09 Jun 11
Originally posted by lauseyEven if all the goings-on in the bible were true, I don't think I'd want to spend all eternity with a god who is such a dick.
If I agreed that there will be a possibility that I would get the opportunity to live everlasting in bliss, then I will be all for it. I will then work damn hard to achieve this.
Pascal's Wager does not cut it for me though.
EDIT: Although I wasn't arguing that Rajk999 is a cop out because of which is the easier path to take, he is a cop out because he ...[text shortened]... is right. By then it will be too late to argue my point. It is an easy way to end the debate.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneBack up a bit. You asked :
[b]I dont understand what difference it makes before or after his death.
I was clarifying what I meant.
It refers to baptism by water. Baptism is a rebirth in water. Its what baptism means.
Maybe you missed the quote from Mark 1, but John the Baptist states that Jesus was to baptize by the Holy Spirit - not by water. So clearly John t ...[text shortened]... wer to your last question - literally[/b]
Where did Jesus state that He meant it literally?[/b]
What leads you to believe that Jesus taught that one must be baptized?
Then I quoted Mark 16:16 ..He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Those are the words of Christ, and they are clear enough for me. Lets leave it like that.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by Rajk999And once again, in Mark 1:8 John the Baptist said that Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Spirit - not water. Why would you take Mark 16:16 to mean water when clearly Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Spirit?
Back up a bit. You asked :
What leads you to believe that Jesus taught that one must be baptized?
Then I quoted Mark 16:16 ..He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Those are the words of Christ, and they are clear enough for me. Lets leave it like that.
This wouldn't be the first time that I've seen a Christian afraid to place his beliefs under the light of truth.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJesus is not baptising anyone in Mark 16:16. He is commanding his followers to believe and be baptised.
And once again, in Mark 1:8 John the Baptist said that Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Spirit - not water. Why would you take Mark 16:16 to mean water when clearly Jesus was to baptize with the Holy Spirit?
This wouldn't be the first time that I've seen a Christian afraid to place his beliefs under the light of truth.
I already told you that John the Baptist was referring to Jesus giving the power of the holy spirit to the 70 disciples who he sent out to preach. They were baptised with the holy spirit and thereafer had the power of the holy spirit.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by SoothfastSo you were wrong to state that Eastern religions were superior to Christianity in that regard then?
No examples. It's just my opinion and I don't have examples on hand. Some of the Eastern religions, like Buddhism or Confucianism, are less religion and more philosophy compared with Western religions. Still, I'm no follower of any of 'em.
09 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Mark 1
Jesus is not baptising anyone in Mark 16:16. He is commanding his followers to believe and be baptised.
I already told you that John the Baptist was referring to Jesus giving the power of the holy spirit to the 70 disciples who he sent out to preach. They were baptised with the holy spirit and thereafer had the power of the holy spirit.
5And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. 6John was clothed with camel’s hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey. 7And he was preaching, and saying, “After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. 8“I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
So when John the Baptist was baptizing these people from Judea and telling THEM that Jesus would baptize THEM with the Holy Spirit - he was really referring to a future time where "Jesus [would give] the power of the power of the Holy Spirit to the 70 disciples" and didn't really mean THEM?
Please explain exactly how you derived that. How were these people from Judea supposed to understand that?
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by Rajk999Eh? The possibility of being wrong about something always exists; however, I do think Eastern religions, in general, tend to be closer to "what it's all about" than Christianity. An opinion, of course.
So you were wrong to state that Eastern religions were superior to Christianity in that regard then?
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you think everything in the bible projected to have come from Jesus actually came from Jesus? There is evidence some of the books of the bible added stuff never said by the man.
You do not understand Christianity if you think we must believe
anything a priest or pastor says about Christianity. We believe in
the truth from God, especially from the words of Jesus, the Christ
and the Son of God. We are still learning because God the Father
has sent the Holy Spirit to teach us more and guide us unto all
truth. So what we believe as young Christians can change as we
learn new truths from the Holy Spirit.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseI suspect this man does not like some of the things Jesus said
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/never357928.shtml
Take a read of this.
and is disputing these sayings with speculations and no proof.
Claiming to be doing some type of analysis, he claims to be
near fool proof. But he is the fool claiming to be wise in his
own eyes.
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by Soothfastwhether you think they cut it or not is neither here nor there, mere unsubstantiated opinion. You have uttered a gross inaccuracy and it has been proven to be false, you have FAILED to answer how a person could engage their powers of discernment and not have recourse to reason, after all, the very act of discerning involves the mind and reason, you have FAILED to state how wisdom (the application of knowledge) may be employed without engaging the faculty of reason, you have FAILED in your meagre and pitiful attempts to discredit the sacred text, all in all, its a rather pathetic attempt and deviod of substance other than youre uninformed and ignorant opinion, as the cited scriptures clearly indicate. Me thinketh your text stinketh! Opps i am not supposed to think, sorry for that, i was forgetting myself there.
No! Those don't cut it, and people are always trotting those out! It's all: "The Lord will tell you what to think," along with enumerations of rules and commandments you are to employ to determine right from wrong. That is, it's all still placed within the rigid framework of a body of dogma that is to be swallowed without critical thought. Eastern rel ...[text shortened]... hers or fear of punishment from the Father, blessed be he in the eyes of the Lord."
09 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have a book here for you Rob, would you like to apply your powers of reason on this text?!
whether you think they cut it or not is neither here nor there, mere unsubstantiated opinion. You have uttered a gross inaccuracy and it has been proven to be false, you have FAILED to answer how a person could engage their powers of discernment and not have recourse to reason, after all, the very act of discerning involves the mind and reason, you h ...[text shortened]... r text stinketh! Opps i am not supposed to think, sorry for that, i was forgetting myself there.
Now are you going to 'walk the walk' or are you just 'talking the talk'?