The C.C.O.I. (Christian Cult Of Ignorance) and Willful Ignorance

And that is a key place where I disagree with you. I believe that what motivates folk is totally irrelevant.Nor do I say that if I were born in Saudi Arabia I would hold the same beliefs. I say that if I were born and raised in a different culture I would likely be whatever religious affiliation I was raised in.I said that I cannot think of any significant beliefs I hold that could not be held by those of other or even no beliefs.I do not think that may personal beliefs about Jesus or God are significant or important since as long as we are alive we can never determine if those beliefs are correct. If I was raised as a Jew or a Muslim or Buddhist or Taoist or Hindu then naturally I would likely not hold my current beliefs related to God or Jesus. But as long as we are alive is that important?Are there any beliefs about how we should live this life that could not be held by someone from any other belief or even no belief?Now as you know, after the offering we point out the "of your own have we offered you". It is an acknowledgement that what we have is actually Gods and we are simply stewards.Is that not something that could be held by anyone?

How is that a uniquely Christian position?Can a Jew not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?Can a Muslim not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?Can a Hindu not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?Can a Buddhist not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?Can an atheist not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?Can a (fill in the blank) not feed the hungry out of simple love and compassion for others?

Stop and think Phat.First what possible need would there ever be to be an apostle to atheists?When Jesus threw the great fish fry by the shore did He not jess feed everyone that was there and provide left overs for those who didn't get to the pachanga without asking if they believed in Him or even if they listened to what He said?When reality refutes a belief isn't it wise to throw the belief away no matter how strongly the belief is held?When I post here relating to religious subjects who am I responding to?

Have you looked up the text of either Josephus or Tacitus?Let's first look at Josephus:

quote:

---

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.[24] Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

---

Now remember that this was written about sixty years after Jesus death and that there is only a passing mention that might refer to Jesus and another reference that most certainly is not Jesus Christ.The second passage from Josephus is:

quote:

---

3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross,[9] those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[10] as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

---

Again it is simply a secondhand report of what we know, that there was a group that called themselves Christians and claimed that Jesus performed miracles and that there were prophecies regarding Him.And from Tacitus, written over 75 years after Jesus death.

quote:

---

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

---

Both sources simply repeat the same material that was current in the Christian culture but are just reports of what people believed not evidence of any facts beyond belief.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Correct. At best they are reports of reports.

So you have no problem with a God who knowingly creates life just to then damn that critter to eternal torment.Got it.

If God creates me knowing I will be damned then God is evil. My behavior is not the issue but rather God's behavior. Satan, if Satan exists, is just God's servant and does nothing that God does not command. You can most certainly indict God for creating you. If you foreknew my decisions and still created me then yes, you can and should be indicted, not for damning you but for creating you. Again, what the fuck does that have to do with the topic? If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have some similar capability or is God, like Adam and Eve before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge simply amoral?

Yes, that is what I said. Well, that just sounds like a bunch of irrelevant nonsense you are making up. Read what you write. Did you say "3) Despite being the Creator of all seen and unseen and being so unlike a human that a human likely will never understand Him, God has, in my belief, allowed a bridge...a mediator...a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions, loving God,and loving others." If man has a way for humans to become aware and thus responsible for making the right decisions should we not expect God to have a way to make moral decisions?The rest of that sentence from you is just more dogma (That way is Jesus Christ. Jesus is all God and all man. Jesus is thus a bridge between God and man. ) with no meaning. The idea that humans will have a life after death is not in anyway supported by a God rising from the dead (which would just be a joke at best) and says nothing about humans.

But there are methods to test whether the Missionary is in communion with the natives but little or no evidence that missionaries have any wisdom to offer.But what are the methods to test if someone is in Communion with God?

Let's deal with this utter nonsense first and then move on to the rest of the Cult of Ignorance bullshit conjob.A God that creates a living being with foreknowledge that the thing created will be damned has to be the most vile thing ever in existence and should, no must, be condemned, castigated, reviled, opposed, hated, despised and vilified as something of contempt.I can not imagine any possible way to justify such a thing and anyone that worships just a thing should be pitied, distrusted and avoided. More bullshit and utter dishonest misrepresentation. I imagine though you say such things as a way to live with yourself and if it makes you feel better then go for it. No, I reject and disparage that concept as cheapening Jesus and Jesus' message but it is the Bible that says we have the same capability as God to determine right from wrong and that we should judge God's actions. More misrepresentation from you Phat.No where have I ever said or implied that we are capable of renouncing and correcting all of our sins and in fact on numerous occasions I have said that we are fully responsible for our sins and that only we are responsible for our sins.What I have said is that our sins have not been paid for and that we will be judged and we will not know if any of those sins will be forgiven until after we have died and been judged.If Jesus was God in the flesh when living among us it tells us nothing about whether or not humans will rise from the dead or experience an afterlife. And a God rising from the dead is no big deal.

No, it does not seem at all ludicrous and in fact I have provided you with examples where the Bible says we should do just that. What does that even mean? What does "Jesus--fully alive today" mean? Will he water my yard, pull weeds do anything that can possibly be seen as helping?Why would I ever want someone else to rake responsibility for my actions? Is this more playground buck passing "Billy did it"? Yes, some folk will not accept responsibility for their actions and want someone else, anyone, God, Jesus, Bankruptcy Court to shoulder the debt. Like the son of the Zarephath widow and the son of the Shunammite woman and Lazarus and Dorcas and Jarius' daughter and the son of Nain's widow and that guy that touched dem bones from Elisha but a god raised from the dead is just ho-hum, of no real relevance.If Jesus was God/Man then his resurrection, his Ascension are meaningless and worthless.I don't dismiss Paul but I am honest enough to point out that often he is simply marketing a spiel, selling his product. As in the very quote you use, Paul is simply quotemining from the Old Testament, taking material out of context and incorporating it in a message designed to create a new Paulian religion.

Sorry Phat but you failed to answer or even address any of the questions.Let's try and see if you can address just one.What does "Jesus--fully alive today" mean?

Not yet.What does "Jesus is alive today" mean?If we are Jesus then Jesus does not exist beyond just being a human figment or human attribute.If Jesus like so many people was raised from the dead how does that make Jesus alive today? How is Jesus different than the guy that brushed against "dem bones"?

That's a great question. Just as we humans continue to create, modify and evolve the English language, perhaps Phat means Jesus is alive in the sense that humans continue to create, modify and evolve Jesus.

What exactly are the tests used to determine if the presence you think you are experiencing are Jesus and not Satan or just a bad burrito?