What did Jesus look like???

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Great point; I believe in a self-deprecating, comic G-d that can laugh at himself. He/She's much more likeable that way.

And would also better fit the idea that "God created Man in his own image". Since we hava a well developed sense of humour, it would make sense for God to have one too.
Also since God is omniscient he would have no problem telling a good joke from a disrespectful one, based on the intent behind the joke itself, as it cannot be kept hidden from Him (the intent as well as the joke).
Pajarito seems to claim this capability for himself when he classifies the joke as "blasphemy" and warns the poster that he "will have to answer to God someday".
I think this is the real blasphemy, unfortunately it seems to be quite widespread, an not just in Christian circles.

Cheers,

Vale

[champu 1]

Quote

Just saying it happened doesn't mean anything.

I'd be careful employing arguments like this, particularly around here. It may help put to rest attacks on what you believe, but the statement stands at odds with the ground rules you lay down before you study so much as word one of the Bible.

Quote

It's up to God to save you...or not. I'm just telling you what scripture says concerning your destiny.

Do you find it easy or difficult to relate to skeptics?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Pajarito, which day of the week do you choose to observe the sabbath? If it's Sunday, I challenge you to give me a biblical citation that mandates changing the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

Can't do that? Looks like you've been breaking the eighth commandment for some time now. How do you think G-d will judge you on that one?

***Why do we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday?

In the Old Testament, God stated, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you," (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9, John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4; ). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday?

First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were reinstituted by in the New Testament: (six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8).

In creation God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed.

The Old Testament system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.).

But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law. We are not under Law, but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. He is our rest. We are not under obligation, by Law, to keep it and this goes for the Sabbath as well. It is not a requirement that we keep the Sabbath. If it were, then we would still be under the Law. But, we are not.

Evidence of the Change of Days can be Seen in the NT

Within the New Testament is ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement.

Rom. 14:5-6, "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study. Nevertheless, the instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were a requirement, then the choice would not be mans’, but God’s.

Col. 2:16-17, "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ."

Notice here that time sequence mentioned. A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge in regard to this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow, the reality is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath.

Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight."

The first day of the week is Sunday and this is the day the people gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching). Additionally, Luke did not use the Jewish system of counting days: sundown to sundown. He used the Roman system: midnight to midnight. This is a subtle point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not the one utilized by Luke.

1 Cor. 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come."

Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide.

Rev. 1:10-11, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea."

The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of heµ kyriakeµ heµmera. The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such it certainly appears early in the 2nd century (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67).

In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate Sunday, the same as it was in the second century.

I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, we no one should judge us in regard to the day we keep. We are free in Christ, not under law (Rom. 6:14).

[br0k3n 0]

Paj,

What would it take for you to question your beliefs, or to question the validity of the scriptures????

-----------------------------------------------------------
--+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+

[DSE 3]

Quote

Paj,

What would it take for you to question your beliefs, or to question the validity of the scriptures????

An act of god. or hard-core archeological evidence that Jesus was really just the pre-incarnation of Jim Morrison. I know a Buddhist that swears he met Jim Morrison through Jesus. Or maybe I'm mixing "Wayne's World" with religion.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Pajarito spends a lot of time trying to seriously answer questions and cheap shots at his beliefs and all you guys do is whip yourselves up into a self-righteous frenzy. I have never seen Pajarito condemn or attack anyone here for what they think, only to say that in HIS belief that those people will be judged.

Pajarito doesn't spend any time answering peoples questions. He runs to WOTM or AiG and C&P's their answers.

And I'm sorry, but yes he does condemn people, saying that we will all burn in hell because we are evil is something that is generally considered to be rather rude.

It's certainly no better than me articulating my belief that his beliefs are stupid.

Quote

Is it maybe some kind of underlying feeling in you all that he MAY be right that worries you so you react with venom?

No.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Trent 0]

Quote

Pajarito doesn't spend any time answering peoples questions. He runs to WOTM or AiG and C&P's their answers.

If his answers would be the same, why write it twice? Maybe he feels he can't put it more articulately than someone already has? Why don't you ask him? It seems to me that he TRIES to answer almost every question that he's asked.

Quote

And I'm sorry, but yes he does condemn people, saying that we will all burn in hell because we are evil is something that is generally considered to be rather rude.

Where? Besides saying that we're all sinners and will all be judged (including himself), how does he condemn people? Where does he say that everyone but people who believe like him will burn in hell? Maybe a better question is, why do you feel condemned?

Quote

It's certainly no better than me articulating my belief that his beliefs are stupid.

It is 100% better than you saying his beliefs are stupid. Your argument would be childish, unsubstantiated, and petty. His explanations are an attempt to address an issue, whereas your "stupid" comment would be something to get someone angry... and it doesn't seem to anger him.

And if it doesn't bother you that he MAY be right, what is it exactly about this one guy's opinion that bothers you so much. He doesn't force you to read his posts. He seems to just address questions and topics that have to do with his beliefs, and the myriad misconceptions about Christianity.

If you don't believe in it, then what do you care what he thinks about what happens to us when we die?

Oh, hello again!

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Paj,

What would it take for you to question your beliefs, or to question the validity of the scriptures????

Belief is just the first step which leads one into experience. I "know" God exists and that His Word is true. It has impacted my life in a big way and I can see the change. I am solid in my belief. Nothing will ever change that. Also, there is no other book in antiquity with as much evidence to account for reliability.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Pajarito doesn't spend any time answering peoples questions. He runs to WOTM or AiG and C&P's their answers.

I honestly try and do both. I answer questions but I also reference sources. Some of these topics are very challenging. There are some very smart people who have already addressed most of the issues. I couldn't say it any better than they already did. Which brings up a point. Most of these petty attacks are old and played out. Atheists really need some new material.

Quote

And I'm sorry, but yes he does condemn people, saying that we will all burn in hell because we are evil is something that is generally considered to be rather rude.

If you brutally murdered someone with intent, the penalty will most likely either be life imprisonment or capital punishment. Am I condemning you by warning you of the crime and its punishment? Would I be rude in telling you so or would I be doing you a favor (if for some reason you didn't already know).

Quote

It's certainly no better than me articulating my belief that his beliefs are stupid.

It's the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

If his answers would be the same, why write it twice?

If he was clear about the issues inside his own head why would he limit himself to parroting two cultish organisations who aren't exactly of the mainstream? A few weeks ago I pulled Paj up on a technical point in an AiG article (which the entire argument hinged upon) that even doped up monkey wouldn't have allowed through the proof reading process if they were honest. Pajarito had swallowed the article without a second thought.

Quote

Where does he say that everyone but people who believe like him will burn in hell?

Where doesn't he?

Quote

And if it doesn't bother you that he MAY be right, what is it exactly about this one guy's opinion that bothers you so much.

They defy all normal logic. They require the reader to twist and turn his perspective until he doesn't know which way he's facing. To take them at face value one often needs to hold at least two mutially contradictory viewpoints at the same time. They are the epitome of doublethink.

And lets not forget, when they touch upon issues of hard science, they are always incorrect - why should they be any better for matters of faith?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

I responded to your question. I actually went through the trouble of e-mailing AiG and the author of the book for clarification. I posted their respose.

[Trent 0]

Quote

...that even doped up monkey wouldn't have allowed through the proof reading process if they were honest. Pajarito had swallowed the article without a second thought.

I guess he addressed that in his reply. Yet another reasonable, honest reply to someone who attacks his beliefs. How mature of him. Strange to find that here, huh?

Quote

Where doesn't he?

Total cop-out and completely untrue. Why don't you just say that you're building straw-men around Pajarito's posts?

Quote

They defy all normal logic. They require the reader to twist and turn his perspective until he doesn't know which way he's facing. To take them at face value one often needs to hold at least two mutially contradictory viewpoints at the same time. They are the epitome of doublethink.

This is typical for someone who hasn't bothered to understand, won't bother to listen, or enjoys perpetuating ignorance of people's beliefs because it makes them feel smart to look down on someone with faith. Just because you may have gotten confused by the bible, doesn't mean everyone does.

Oh, hello again!

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

I responded to your question. I actually went through the trouble of e-mailing AiG and the author of the book for clarification. I posted their respose.

I must have missed that, I've been away skydiving for a week and a half. I saw where you said you'd contacted them, but not their response - could you point me to it?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,265]

Your entire reply simply demonstrates your bias.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I responded to your question. I actually went through the trouble of e-mailing AiG and the author of the book for clarification. I posted their respose.

I must have missed that, I've been away skydiving for a week and a half. I saw where you said you'd contacted them, but not their response - could you point me to it?

Here's the page

[champu 1]

I generally join discussions in speakers corner to provoke the use of more sound arguments, sometimes from people I agree with, sometimes from people I disagree with. Occasionally this necessitates being blunt.

Religion is a topic of particular interest to me, because the more I discuss it, and the more people I discuss it with, the better understanding I develop of why people tend to believe the things they do. Sharpening and refining my explanation of why religious indoctrination works as well as it does is a hobby of mine, much as finding a particular verse from whatever scripture is applicable to respond to a given question asked of your religion passes the time for others. To each their own, I suppose, and I'll leave it to the outside reader to decide which of us is actually learning anything.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Your entire reply simply demonstrates your bias.

Good one. So because I say that I think that people are being disrespectful to Pajarito when I see him as trying to provide honest answers... I'm biased. Even thought I'm not what you would consider a "good Christian"? Wow. Please, go on with your totally objective explanations of why someone's beliefs are "stupid".

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Quote

To each their own, I suppose, and I'll leave it to the outside reader to decide which of us is actually learning anything.

So I can learn more about religion by giving as much weight to people who insult, antagonize, and ridicule someone's religion while he makes a very honest attempt (IMO) to explain it?

If people disagreed respectfully and rationally, it'd be different. I interjected because I thought many of the responses were far from that.

Oh, hello again!

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

To each their own, I suppose, and I'll leave it to the outside reader to decide which of us is actually learning anything.

So I can learn more about religion by giving as much weight to people who insult, antagonize, and ridicule someone's religion while he makes a very honest attempt (IMO) to explain it?

If people disagreed respectfully and rationally, it'd be different. I interjected because I thought many of the responses were far from that.

Backing up a bit, my response was to your question about why I might continue to discuss religion with someone who disagreed with me, even though they weren't "forcing me to read their posts." I said my interest was more in the reasons for believing, and less about the beliefs themselves. And if I'm ever antagonistic, it's towards flawed logical constructs used to promote beliefs, again, not towards the beliefs themselves.

As for my, "who's learning anything" comment, I've made dozens of posts in religious threads that have presented sociological theories that took me a while to come to and that I considered thought provoking. Often they end in a question that either gets ignored or responded to with a quote from a Bible that does nothing but take the discussion back into a circle.

I guess people just want me to go away.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Please, go on with your totally objective explanations of why someone's beliefs are "stupid".

Objecting to a belief being called stupid doesn't mean that it's not. Any other stupid belief would be ripe for ridicule but religion must be respected? Why? Why should I respect a stupid belief just because someone calls it a religion?

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Good one. So because I say that I think that people are being disrespectful to Pajarito when I see him as trying to provide honest answers... I'm biased.

No, not because of that.

Quote

Even thought I'm not what you would consider a "good Christian"?

What I would consider a good christian? What on earth are you talking about?

Quote

Please, go on with your totally objective explanations of why someone's beliefs are "stupid".

Please continue telling me that I'm confused and ignorant. I'm sure it makes you feel very big.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[bexren76 0]

I know. I have been reincarnated more times than I care to remember. Jesus looked like a hippie (you guys thought that was a relatively recent concept, but no) - you know, long shapeless robe thing, brown sandals, dodgy barnet and beard, whole outfit screaming "Trinny and Susannah please save me!" Pretty ironic since he was the saviour.........but not apparently of fashion or grooming.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Objecting to a belief being called stupid doesn't mean that it's not. Any other stupid belief would be ripe for ridicule but religion must be respected? Why? Why should I respect a stupid belief just because someone calls it a religion?

Thinking a belief is stupid is one thing. Having the decency and class to avoid ridiculing someone to make yourself feel superior is another. You CAN do both.

I don't care if you call any religion stupid. My issue here is with how people treat one person who makes an effort to explain himself decently. But this point seems to be going WAY too far over the heads of everyone.

Oh, hello again!

[Trent 0]

Oh, I get it... I'm biased because I don't think like you, but even though you've obviously taken a position... you're totally objective. I see. This is typical.

Quote

What I would consider a good christian? What on earth are you talking about?

If I were to replace "you" with "one", would that make it clearer? You assume that I'm biased because you think I'm religious? You don't know what I believe. Objecting to people being assholes to someone who seems to be a genuine and honest guy does not make me biased. In case you're wondering, that was an extention of me asking why I'm biased.

Quote

Please continue telling me that I'm confused and ignorant. I'm sure it makes you feel very big.

Hahahaha, priceless. Being confused or ignorant of something is NOT an insult. Biochemistry confused me, so I defer to those who have spent a LOT of time studying it. I'm ignorant of the indigenous beliefs of Aborigines in Australia, so I'm not gonna go and try to convince them that THEY'RE stupid.

Yeah, I'm the bully here. I post to say I object to people's snotty attitude towards Pajarito, and I'm the asshole? What's next?

Oh, hello again!

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Oh, I get it... I'm biased because I don't think like you, but even though you've obviously taken a position... you're totally objective. I see. This is typical.

I never tried to pretend I was objective.

Quote

If I were to replace "you" with "one", would that make it clearer?

No. Whether you're a 'good' or 'bad' christian has nothing to do with anything. I don't even know what those terms are supposed to mean.

Quote

Hahahaha, priceless. Being confused or ignorant of something is NOT an insult.

Try telling that to Billvon

Do you want to have an ideagasm?