Let's say there is no Christ (part two)

Originally posted by apathist
You are fond of lip service, but also you refuse to engage. I know why that is.

You're a good man, Bobby, except when you try to advocate your religious views. Your God is so weak he needs pissants to spread His Word, right?

Criticize a fellow pilgrim, fine.
Speak that way about Him,

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Criticize a fellow pilgrim, fine.
Speak that way about Him,

I'm okay with Jesus. He won't torture me for thinking. Why aren't you okay with him?

Originally posted by apathist

I'm okay with Jesus. He won't torture me for thinking. Why aren't you okay with him?

30 Dec '12 08:52
"You are fond of lip service, but also you refuse to engage. I know why that is. You're a good man, Bobby, except when you try to advocate your religious views. Your God is so weak he needs pissants to spread His Word, right?" (apathist)
-

And your reply is what now?

I'm sorry I offend you. But your world-view is so weak even you cannot defend it. Open your eyes, dear Bobby.

Originally posted by apathist

And your reply is what now?

Apparently, you lack both frame of reference and the will

to build one. Consequently, this conversation is ended.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Gratuitous, ThinkoOne. Gratuitous.

What are you possibly thinking?
-

Apathist was trying to get away with something. I called him on it. He acknowledged it. His post was a cut and paste quite possibly from the following. It was pretty evident given what he'd previously written on this thread.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/toughquestions/tq2/tq2d_detailanswer.htm

BTW, I don't know why you'd think apathist has read 'Mere Christianity'.

Originally posted by apathist
My bad. You win a point!

One can only hope that he also learn how to distinguish between a good source and a poor one.

I cited the Bible. Apparently you find that to be a poor source.

I cited the Bible. Apparently you find that to be a poor source.

YOU cited the Bible? We both know that it was a cut and paste job - from a poor source.

Originally posted by apathist
Let's be clear. We both like the sweet Jesus. I'm on record there. But neither of us likes the Bible. Have I over-stepped?

You asked the following:
"Jesus, have you not heard of the trinity."

The following from an earlier post of mine speaks to that:
"You seem to be having difficulty with extricating the teachings of Jesus from the mythology built around Jesus, i.e., Christianity."

Originally posted by apathist

No, Jesus is not God, nor did Jesus claim to be.

Jesus is not our Lord and Savior?

I know you like to play simple games. That is all your camp has.

Jesus taught "salvation throught righteousness" rather than the "salvation by grace" which Christianity has adopted by and large. From what I can tell, "salvation by grace" is based upon the teachings of Paul. What Jesus taught while He walked the Earth was antithetical to that.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Apathist was trying to get away with something. I called him on it. He acknowledged it. His post was a cut and paste quite possibly from the following. It was pretty evident given what he'd previously written on this thread.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/toughquestions/tq2/tq2d_detailanswer.htm

BTW, I don't know why you'd think apathist has read 'Mere Christianity'.

"Even in His parables," says Norman Geisler, "Jesus claimed functions reserved only for Yahweh in the Old Testament, such as being Shepherd (Luke 15), Rock (Matthew 7:24-27), and Sower (Matthew 13:24-30)." 31/14

"C. S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity, puts all these claims in the right perspective when he reminds his readers that Jesus was a Jew among Jews:

"Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips."
-

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Even in His parables," says Norman Geisler, "Jesus claimed functions reserved only for Yahweh in the Old Testament, such as being Shepherd (Luke 15), Rock (Matthew 7:24-27), and Sower (Matthew 13:24-30)." 31/14

[b]"C. S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity, puts all these claims in the right perspective when he reminds his readers that Jesus w ...[text shortened]... was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips."
-[/b]

Not sure what isn't sinking in about the following:

His post was a cut and paste quite possibly from the following. It was pretty evident given what he'd previously written on this thread.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/toughquestions/tq2/tq2d_detailanswer.htm

That includes the text you just posted.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Even in His parables," says Norman Geisler, "Jesus claimed functions reserved only for Yahweh in the Old Testament, such as being Shepherd (Luke 15), Rock (Matthew 7:24-27), and Sower (Matthew 13:24-30)." 31/14

[b]"C. S. Lewis, in his book Mere Christianity, puts all these claims in the right perspective when he reminds his readers that Jesus w ...[text shortened]... was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips."
-[/b]

"But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God."

(cited from CS Lewis)

CS Lewis gives a Christian perspective, in which things are to be explained with the belief that Christ is divine (and we aren't). IOW he assumes what we are asked to assume in this particular thread.

But CS Lewis could be wrong. Jesus could have meant a pantheistic sort of God. If Jesus had absorbed some Eastern thinking, say, in his 3 missing years, he could have been aiming to introduce Eastern concepts. After all he said other things like the kingdom of God is within you, which of course can be interpreted in Christian ways too. He would still be judged heretical, but he himself could have meant the pantheist, we-are-one-with-God sort of thing.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Not sure what isn't sinking in about the following:

His post was a cut and paste quite possibly from the following. It was pretty evident given what he'd previously written on this thread.
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/toughquestions/tq2/tq2d_detailanswer.htm

That includes the text you just posted.

"BTW, I don't know why you'd think apathist has read 'Mere Christianity'."

You questioned 'why'; I provided (from) 'where'. That's all.
-

My problem with religions, esp. Abrahamic religions. So the religious set claims their god came down around 3000 years ago and made the rules, making them for, what, 1/10th of one percent of mankind. So 99% of all humans never heard of this god. What is wrong with that picture? An obscure tribe in Israel gets this word and we are supposed to believe this god is all present, omniscient and so forth. All that tells me is it is made up by men since a real omniscient god would have zero trouble telling its story to the entire human race at the same time.

And the flood myth, same thing. There were supposedly bad guys that ticked off this god. So instead of disciplining the bad guys, it kills off ALL of them but a chosen few on the supposed ark. But in the meantime, killing almost all the land animals on Earth, just to get back at some supposed bad guys.

How can anyone with half a mind believe any of that?

An omniscient god killing all the land animals to get back at nasty humans? Come on, if you believe that, I have a great bridge for sale in Brooklyn.