Thats why I put it in quotes, dear.
Are you saying those assumptions are not absolute truths in science?
No, I'm not.
Both Muslim AND Christian?
- Thread starter sandy
- Start date
No, I'm not.
I guess you missed reading and understanding these parts of your quote:
"It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality...."
"Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible." (See Ockham's razor)"
"It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality...."
"Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible." (See Ockham's razor)"
He didn't claim to be God, and his trip to teh temple when he was 12 was just the beginning.
Any apologist can say anything they wish to support their veiwpoint.
I have also heard people say that the coincidences between Jesus' life and the lives of the religious icons who preceeded him were put there by Satan with foreknowledge of what would happen to confuse men.
That's just as absurd a statement.
I'll always be on the journey.
Once your belief becomes codified into a system, it no longer allows for individual thought, exploration and further development.
Religion kills spirituality and truth.
No.
I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again.
Isn't that what this discussion is all about - what the definition of Christianity is?
Who are you to be the authority on this, and simply dictate what the definition is?
Of course not.
No one does - that's teh point - see above.
And, quite unfortuantely, it is true.
In my opinion, because I am unaffiliated, therefore can be objective.
sandy has proven otherwise about herself.
Whether or not you do listen to, doesn't mean a damned thing to me.
Take or leave my words as you will.
No he does not.
People make presumptions about him - he never claims it.
He claims nothing more than he had seen Abraham.
Furthermore, anything outside the Synoptic Gospels (with the possible exception of the Gnostic Gospels) can be not be truly accepted as the teaching of Jesus - as they were written by early church apologists.
We are talking about Christ's words - not Nicene declarations.
As far as your Revalation quotes - the above applies, but even more, how could you possibly quote the supposed dream of John after Jesus' death as the teachings of Jesus?
That's absurd.
Believe it as truth all you wish, but don't try and pass it off as Jesus' words.
He is a muslim Sandy, he is telling what muslims believe, and you disagree that he thinks that way? wft?
She is Christian, Wisdom Seeker, she is telling what Christians believe, and you disagree with that she thinks that way? ^%?
Christenstein
How true.
The rigid mindset of the religous fundamentalist is a scary place indeed!:bawl:
points to Raven and nova900, true stuff
I don´t disagree that she believes in Christianity, I totally agree with her being a Christian. I´m nobody to tell people that Sandy is not a Christian, if she say she is a Christian, I believe her, if she say she believes in a god, I believe her.
If a muslim tells you that muslims believe in Jesus, Mohammed and all the prophets, how can you disagree with that?
Apparently, you can if you were a Christian. - Christenstein
You are missing my point at all dude, but I´m giving up on this discussion. I personally couldn´t care less, and here I am, posting stuff I don´t really care about. Just a thought for you to think about.
Christ said that a Christian must carry the cross with Him. He NEVER said that you must "accept Jesus in your heart" or "believe He rose from the dead", NEVER. It was JOHN who said that, and he alone. Not Jesus. And anyone who studied the history of Chirstianity would know that John not even MET Jesus. John was born long after Jesus was dead, and he does not represent the original views of Christians. The original Christians were fairly enlightened people who follow the way of peace and never condemned anyone for their sins. Very different from modern Christianity.
That is not to say that all that John said was bullshit. A lot of what John says is bang on, but not necessarily because he was inspired by God. John's books are some of my favorites, even though they are not 100% correct (specially the gospel- 1 John is just plain amazing).
He most certainly is, unfortunately. Christian vs. Non-Christian. Sounds like division to me. Odly enough, I instincitvely try to resolve that problem.....
And do you believe the satanic verses in the Qu'ran? Because, unfortunately, all religions have them mixed with the real verses...
Islam is based on Christianity and Judaism. It only adds a little bit. So, yes, Islam is the same religion of Jesus and all the other Abrahamic profets.
I suggest you study a little bit of theology. Then, maybe, who knows, you might actually understand what true Christianity is.
Christ said that a Christian must carry the cross with Him. He NEVER said that you must "accept Jesus in your heart" or "believe He rose from the dead", NEVER. It was JOHN who said that, and he alone. Not Jesus. And anyone who studied the history of Chirstianity would know that John not even MET Jesus. John was born long after Jesus was dead, and he does not represent the original views of Christians. The original Christians were fairly enlightened people who follow the way of peace and never condemned anyone for their sins. Very different from modern Christianity.
That is not to say that all that John said was bullshit. A lot of what John says is bang on, but not necessarily because he was inspired by God. John's books are some of my favorites, even though they are not 100% correct (specially the gospel- 1 John is just plain amazing).
He most certainly is, unfortunately. Christian vs. Non-Christian. Sounds like division to me. Odly enough, I instincitvely try to resolve that problem.....
You´re going too deep into scriptures for my taste. I read a lot about Jesus and about what he said, and I´m aware of my limited perspective on things, so I keep reading the same until it makes sense for me, I get what I learned from it.
I personally don´t think we should make divisions ammong us, not religion, beliefs, countries, no divisions, that is what I think. Divisions only generate bad feelings, I think Jesus would agree with me on that one.
Christ said that a Christian must carry the cross with Him. He NEVER said that you must "accept Jesus in your heart" or "believe He rose from the dead", NEVER. It was JOHN who said that, and he alone. Not Jesus. And anyone who studied the history of Chirstianity would know that John not even MET Jesus. John was born long after Jesus was dead, and he does not represent the original views of Christians. The original Christians were fairly enlightened people who follow the way of peace and never condemned anyone for their sins. Very different from modern Christianity.
That is not to say that all that John said was bullshit. A lot of what John says is bang on, but not necessarily because he was inspired by God. John's books are some of my favorites, even though they are not 100% correct (specially the gospel- 1 John is just plain amazing).
He most certainly is, unfortunately. Christian vs. Non-Christian. Sounds like division to me. Odly enough, I instincitvely try to resolve that problem.....
I hear what you are saying but it's hard to get thru to many fundamentalists who so rigidly stick to all the man created dogmatic B/S.
Rather than focus on the finer spiritual teachings of Jesus, far too many religous minded folk dwell on the "salvation and sin,punishment factor", which makes me suspect as perhaps Wisdom Seeker does, that they are more concerned with saving their own butts rather
than embracing the concepts of unconditional love and selfless service.
On the contrary, when Jesus told His disciples about the what would happen to Him in Jerusalem, Peter denied it saying, "Never, Lord." Jesus rebuked Him by saying, "Get behind me, Satan. You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." Jesus further said, "You must deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it."
Apparently, when Peter denied the death and resurrection, Jesus rebuked him. In context to His death and resurrection, He tells His disciples to lose their lives to follow Him, taking up the cross to the death like He would do. This passage in Matthew says that one needs to repent and accept the death and resurrection of Jesus or else one is Satan. The scripture is quoted underneath for reference. - Christenstein
From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?
It is necessary to go deep into the scriptures. We must investigate it in order to find the true meanings behind them. Altough I can see you have a good heart and will likely interpret it correctly.
I absolutely agree. However, the divisions are there and we must reconcile them. And, as far as I know, the only way to reconcile them is to value our differences as opposed to fighting over them. It's diversity vs division. Going through division to diversity may be one of our greatest challenges, as a species.