This is a typical post written by old timer here Rajk999.

There is One God, and One mediator, Jesus Christ. God so loved the world [not Jews or Christians only], that he gave his Son Jesus to die so that .. by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18 KJV) [all men - regardless of religion], so that whosoever believeth on Him [with their heart] as evidenced by good works clearly identified by Jesus, For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. (Matthew 25:35-36 KJV), will have everlasting life.

@sonship said
This is a typical post written by old timer here Rajk999.
[quote]There is One God, and One mediator, Jesus Christ. God so loved the world [not Jews or Christians only], that he gave his Son Jesus to die so that .. by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5:18 KJV) [all men - regardless of religion], so that whosoever be ...[text shortened]... , BigDogg, FMF, to name a few.

I do not argue as much with Rajk999 because . . . . .

@sonship

I do not argue as much with Rajk999 because . . . . .

he's more sensible than some of the other posters here. This does not mean that I agree with everything he posts.

@sonship said

It appears to me for years now that far less strigent opposition from atheists here is mounted towards his theological views then for some others, including myself.

when one discards desire
right and wrong cease to exist

I don't argue with Rajk999 very much because he - for the most part and insofar as I understand it - seems to have a pretty clear understanding of the message which I think Jesus was trying to get across. He doesn't seem to worship a creed or a book. Having said that, I recall having a rather intemperate exchange with him in the past. If memory serves this was more to do with his abrasive manner than any fundamental disagreement, but I'd be prepared to accept that I may be mistaken. I believe we ended the discussion without excessive rancour, which is more than I can say for some disagreements I've had with avowed christians here.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Then you haven't been paying attention. All of you, including Rajk, are squabbling over the precise nature of a God entirely of human construction. The one thing I do like (in an entirely non-religious context) are the teachings attributed to Jesus. If my criticizing posts here are weighted more heavily towards yourself it's because Rajk focuses on these teachings while you endeavor to twist them to harbor the notion that man will be deified.

@avalanchethecat said
I don't argue with Rajk999 very much because he - for the most part and insofar as I understand it - seems to have a pretty clear understanding of the message which I think Jesus was trying to get across. He doesn't seem to worship a creed or a book. Having said that, I recall having a rather intemperate exchange with him in the past. If memory serves this was more to ...[text shortened]... e rancour, which is more than I can say for some disagreements I've had with avowed christians here.

Way back when, Rajk999 made it crystal clear to me that he's not here to discuss atheism or theism with atheists. Fair enough. He's stuck to that, and I respect him for that choice and for his constancy.

There are only a few posters here I'd quite like to have a beer and bite to eat with one day, and Rajk999 is one of them.

I've always thought his theology - though I don't subscribe to it - is clear and tenaciously argued.

It's been fascinating, down through the years, to see the number of informal fallacies his fellow followers of Jesus, a motley lot for sure, have resorted to and brandished in their efforts to assail his cogent and brusquely delivered interpretations.

@fmf said
Way back when, Rajk999 made it crystal clear to me that he's not here to discuss atheism or theism with atheists. Fair enough. He's stuck to that, and I respect him for that choice and for his constancy.

There are only a few posters here I'd quite like to have a beer and bite to eat with one day, and Rajk999 is one of them.

I've always thought his theology - though I don' ...[text shortened]... ted to and brandished in their efforts to assail his cogent and brusquely delivered interpretations.

@pb1022 said
When one’s theology is largely confined to 3 chapters of an 1,189-chapter book and one ignores huge swathes of the Holy Bible and are reduced to saying only what Jesus Christ said to crowds of people matters, it’s not hard to claim that person’s theology is “clear.”

rajk999 is still in the Old Testament and under the old covenant - only with no animal sacrifices to take away sins and ramped-up definitions of what constitutes a sin.

@fmf said
You whinging to me about your theological disputes with Rajk999 is you simply wasting your breath.

@pb1022 said
When one’s theology is largely confined to 3 chapters of an 1,189-chapter book and one ignores huge swathes of the Holy Bible and are reduced to saying only what Jesus Christ said to crowds of people matters, it’s not hard to claim that person’s theology is “clear.”

rajk999 is still in the Old Testament and under the old covenant - only with no animal sacrifices to take away sins and ramped-up definitions of what constitutes a sin.

@PB1022
Thankyou.
Particularly atheists and Christ deniers go hand and hand.

I'll see what they say themselves.

@moonbus

@sonship

I do not argue as much with Rajk999 because . . . . .

he's more sensible than some of the other posters here. This does not mean that I agree with everything he posts.