rather than there having to be Dunkirk and the Battle of [to save] Britain ...

Bush has given manufacturers in the US money to look into other alternative forms of energy...

There's a gigantic investment of US money into the Iraqi oil, and the profits are going to the Western super-rich, not Iraq.

I think the way the news is presented in Europe can be a little biased against the United States..but that is just my opinion...

In some ways I do agree with that, but then at least we have IMHO a more free news media in the first place.

V

Ace88 - remind us again: how many wars did Jesus start or encourage during his time on earth?

How many people did Jesus kill?
(Even among the Roman invaders & occupiers of his land?)

The USA, with all its recent slavery & ongoing oppression, arms-dealing, war-mongering etc is not a "Christian" country in what should be the correct use of the term.

Neither is any other.
Tragically.

"My Kingdom is not of this world" ...

Ace88 - remind us again: how many wars did Jesus start or encourage during his time on earth?

How many people did Jesus kill?
(Even among the Roman invaders & occupiers of his land?)

The USA, with all its recent slavery & ongoing oppression, arms-dealing, war-mongering etc is not a "Christian" country in what should be the correct use of the term.

Neither is any other.
Tragically.

"My Kingdom is not of this world" ...

We will disagree here. Here's why. Because Jesus never said anything about prostitution or drug use either. The whole Bible is divinely inspired by God, His words through human authors carried along by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can't just count Jesus words, but we have to count the words of the Bible as a whole as the inerrant, infallible word of God. Romans 13 below clearly gives the leaders in authority power to punish the doer of evil. When Jesus talks of ethics, he is talking about personal ethics, you and your neighbor, not about state or federal governments. Now, the application of when it is righteous to wage war, perhaps to save lives, is a very hard application to determine, I'll agree with that. When it comes to Europe, I'm not saying all countries stood by and watched while Hitler took over, but some definitely did..

Romans 13

Submit to Government

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Saul of Tarsus was, imho, a deluded, grandiose, personality-disordered fanatic.
Even if I am wrong, he was not - & had never met - Jesus.

Love, Understanding, Justice and Peace are my watchwords.

Not wars & continuations of tribal superstitions & strife, based on some horribly skewed projection of an ancient, tribal 'god'-figure who is partisan, sadistic, irrational & represents the very worst human traits, writ large & used as 'justification' even today for ever more barbarism & mass suffering.

Jesus' life and teachings are, for me, 'the Word of God made flesh'.
Kindness, empathy, healing, understanding, nurture, Goodness, Wisdom ...

Not hatred.

Just Unconditional Love.
Love.
LOVE.

Jesus' life and teachings are, for me, 'the Word of God made flesh'.
Kindness, empathy, healing, understanding, nurture, Goodness, Wisdom ...

Not hatred.

Just Unconditional Love.
Love.
LOVE.

AMEN!!

Good on you Starshower!

Did you read the post 38 I wrote to you? In it is a link to a website dedicated to original Christianity and there's an interesting page which shows how the early Christians regarded war.

Love and peace,

Judy

Will look it up, Judy.
Heartfelt thanks for the support.

Whenever I engage in conversation with 'Christians' I get hit with so much stuff that seems, to my sensitive soul, plain wrong and directly contrary to what He taught & how He lived. (I hesitate to use the term 'evil' & sound equally 'judgemental'. But didn't Jesus forgive? And heal, and enlighten, and inspire Goodness?)

It breaks my heart to see so much horrid, violent, divisive stuff I've listed above on this thread perpetrated under the banner of Jesus, the Christ. To me, it is (im)pure blasphemy.

So thanks again, and to Venetian, for the voices of reason, consideration, kindness, morality & Love.

The whole Bible is divinely inspired by God, His words through human authors carried along by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we can't just count Jesus words, but we have to count the words of the Bible as a whole as the inerrant, infallible word of God.

That's utterly unscholarly, and could be disproved in scores of ways. But it's been done already on HP untold times.

It may be unscholarly - but it is fundamentalism, the irrational bane of religion, and the bane of the original teachings their founders came to give.

V

That's utterly unscholarly, and could be disproved in scores of ways. But it's been done already on HP untold times.

It may be unscholarly - but it is fundamentalism, the irrational bane of religion, and the bane of the original teachings their founders came to give.

V

Unscholarly? That's an elitist point of view, and unfortunately, it represents a lot of what is taught in our unversities here in the US - as well as in Europe. It's kind of just like the theory of evolution. This is a theory that scientists have changed, and changed, and modified, and changed...it breaks a cardinal rule of science in that people who believe in evolution act like it is an absolute fact, when no one was there to observe these events occurring and they aren't still occurring. Why aren't people evolving into something else? When scientists try to challenge evolution they are shunned. There are plenty of reputable scientists and people with a lot of degrees in science who don't believe in evolution, just like there are plenty of meteorologists and people who know a lot about weather that don't believe in global warming, or at least don't believe that man has caused it. Don't get me wrong, I am not against protecting the environment, but some want to go to ridiculous lengths and destroy every economy unnecessarily, in some situations.

The Bible has come out to be proven true when it comes to historical records, archelogical facts, dates and names of kings..etc...If much of the Bible can be proven true, is it such a leap of faith to believe the rest of the Bible is also true?

Will look it up, Judy.
Heartfelt thanks for the support.

Whenever I engage in conversation with 'Christians' I get hit with so much stuff that seems, to my sensitive soul, plain wrong and directly contrary to what He taught & how He lived. (I hesitate to use the term 'evil' & sound equally 'judgemental'. But didn't Jesus forgive? And heal, and enlighten, and inspire Goodness?)

It breaks my heart to see so much horrid, violent, divisive stuff I've listed above on this thread perpetrated under the banner of Jesus, the Christ. To me, it is (im)pure blasphemy.

So thanks again, and to Venetian, for the voices of reason, consideration, kindness, morality & Love.

Jesus certainly loved those in society who were scorned by others. He treated women better than they had been treated before that, the sick, the diseased, etc..However, you fail to mention that he told the prostitute to "Go and sin no more." He didn't approve of her actions though he loved her. He also kicked the people out of the temple who made the house of God into a shopping mall...He was righteously angry. In John 7:24, Jesus says "Do not judge by outward appearance, but judge righteous judgement." So at the very least, Christians are to judge each other in some sense. And Jesus obviously considered some things sin and that those things were wrong. And he said, "It is what comes out of a person that defiles. <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="21">21For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="22">22adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="23">23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Some of you had said Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but he definitely reinforced the heterosexual version of marriage in Matthew 19.

"3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Unscholarly? That's an elitist point of view,

It's education, and a study of the facts.

It's kind of just like the theory of evolution.

Have I just had a light-bulb moment? :rolleyes: Do correct me if I'm wrong, please, but are you the person previously on HP who believed that the Earth (and universe?) all began about 5,000 years ago? :p:p Wasn't it you who once admitted to that?

If so, I rest my case.

V

Jesus was the purest Love
embodied.

For us being human is different to how it is when we are back in the body of Spirit.

The Christ energy... how different is it to the human being of Jesus?

Jesus showed us how to access the energy of Christ through our own unique relationship with the source of creation...... Love.

When the lady touched the cloak of Jesus,
the energy of Love ( healing ) flowed for her.
It wasn't Jesus doing the healing for he only knew of the feeling of it as it happened.

I reckon that she knew that Jesus was a signpost to the Love of our creation.

She touched... and was healed.

So is the sigpost Jesus or ourselves?

Love for us all within the signposts of our being....

It's kind of just like the theory of evolution. This is a theory that scientists have changed, and changed, and modified, and changed...it breaks a cardinal rule of science in that people who believe in evolution act like it is an absolute fact, when no one was there to observe these events occurring and they aren't still occurring. Why aren't people evolving into something else?

Do you have evidence to show that people are not evolving? You seem to state it so much as if you have that on very good authority or with good evidence?
Written records of things are only truly existent for perhaps a few hundred years for comparison purposes, yet there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that evolution has taken place over the millions of years that evolutionary theories talk about.
Even then, just in the past few hundred years, there is evidence of simple things such as the average height of humans. This has been shown to be increasing. We can see this from old skeletons, clothes, buildings etc. from several hundred years ago and how different we are nowadays. It is known that it would have been extraordinary in olden days for a person to be over 6ft tall, but nowadays it is common place. This is evolution happening and it can't be denied.

When scientists try to challenge evolution they are shunned. There are plenty of reputable scientists and people with a lot of degrees in science who don't believe in evolution just like there are plenty of meteorologists and people who know a lot about weather that don't believe in global warming, or at least don't believe that man has caused it.

Ah, so they believe in global warming but they don't know the cause. So by that token, evolution can exist even if we can't see the cause/evidence? Meteorology and global warming is not a good example to use as there are so many factors involved, including geological, astronomical, human created etc. that it is not suprising it is hard to pinpoint the cause. Evolution of mankind on the other hand is perhaps a little less effected by some of the more complex things and the causes of change are more evident in certain fields than others.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against protecting the environment, but some want to go to ridiculous lengths and destroy every economy unnecessarily, in some situations.

Yeah, you're right, we should be happy that the USA be one of the most polluting countries on the planet. :confused: Sorry, but I think everyone on the planet has as much responsibility to prevent pollution whether it's for the believed purpose of preventing global warming or just to allow things to get recycled and prevent us making a mess of the land we live in.

The Bible has come out to be proven true when it comes to historical records, archelogical facts, dates and names of kings..etc...If much of the Bible can be proven true, is it such a leap of faith to believe the rest of the Bible is also true?

But surely there's a difference between the hard facts and the purpose of the teachings it is getting across. You can prove that a certain king existed, but you can't prove that a concept of belief from so many years ago relates to the same named concept of belief in the present day, especially when the bible has gone through so many translations of language and re-writes. If the bible is so accurate and true, then why are there so many versions of it in publication, why not just the one true writing? What's to say the copy of the bible you refer to yourself is more true than the copy I refer to which uses slightly different wording? If the words are different, the interpretation can be different, especially when we cross language and societal boundaries. IMHO, the teachings are there to allow us to understand the wisom behind what is being said, not to take it literally word for word as a law, just as one person has written and interpreted them. Common sense has to be a part of it.

All Love and Reiki Hugs

It's education, and a study of the facts.

Have I just had a light-bulb moment? :rolleyes: Do correct me if I'm wrong, please, but are you the person previously on HP who believed that the Earth (and universe?) all began about 5,000 years ago? :p:p Wasn't it you who once admitted to that?

If so, I rest my case.

V

What I said was that I am leaning towards a younger age of the earth, but to me, what matters more is that God created the earth and was behind it - that it didn't just randomly happen from some big explosion. I am undecided on the age of the earth. The problem I have with evolutionists is that you often refer to a theory as if it is a fact. Evolution is based on a lot of assumptions that scientists make, some regarding dating methods, etc..without those assumptions, you don't come up with the evidence that universities refer to as fact. The same evidence can be looked it as a way to support creationism or evolution, depending on the differents assumptions made at the beginning. I think science makes a lot of assumptions that aren't fact, but treats them as they are. It really boggles my mind how evolution supporting people don't at least see some of the problems with their own theories...how many of these so called "missing links" between apes and humans turned out to be hoaxes designed to make money? One turned out to be an extinct pig's tooth, and from that, an entirely fictitious missing link was created. Another scientist doctored up a fossil and claimed it was real just to make money by getting his name in a magazine..