Joshua

Hitler murdered Christians as well as Jews. Read down this list, how many of these are Christians I don't know. But as you'll see many times it refers to them simply as "Christian name unknown" http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ There is a group called "The Jewish Foundation for the Righteous" started by Rabbi Harold Schulweis. Here is an excerpt from a Jewish site here: https://www.vbs.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_documents/tech_flyer_4.15.15_final.pdf?p=724 For more info from a Jewish perspective on Christian rescuers: http://www.chambon.org/righteous_conduct_en.htm The same Catholic Church which organized the Crusades also killed many Christians through the middle ages. Look up the anabaptists, donatists, hutterites, mennonites, and paulicians. As for your eastern religions, did you know Christians are constantly killed and imprisoned every day by Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and others in countries like India, Iran, and Egypt?

1) And what would those explanations be? Have you ever read Hugh Ross' "The Fingerprint of God"? I don't agree with all his conclusions concerning evolution but he presents a very good explanation of how theories like the Steady State Model and the Hesitation Theory have been so debunked as to cause more and more scientists to desert them. 2) True, but it is compatible with creationism, and natural law shows things held common by consciences regardless of culture and our environment serve to differentiate us from lesser species which feel no such inclinations. 4) Humans are fallible but that does not block the possibility of an infallible God overcoming such weaknesses if He could also create all that now is. Our weaknesses do not determine the strength of God. Ultimately this is an important enough subject that to make assumptions concerning the most essential matters of our existence, God's existence, and our eternity are too vital to simply be guessed at or assumed on ill-done research. As Plato said: Ultimately our conclusions of the Bible's reliability or lack thereof should be evaluated objectively based on our evaluation of its reliability and validity through the same tests used to examine other historical documents. I mentioned already internal evidence, external evidence, and bibliographical evidence as applied in "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell. Is the text consistent? Does it make errors in reasoning? Do the witnesses contradict themselves or each other? Does it seem they seek more to glorify themselves or to tell the truth? Do they admit their faults or seek to hide them? Does archeological evidence support or debunk the location/geneological facts provided?

The rational side of me wouldn't leave out "panic attack" as a possibility. I've heard you can experience a quick shock like that where your heart races but I don't know if it would cause those visuals. I have heard a person can just start having them though.Personally though, I'm leaning towards the idea that it's a spirit, i.e. angel or demon. Just throwing out an extra opinion I guess

I need to post to keep my site, just like you, I'm not out to insult anyone, I'm just posting on what I know best, present a different perspective, and trying to be respectful of everyone here. I'm not speaking with any hidden agenda, this stuff is always on my heart and at the forefront of my mind. I speak out of conviction, I have held the Gospel and the Bible up to years of criticism and have heavy-duty confidence in its reliability. I speak because I have the best news on planet earth for anyone. If you or anyone else doesn't want to hear it, that's fine, don't listen and if you ask me I won't bother you. Obviously it works a little differently here since this is a public board and whatever I type goes to whoever chooses to read it. And the 7 deadly sins are not a Biblical concept any more then most of Catholocism's other concepts. An interesting view, however, what about those who die for Jesus? And not merely die, but die without fighting back while forgiving their enemies and doing good to those that harm them? There are many all around the globe who fit that description and are dying even now! If it was simply about being a good person then you could control people. But what if you gain the treasures of eternity not by being a good person, but simply repenting and trusting God to save you by what Jesus already did? What if you focus more on relationship then religion? What if instead of living for God because you have to, you do it because you WANT to? What if you live for God not because someone's holding a stick over your head but because you've really experienced life transformation that has made you into a new person with new desires? Whatever Jesus' early life, those who knew Him best not only accepted that He had lived sinlessly, but were willing to stake their lives on it. To find 12 men who would die for a cause is not hard, but how many ever died for a lie? But all the apostles save John died horrible deaths for the sake of their Master and even before then faced the threat of death constantly for their strivings to proclaim the Gospel. James the brother of Jesus was among them and was ready to stake his life on the fact that the fellow Son of his mother was indeed the sinless Son of God Himself! The Gospel prevailed so well because the Gospel writers could point to eyewitnesses and those who knew Jesus personally, and could verify that He was all they claimed Him to be. The apostles had such confidence in that common knowledge that Paul said even to the Roman governor that even he must know of such things, for they "were not done in a corner." If Jesus was "one" with such others, why did He say He was the only way, truth, and life, and that no one can come to God the Father but by Him? (John 14:6) Jesus specifically said He was the Messiah, in other words, the culmination of thousands of years of waiting by the Jewish people and thousands of years of prophecies fulfilled. It is Him who was foretold would bring peace back to the world one day and judgement to His enemies, who would obtain forgiveness of sins for those who obeyed Him, and who would lead Israel in glorious triumph over her enemies. There are some 400 Messianic prophecies concerning Jesus, some written 1500-2000 years before He was born. Psalms 22 even gives a graphic description of the crucifixion hundreds of years before the Roman empire even existed to invent it. Indeed we do all fall short of God's glory as Romans 3 says. The issue is not about being a good person, but being a forgiven person. There's none righteous before God, and all our righteousness is like filthy rags. It's not about being better, but admitting we're not and just trusting in Jesus to save us. As for the religious, those that want to do evil things will use whatever guise works, and religion works quite well as an excuse. That does not however mean the actions meet up with the religion. Jesus in Matthew 7 said many would come to Him in the last day claiming to be His only to be told they never knew Him. The Bible says there are many fake Christians out there! It sounds to me, though, like you're going for a straw man fallacy. Whether many emotionally compromised people or many poor people are Christians is irrelevant. Why not examine the claims themselves and the validity of them? As for the flood, there are flood legends on every liveable continent to my knowledge. If anything it should lend credence to the Bible's historicity. If it's a worldwide event, wouldn't it make sense to be known worldwide? Why assume plagiarism if the words aren't exactly the same?

Alright, interesting questions. 1, 2, 3-Eventually you have to get down to the point where the most basic essential existed, your "god." Pasteur conclusively proved that one can't get something from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can't get life from non-life. And the Big Bang theory says before the Big Bang there was a singularity, where all the laws of science break down. So the only way for them to explain it is to say science didn't apply It would be a lot more honest of them to just say they don't know. Thus, you have to reach a point where nothing existed before. Some scientists have tried using theories like the Steady State Model to say time could be in a loop or bounce all different ways to say it went back far enough that they don't have to explain an original beginning, which means God must have existed. Problem is, there theories all keep getting proven false, and they're running out of escape holes. This has been going on for a thousand years or so, where they've been jumping at wilder and wilder possibilities to explain away the existence of God so we can exist. As for the last question, just because God makes something good doesn't mean He intended it to be subject to wrong uses Kind of like sex, He made it a blessing to be had within the confines of marriage, not with ever tom, sue, and barney the talking rock that comes by. Just because we have been given the ability to do something doesn't mean God intended us to do it in other words. To have the potential to do great good we must have power and that means the potential to do evil as well. Well, is simply engaging a willing participant in persuasive conversation "forcing" your opinions and beliefs on them? If you try to punish them for not accepting the beliefs then that would be forcing them, right? We are not to judge, and a judge pronounces a sentence or condemnation. Is simply telling someone good news that can change their eternal destiny pronouncing a sentence or condemnation on them? Let me put it this way. If you care about your friend, and they're about to walk off a cliff while hypnotized, will you not say anything because you "care about them?" If you're really their friend, won't you at least bother to warn them? If they refuse to listen to you fine, out of respect you can simply walk away. But truly caring about someone implies taking action when it matters. If one never stands up for anything it's because they've never found anything worth standing up for. I guess that tells you in a sentence what I think of Unitarianism. God does want people to be happy, but God is a holy God who does not tolerate evil and unrighteousness. Mankind chose to reject God's ways thousands of years ago and now they ask why there's evil and suffering in the world. God didn't make the world this way. He made it perfect. We chose to reject Him and His way, and He simply let us suffer the consequences of doing things "our way." It's His love that brought Him to send His only begotten Son so that we could have a way out from the just consequences of our wrongs done to Him and other people. You say the Bible has been translated more then a few times. Tell me, just how many of those times have been in, say, the last 2 hundred years or so? And of past translations, how many of those translations do we have? You see, there is more manuscript authority for the New Testament alone then for any ancient literary work in history. Shakespeare's Iliad is 2nd with 640 something manuscripts (copies of the original) currently in our possession. We have over 20,000 manuscripts for the New Testament that agree nearly always word for word. Some are written less than a century after the events, having been dated even before the 2nd century A.D.! To give you an idea of how spectacular this is, any classical scholar would laugh if you were to question a given work of Shakespeare with just 5 reliable manuscripts, with the most recent written over a thousand years after the original. And there are works accepted as beyond suspicion based on exactly those requirements. A double standard is constantly applied to the Bible as opposed to other historical documents, and if you were to objectively evaluate it with the same 3 methods applied to other historical documents of internal evidence, external evidence, and bibliographical evidence you would be astounded at how shockingly, even embarrassingly greater a wealth of backing there is for the New Testament alone compared to any other ancient literary work in history! There is a book with over 10 million copies in print, readily available, a paperback that can be gotten for $5, called "More Than a Carpenter" by Josh McDowell. In it he examines the reliability of the Bible and holds it up to scrutiny by just such methods, as well as many accusations made against it. Ever since "The DaVinci Code" came out, a lot of people like to make that accusation about the Bible's translations. Tell me, what do you know about Dan Brown? Did you know his movie is being held up because of accusations of plagiarism by the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" who he cited as sources many times in his book? Did you know that while the Priory of Sion did exist, it was created by the same source the "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" authors used? The group wasn't created hundreds of years ago, it was made in 1956 by convicted con artist Pierre Plantard, who in 1993 admitted under oath to planting a series of fictionalized documents "proving" the existence of a bloodline descending from Mary Magdalene? It is those same documents Brown quotes as there being 4 trunks full, and puts it in his "fact" section. There weren't even 4 trunks of them, either. Did you know the Catholic group Opus Dei (probably got the name slightly wrong) didn't even have an order of monks or a bishop as he suggests in his book? Brown made numerous crucial mistakes just in locations and common knowledge info.

My "bad check" missed only by a few dollars. I don't think you know me very well though. Just because I write "emotional" in no way means I act it In fact, I'm one of the most rational, calm and collected people you'll ever meet, a guarantee I feel quite safe in making. I simply presented the matter and closed my account out, determining never to go there again, simple. Maybe I do have a problem of blaming and I'll look to it, but I'd kindly suggest you examine your own motivations for writing up that post. Still, if you don't want to listen to me about the bank, that's fine with me. People always tend to learn hard lessons the best when it's personal experience for some reason.

Actually, any one religion is going to teach more then just peace. Ultimately however, we can't say what God will or will not find acceptable, we must rely on that info from somewhere else. If we try to figure it out through human concensus, we will all disagree, therefore, we must determine a different source since humans will disagree and thus truth can't come from us, and then determine the reputability of said source. ================================== You should've read the rest of the passage, God must've known you'd say this 2 thousand years ago because it's set up perfectly to beat your argument before it even got started! For one thing, Jesus said this before even speaking that to her! Matthew 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Just that right there destroys your racism theory instantly. Sorry Loyal, but you missed out on this verse: John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Here, Jesus doesn't just say the Father loved Him before the beginning of the world... it says He EXISTED WITH THE FATHER "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS." Furthermore, your idea of proof is backwards. Just because it's possible for God to love someone before they were born in no way means that Jesus wasn't God. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is plausible and certainly not that it is proven, especially when the text specifically states a different alternative like the one I just gave. The King of Salem is considered a theophany, i.e. incarnation-like appearance by Jesus in flesh/angelic form before His time here when we know Him as Jesus. Some consider it to be simply a person used as a symbol of Him because the King of Salem had no known recorded DOB. Either view would be a possibility. Finally, your last question assumes that Jesus is separate from God. But of course you have yet to prove that, and that is contrary to what the Bible says: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. If the peace is not eternal, how much does it really matter? ================================ I would agree with you that there isn't a very big difference between Catholocism and Islam. I find it a common misconception for people to confuse Catholocism with Christianity for some reason. However, Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur were all Biblical Christians, but ones the RCC disapproved of. I believe it was the anabaptists, hutterites, donatists, montanists, and others who were slaughtered for 1200 years by Catholocism who were the true continuers of Christianity. Catholocism as we know it did not even begin until hundreds of years after the crucifixion, and was started by the very Roman government which killed Jesus and whose Nero so brutally slaughtered the first Christians! The Babylon spoken of in Revelation as a great city/institution/government/church is I believe the Catholic Church, or at least includes it, and continues the institution of the New Testament Pharisees. This statement then, about it, is quite apt: Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Whether it is truly as evil as presented here I don't know, but I certainly think it possible. Anyway, if you look back to the dark ages, you will learn of groups called the anabaptists among the others I mentioned, and how they refused to fight back and were slaughtered by the thousands! They died loving and forgiving their enemies even as many do today in foreign countries! There is an interesting dissertation called "The Anabaptist Vision" with numerous quotes to be found here, here is a section of it: You raise an interesting point concerning the origin and validity of common morality. Have you ever studied natural law? It's a philosophical term basically referring to the study of how there are basic essentials to human beings and their civilizations worldwide regardless of culture, location, nationality, language, etc... For example, we all hold common beliefs that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, there should be sanctions on marriage, etc... In other words, murder being wrong isn't just something we're taught, but something inherent within our very natures! Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:19 when he says that God has clearly put that which needs to be known of Him in creation and even in our very natures! Within us is what is needed to realize that God exists. However, let me show you where an "all is relative" view must inevitably lead. You are dead right, morality cannot exist by humans alone or human concensus. It must originate from God to exist at all. Otherwise all indeed is relative as you suggest, for then morality is dependent on us, and we will change it to suit our whims that we may appear justified before others. But if so, and God does not exist to have instituted a moral Law to the universe then morality does not exist. And if morality does not exist, then as you pointed out, how can we consider murder wrong? If all is relative why should we place inherent worth or value on other people? You can say we should do it for the good of society. And I know there's that stupid (and I do think it so) theory that if we act in our own self-interests we will serve society. However, if there is no morality and no ultimate purpose to our existence, we are reduced to the level of merely advanced computers with faulty programming in that we value others so that we let foolish emotion hinder our chances of survival in some circumstances. If we are merely globs of protoplasm, "dancing DNA" as Richard Dawkins of Oxford would say, then all is indeed relative and what reason is there to value other people? Why should we act on the behalf of others when we can for ourselves? Why act for the good of society rather then our own good if there's no meaning to it anyway? To deny the existence of God is to deny morality, to say all is relative, and to say that genocide, rape, murder, theft, and basically all-out chaos should be permissible and expected in our society. However, the Bible says God instituted governments to prevent that very thing. You do bring up a highly interesting topic however.

Maybe love is a lie if defined that way. But I believe it to be more then simple lust. At a group of mine we came up with the following definition to love:Love has 3 parts that act as a cycle:1-Emotion. Yep, love involves emotion. You see a person and care about them. But it's more then just liking how they look, it has to become a genuine caring about WHO the person is, rather then just their body and what they can do for you.2-Knowledge. Now that you have cared about the person, when you aren't feeling particularly caring or loving for them, you can still act in love for them because you have that knowledge of what they mean to you. You know how much you care about them, what your emotion for them is.3-Commitment. That knowledge leads to you making choices, commitments on the other person's behalf because of the knowledge of what they mean to you, even when the emotion is no longer there. It is more then simply emotion, for the emotion leads to knowledge of what they mean to you, which leads to a consistent behavior of making loving choices for the other person, even at your own expense.These choices then lead to furthered emotion for you are dedicated to the other person even above yourself so that you care more about them than yourself. Thus, even when they don't make you feel passionate or lustful you act on their behalf because you CARE ABOUT THEM, and NOT JUST WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR YOU OR MAKE YOU FEEL. You can see whether it's lust or love when you are asked to act in their best interests or your own. If it's all about what they can do for you, it's lust. If it's about what you can do for them, it's love. Sort of like, ask not what your country can do for you... Commitment is the final building block to separating lust from love.

Alright, I know I've been away from Xisto for a while now and from this topic, but I'll try answering some of the last few points made. Yes, many wrongs have been done in the name of Christianity. Just because a pope or anyone else apologizes for them doesn't make them any less wrong. The only way Christianity would still make sense is if such wrongs were not of Christianity nor excusable according to Christianity. If you look at Christianity's history you will see many instances of horrible wrongs done. However, you will also notice that a great number of them were perpetrated by so-called Christians on others who claimed to be Christians. The difference was, some Christians didn't fight back with violence. For example, the Inquisition tortured many Christians who rejected Catholocism. The Catholic Church set bounties on the heads of Anabaptists, Montanists, Donatists, Hutterites, and many others for hundreds of years. There have been many Christians like the anabaptists who died forgiving their enemies, refusing to use violence even in self-defense, and died praising God. Even today, people all around the world are persecuted for Christ without fighting back, and even forgiving their enemies! Which ones then do you think are the true Christians, the ones who use violence or the ones who don't? How can we know which are the real ones? Jesus Himself said that many would be fake Christians: Yet few will find the path to life. Concerning pacifism, what do you think Jesus and the apostles taught? What then is Christianity about? Is it about fighting to defend ourselves? Is Christ's kingdom of the world? Do we use physical means to fight? Not only is Christianity not about such violence to others, but it does not condone it either! To ThornedRose: We cannot judge others because we are not perfect ourselves. Only God is perfect, and able to render justice. Therefore Jesus was just in driving out those from the temple, but we cannot be. God alone is good: Only those without sin can judge others in the sense of punishing or condemning: But we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, meaning Jesus is the only human exception, since He IS God: Finally, it's a good point that those who killed Jesus founded the vatican. Do you think it possible that the vatican and thus Catholocism as an institution is simply the continuation of the religious Pharisee institution which killed Jesus, and is thus simply posing as Christianity while continuing to persecute the true Christians and continuers of Jesus' teachings of pacifism and love for others?

If you look on the Forum Index at the very bottom below Board Statistics, you'll see the last blue bar/Heading reads "Lastest Activity"... you might want to change that

Definitely! The anabaptists and others who preceded the Baptists of which I am called were quite strong on free will and freedom of religion. God has given us all the ability to choose or to reject Him, it is why we were able to do so at the beginning of creation. God didn't want mindless zombies or robots, He gave us free will so we could choose to love Him and have a relationship with Him, even though it meant we had the ability to reject Him. We weren't created with an innate sin nature or knowledge of evil, we didn't have an inclination to evil in the beginning. All that came only after we made a conscious choice to reject God and gain a knowledge of good... and EVIL so that we became truly corrupted, creatures of evil which God did not intend for us to become. If God, then, has given us all free will, who are we to try and take that away from our fellow human beings? I may not agree with you but I can respect your God-given right to free will, to choose or to reject Him, and am still called to care about all regardless of their choices, even as God loves and cares for us all.

I would recommend "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell. It's recent, a short and easy read, inexpensive, concise, and very, very good.

I'm all for stem cell research. It's embryonic stem cell research I have a problem with, as do many Christians. They could use stem cells from all other areas of the body for their research for the exact same purposes. Yes, the cells wouldn't be quite as effective as embryonic ones, but it would avoid the controversy and work quite well anyway. Why is it, do you think, that they insist on creating and destroying human beings for their research when it is unnecessary?

I'm still deciding whether or not I should get into stuff like this as much as I once did, it seems mostly to just lead to arguing with no conclusion. I will say this which we should be all able to agree on: all religions cannot be right, nor can all philosophies or beliefs. The laws of logic tell us that mutually exclusive things can't be correct. God can't be all-good and all-evil, they are mutually exclusive concepts. God can't be all-powerful and semi-powerful, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore if one religion says one thing that's mutually exclusive and another religion something mutually exclusive in the same category so that both can't be right, then by the laws of logic, only one of those religions can be right. Therefore, not all religions can be right nor can they lead to God. Concerning Christianity, let me just say this: Anyone can die for what they believe while fighting. When you can find those who not only die for what they believe in, but do so peacefully while showing love, kindness, and even forgiveness for their enemies... what is more contrary to human nature? Yes, there are many so-called Christians who do not do that, and fight rather then show peace. But there are also millions of Christians worldwide who die daily for their faith in Christ, and even love and forgive their enemies to the end. Jesus Himself said many who claim to follow Him would be liars or deceived (read Matthew 7). But what other religion so seems to have those who so deny the essential basics of human personality and nature? It is not merely Jesus and the disciples who died peacefully forgiving their enemies, but even today, people die in such ways every day for the name of Christ! Could Napoleon be wrong? -Napoleon Bonaparte in his final days of exile as quoted in "Jesus Among Other Gods" by Ravi Zecharias

Several months ago I started up an account with Chase, aka BankOne. All I wanted was a savings account but I let them talk me into getting both savings and checking since they said it came with overdraft protection which would send money from one account to another if needed. I questioned them on it and read the contract carefully to make sure I wasn't getting tricked. I signed up and they gave me an envelope on account info which I never got around to opening. I ended up writing 3 checks. The first passed. The second didn't have enough money by a few dollars and they charged a $30 overdraft fee. Long story short, I ended up having a $6 negative balance in the checking account and though there was over $60 in the savings they wouldn't transfer any over to cover it and kept charging $5 a day for the checking. Apparently they don't have to tell you that overdraft doesn't cover fees, only original checks for sending money over. And the info wasn't in anything I signed or was told, it was in that rotten envelope I was given, which apparently is legal. Because of that $6 negative amount in the checking (even though I had $60 in the savings and put in another $40 to the savings) it spiraled into a $300 debt that wiped out my savings and put me in debt. Then I had to pay off the debt, plus they refused to close the account for a few days until verifying it was closed, during which they continued to charge me $5 a day and a closing account fee. Because of this, I probably won't even try banking for a while, and when I do, will stick only to savings accounts. In my time trying to submit an article to the Chicago Tribune on it I came across other articles by people angry at Chase as well. My advice to you - Stay As Far Away As Possible From Chase/BankOne As You Can. Also, be leery of anything offering you overdraft protection. It could be simple scam material.

Why you should believe? Because you are not alive. Neither was I. We are spiritually dead and destined for death in the eternal sense the Bible speaks of, in being eternally separated from God. And apart from God, it is questionable what existence is truly worth anyway. Being a Christian doesn't mean an easier life, in fact to live godly in Christ Jesus means persecution (2 Tim. 3:12). What it means is to have eternal life, i.e. reconcilation with our Creator for eternity, and to have abundance of life even in this life (John 10:10). But let me explain my own history so this may be put in perspective, and you don't think I'm just trying to preach fire and brimstone to you. I didn't grow up a "churched" little Christian. My parents had Bible Story books back in grade school for me to read which is when I was reading all the classics as well, and which made me realize truth lay in the Bible. But in 5th grade, DCFS accused my dad of rape and he'd spend the next 5 or 6 years in prison. My mom ended up a manic depressant like me who was suicidal and spent time in jail and an asylum. And without even knowing what was going on, I got home one day to find police waiting on the porch, and I was taken from there with my brothers to be placed in a foster home. We were able to return home to my mom where we spent a lot of time being taken care of by relatives and I suddenly turned anti-social. I took up boxing and martial arts and spent all my time getting in more and more trouble at school, in fights even with my own brothers. This went on until I started examining myself and deploring how evil I'd become. I questioned God and tried bargaining with Him, I sought Him and was drawn to Him by coincidences and ironies, as funny as it sounds. I don't believe I was an exception, for I've come to realize that all of us are alike, we're in the same boat, an evil race that God deplores. Jesus was the Light of the world because He was unlike us, He was perfect and didn't harm other people like we all do. Yet He didn't spend time condemning people for their evil lifestyles even though He alone had the right to since He was perfect. He loved the brokenhearted, the ones considered most evil and most rejected by society, the tax collectors who were considered traitors to their Jewish nation, the prostitutes who were reviled for their lifestyles, and the nation's poor like widows and orphans. He told us all to repent (Luke 13:1-5), not to shame and blame us, but to warn us. It wasn't a self-righteous "I'm better than you" but a warning given in love and knowledge of what was to come. As a Christian I know what it is to live right inside rather then with constant torture within, and to be able to live without worries and fears. I know what it is to have a real, living relationship with the one and only living God. I want everyone to have it, not just because it helps in this life but because it is all that matters for eternity. I want the best for everyone in the world, and I've even learned to forgive those who've most wronged me. Everything I have found that is true and noble and worthwhile or meaningful in any way has come from my relationship with Jesus. Other ways may be good or have some truth in them but they are not the best and they are not answers. I believe in holding up the Bible to the questions of all, for Acts 17:11 clearly shows it doesn't need to hide from other perspectives. I am always open to talking about the Bible's reliability and validity.

I trusted in Jesus simply because my life was falling down around me. I started questioning God and trying to "bargain" with Him and while life didn't get any easier, I started seeing ironies and coincidences in my life on incredible levels. They led me to seek God more and I started examining the Bible and realizing more and more, and how much of it was truth. Then on August 5, 1998, in a Christian summercamp, I heard the good news of the Gospel preached. I had no problem accepting I was a sinner, just recently a recurring thought for me had been "I'm the most evil person in the world." I was living so bad a life even I couldn't excuse my actions, and I knew I needed to change. It was more then just the torture inside of me that made me want to change, but how I was translating my pain to others around me, including those I cared about.As a Christian, I know the only difference between me and the unsaved is God's grace. Being a Christian doesn't mean I'm better, it just means I found mercy. I don't claim to be flawless, I claim to have admitted I'm not, and in so repenting to have found mercy through my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I don't claim to have the answers, I claim to know the One who does have them, Jesus Christ. What true answers I've found have been given by Him and the way I've learned is by listening as objectively as I can to all questions and questioners, looking into things for myself, and most of all, admitting when I'm wrong even if I don't like it. Without humility, the learning of anything meaningful (which is often controversial) is nearly impossible. I have learned that giving a person the right answer doesn't mean as much as how you give it. Better to live the truths you have found and not speak them then to speak them and not live them. I don't claim a philosophy saved me, or a religion, or a doctrine, or a church, or a special prayer. I was saved by Jesus. My faith is in a man, a man who is God, a man who is different in that He loved unconditionally, was kind to all in need. He worked miracles and awed others with His power over nature, and was witnessed by many that He never died, but ascended into Heaven where He even now is, and His power over all the elements of nature is as absolute as it ever was. Furthermore, I have held up the Bible and Jesus for the past 5 years to the questions of all. I have seen my faith in its reliability and validity grow by leaps and bounds even though I'd made an eternal commitment to trusting them rather then anyone or anything else. Even though I consider Jesus and the Bible's reality and authority unquestionable, having placed my trust in them eternally, I listen to the questions of others that I may help them realize that trust in God does not mean intellectual suicide, as Josh McDowell says. Sooner or later one has to take a leap of faith upon seeing enough evidence to persuade them eternally, but that evidence may have been as great as the physical proof given to Thomas or the intellectual legal arguments of Paul. I have seen some of the greatest objections to the Bible answered like the atheist's "Problem of Evil" and "Free Will" arguments, as well as questions about why supposed "Christians" have done evils in the name of Christianity. I have seen supposed contradictions in the Bible's logic fall apart upon examination. I have seen scientific evidences like the bombardier beetle and examination of what singularities are make alternate theories to Biblical truths look foolish and unlearned. I have seen the Bible held up to the same standards of historical reliability (internal evidence, external evidence, and bibliography) as other historical documents, only to see it has so great a weight of evidence to back up its validity and reliability as to be embarrassing in contrast with all other historical documents in history. I have seen and personally examined the hundreds of Messianic prophecies, written thousands of years before Jesus was even born (physically), that foretold where He would be born, what others would say about Him, how much He'd be betrayed for, and even the exact manner of death for Him foretold long before the Roman empire even existed to invent it!I don't have all the answers but if I ever run into one I can't answer, I have already long ago seen so much truth and proof for the Bible and Jesus that I will simply side with the Bible and Jesus because of the "track record" you could say. For example, if you find a book that has 999 truths to it and then see that 1 you can't figure out and could possibly be wrong, does that mean you decide it is wrong and the book is faulty? No, it means you simply may not be smart enough to figure it out, there is not evidence enough to realize its truth, or that you may have misread what it was saying. Also, I may see how it COULD still be truth or how it could be true even though I don't know all the details, meaning I can't absolutely say it's a lie.

Got some intelligent conversation here on the subject. I'll definitely agree that calling oneself "bi" is just an excuse for sleeping around. Being a Christian, I obviously think it's wrong. However, I don't necessarily think a person who's "gay" or "bi" has a choice in the matter, any more then I think a guy who sleeps with every girl in sight has a choice in the matter. True sin is of the heart, and the Bible says that before finding Jesus we are slaves to our lusts, our sins, our evil desires. Even if we could control the outward manifestations of those lusts (i.e. sex outside of marriage, pornography, murder) we would still be guilty. As 1 Samuel 16:7 says, God doesn't look on the outward appearance, but on the heart. I've heard it said that we're not just guilty of what we have done, but what we would have done if we could've gotten away with it and no one would have known. Biblically, just looking on someone and lusting after them in our hearts means we're guilty of adultery (Mt. 5:28). Biblically, just hating someone means we're guilty of murder (1 Jn. 3:15). Biblically, just wanting what someone else has means we're guilty of stealing, the Bible calls it coveting and says not to do it just like not stealing physically (Deut. 5:21). We are all guilty. I see the human race like a self-help group Any one of us could walk into a group and say "Hi, my name is _____ and I'm a sinner." And everyone else could say "Hi _____." Point is, we're all guilty, and the penalty is eternal death, or separation from God (Rom. 6:23). The Bible often speaks of life as eternal life and death as eternal death. It's not about how good we are, but finding mercy through Jesus so that we are made new people inside, and freed from our lusts. So yes, I consider homosexuality a sin. I consider it in the same area as premarital sex, pornography, adultery, bestiality, and lusting after someone/wanting to have sex with them. I doubt any human on the earth right now isn't guilty of that last one. No, the Bible doesn't excuse such things as ok. But neither does the Bible say any of us aren't guilty, except Jesus. As Romans 3:19 says, the whole world is guilty before God. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So then, this leaves me with an interesting dilemma. I can't agree with someone and say homosexuality is ok. But I also can't berate them and say "You're such an awful person" without pointing the finger at myself as well. For I am just as guilty. I haven't found these eternal treasures by any goodness of my own, but by God's mercy. It's why Jesus says in Luke 13, unless we repent we will all likewise perish. The key isn't in being good people, but in admitting we aren't and humbly coming to Jesus. Which was justified before God, the one who did good deeds or the one who admitted he was evil? So you see, I can't say you or anyone else is especially guilty. The whole world is guilty before God, and guilty of eternal separation and punishment apart from His presence. And that means me too. Fortunately, Jesus' payment is big enough for all sins, and I am guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, and lying according to the Bible, just for starters. I'm just a jer-k saved by grace, and the Bible doesn't point the finger at one specific group, it points the finger at all of us and says "Repent."

First of all... Christianity isn't a religion. If it was, you could be a Christian just by calling yourself one. Thing is, the Bible doesn't say you become a Christian by calling yourself one. It doesn't say you become a Christian by being a good person. It doesn't say you become a Christian by some church accepting you as a member. It doesn't say you become a Christian by living a moral life and doing the right thing. It doesn't say you become a Christian by saying some special prayer or performing some set of rituals. In short, you become a Christian by first ADMITTING you AREN'T perfect, and that you do have a problem. NO ONE can become a Christian without FIRST having their trust in themselves BROKEN. As Oscar Wildes puts it in The Ballad of Reading Gaol: Christianity's claim for exclusive salvation doesn't lie in the religion that follows it. Christianity says that only one Person can save a soul, and that Person is Jesus Christ. One doesn't find salvation apart from Him, in short, the saving of a soul comes from knowing Jesus Christ, and getting in a relationship with Him. As Jesus says in Luke 13, unless we repent, we will all likewise perish. Christianity is a heart transaction where you confess your sins to Jesus, ask Him to gain you forgiveness through His death and resurrection on the cross, and to come into your life and make you a new person. You can say all those words but what matters is that they come from the heart, not the words themselves. As 1 Samuel 16:7 says, God doesn't see like men do but looks on the heart. It was the religious, the Pharisees, who were most berated by Jesus. They considered themselves righteous and thus were farther then anyone else from God. God wants us broken, to realize we need Him and His payment on the cross for our sins. He wants us to live constantly in love for other people and to forgive one another, knowing what awful, undeserving sinners we ourselves are. And herein lies my point. Christianity says that a heart transaction will produce a changed life, given time. Now, one is saved through getting in that right relationship with God through Jesus, meaning faith, or a heart transaction. We can never earn our way to Heaven, and our good works will never be good enough to remove our sins. It's like baking a cake and burning it badly. You can cover it with frosting all you want, but people still won't want it because it's burned. All it's good for is to be destroyed. The only thing to do is to make a new cake. That's why Jesus says in John 3 that we must be born again to see the kingdom of God. Jesus didn't come to make us better people, but to make us new people. It means our old nature has to be done away with, so that we are inwardly changed. And this inward change will produce an outward change. Jesus says in John 13:35 that His true disciples are known by their love for others. And as Romans 13:10 says, love fulfils all God's commandments because it doesn't harm others. Jesus in Matthew 22:36-40 that the greatest commandment is to love God, and the 2nd to love others as ourselves. All other commandments rest on these 2. So a true Christian is known by the love that proceeds from that inward heart transaction, and as a result, they do not harm others. Make no mistake, true Christianity means complete and utter pacifism. If you don't believe me, read Matthew 5:38-48 and Romans 12:17-21. I'm not going to deny that the Crusades hurt a lot of innocent people. I'm not going to deny that WWII was an awful event. I'm not going to deny that the Inquisition was a horrible, inexcusable time in history. I'm not going to deny that some awful things have been done in the name of Christianity. What I AM denying is that they are Christian acts, and that Christians did them. A true Christian is KNOWN BY THEIR LOVE FOR OTHERS, and LOVE DOESN'T HARM OTHERS. Now I'm sure some will say, "Well, the Catholic Church was behind a lot of this stuff and still says the witch trials and other stuff are alright. If the Catholic Church wasn't Christian, who were the true Christians then?" My quick response is that the true Christians were not the ones doing the persecuting, but the ones who were being persecuted. Try reading up on the Anabaptists, they were persecuted for some 1900 years by both Protestants and Catholics for "heresies" like claiming the Bible as their sole rule of faith, teaching complete pacifism, living communally and sharing all things with each other, giving to whoever asked for anything, and teaching salvation through that inner faith that resulted in an outward change of life, a life of love and service for others. Many were killed in the Inquisition. Many were burned at the stake by Catholocism just like "witches", not to mention being crucified, beheaded, and rounded up from one end of the continent to the other for mass executions. To see more on who the Anabaptists really were, you can go here. Hitler killed Christians who hid Jews in their homes. And even today Christians who are living for Jesus are persecuted all around the world. To see more, you can go to Persecution.com. I think you might be surprised to see just how much really goes on every day that doesn't get press because the world doesn't care about what happens to Christians.

I tried Xanga and didn't really like it. It's good as an information storing page but doesn't let you search for and find the people you know all that well. I use MySpace, which has over 50 million people on it. I know a lot of people who use it. Xanga just seems a lot less organized and structured as far as coming across people, and I'm not that crazy about the look of it either, looks too... impersonal. All the sites have the same polished look to them that doesn't really draw you into them like MySpace's. Just my opinion.

I find the idea that "if you can't use the scientific method on it it shouldn't be taught highly ironic, and here's why... Empirical evidence can't apply to historical people, events, or information. You can't recreate George Washington's life. By that standard, we'd need to throw out everything learned from Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, etc... That means virtually EVERYTHING we consider science is gone. Science DOES allow for a different kind of proof in the case of historical documents. The first is bibliographical, which examines the manuscript authority of a document, or how accurate the copies (called manuscripts) are in regards to the originals (called autographs), and the amount of time between finding accurate manuscripts to what we now have. The Iliad is 2nd in manuscript authority to the New Testament, with 643 manuscripts. The New Testament has over TWENTY THOUSAND manuscripts from multiple countries, in multiple languages, over almost 2 MILENNIA. Furthermore, all the manuscripts agree word for word with each other with the exception of 16 manuscripts, and the changes for some are only in spelling and grammar. To see a further examination on how the Bible meets those historical standards, I suggest a $5 paperback which is very easy to obtain called More Then A Carpenter, by Josh McDowell. It has over 10 million copies in print worldwide right now and McDowell is one of the foremost Christian apologists in the world today, and has spoken in multiple countries and around our nation. As for the Old Testament, as quoted from How We Got Our Bible by Bill Donahue: Now, if you want to talk about evolution, let me mention a point made by Ravi Zecharias in Jesus Among Other Gods: Since evolution says before the Big Bang there was a singularity, or where all the laws of science break down, that means their starting point is no more scientific then that given in Genesis. Shouldn't it bother you that the only way evolution (macroevolution of course, micro is Biblical) can be explained is to say that science doesn't apply? Now of course, some will say that intelligent design isn't any better. But which of the 2 are my tax dollars being spent to fund? If you're going to teach an idiotic theory, at least teach the alternate one that is backed by archeology, history, and logic as well.

Atheists have 2 major arguments against Christianity it seems. First I'll present a quick explanation of the 2 from my handy Desk Reference and then offer a refutation. Here is the following from page 329 of the 3rd ed. Desk Reference which is authored by the New York Public Library: First, free will. Every time I see this argument, a huge, glaring error jumps out at me. It assumes that because God has the power to know everything, He must know everything. However, if God didn't have the choice to NOT KNOW He could not be all-powerful. You see, omniscience without choice contradicts omnipotence. It may surprise some to learn that while the Bible calls God "omnipotent," (Revelation 19:6), nowhere is He called omniscient. What the Bible does say is Herein lies another error in reasoning, my friends. God is omniscient in that He sees all that is occurring, but it would seem He is not necessarily when it comes to knowing the future. But it is upon that presumption which the above argument depends. For you see, God must have the choice of whether to know something or not for Him to be all-powerful. His knowledge is conditioned thus on His looking, or choosing to see it. Take these verses for example: As you can see, God looks that He may understand. The Bible clearly shows that God CAN see the future. It stands to reason, however, that such knowledge of the future is conditioned on His looking, even as it is with the present. And, it is an error in reasoning to assume that just because God can see future events, that He always chooses to do so. Now for "The Problem from Evil." It seems to me the gist of such a question is to ask why God permits us to suffer the consequences of us breaking His moral Law, as if He owes us a perfect life. Let me turn this around though, and examine our own accountability as well as that of our Creator. Would not a better question be "Why does a just God put up with us when we wrong Him and wrong other people?" The human race is a race of jerks. Let's face it, we all fail God and other people. And this brings me to my point. Why is there evil and suffering in this world? Because of us. There is a story circulating that has the following quote: The professor sat down. ================================ If we were all to perfectly abide by God's moral Law, two things would happen: 1) We wouldn't harm God, but love Him. 2) We wouldn't harm other people, but love them. Jesus in Matthew 22:37-40 points out that the great commandment is to love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls. The second, He says, is to love our neighbor as ourselves. On these two commandments, says He, hang all the Law and the prophets. Paul, in Romans 13:10, takes this one step further in pointing out that love fulfils God's moral Law precisely because it does no harm to others. So, can God prevent evil? Of course He can! Ever hear of the giant flood, and of Noah's ark? God came very close to exterminating evil right there. And therein lies my whole point. We are the source of evil. When one asks why God allows evil to exist, they are unconsciously asking why God allows us to exist. We are the ones who've polluted God's once-perfect universe. If we lived like God wants us to, there would be no suffering. It's disobedience to God's will that brings in problems. The concept everyone calls Heaven is, according to the Bible, God's destruction of this flawed universe to bring in a new, perfect one. But we'll just destroy it again, how then can God let us enter it? Wouldn't we just be a bunch of eternal jerks who go on harming each other? This is why one "must be born again." (John 3:7) What it takes is an inward change of our very nature, so that we will have God's love in us, as well as an eternal commitment to growing more in accordance to God's will. All this cannot happen if we cannot acknowledge we are evil and need to change. It is why in Luke 13:3 Jesus says that unless we repent, we will all likewise perish. And so, God permits our pathetic, evil-causing human race to continue to exist because He loves us, and sent His Son Jesus to die for our sins so that through repenting and trusting in His sacrifice alone to save us we can indeed be "born again" and find eternal life. God permits us to exist because through Jesus He has made a chance for us to escape the consequences of our sin and to be born again within so that we will keep changing to become more and more like God, with the end result being our becoming people who will not harm Him or other people, and thus, not cause evil, pain, or suffering to others. It is a just God who can't waffle on sin, and must pronounce the judgement of eternal separation from Him for the harm we do to Him and to others. It is a loving God who sent His only begotten Son from on high to do the only thing capable of making us new people who can spend eternity with Him.

I find that in cases where a guy is accused of rape, incest, or sexual molesting, it's guilty until proven innocent. Our justice system is really messed up, and those with their eyes open will realize how bad the childcare system is. There have been cases over here where children were taken from their parents by the state childcare system, DCFS, for letting a kid eat noodles and go down a slide (real case). Tons of people are getting jailed when innocent by them, while kids who get taken from their families actually die because they then get put in homes with real abusers. Some DCFS caseworkers have killed kids in the past... it's all just a huge mess, and they've kept switching the people heading up the childcare system a lot over the last few years. Keep an eye out for this stuff, it's especially bad over here in the midwest.

Of all the posts so far, the one I really thought a lot of was CalKid's. I think maybe 99% of the time it's lust at first sight, not love. I don't think it's physical beauty that really has to do with love at first sight though, but seeing the person inside. I do believe in love at first sight and that it can have to do with seeing a person just like you and seeing past all the externals. I think it's like you've known them forever and you can see the compassion or traits that you have shining from them. Maybe it's just because some people are transparent and don't build up the walls or shells that most people do. But I do believe in it, laugh if you want

Lol, interesting, but I think PETA might object to certain parts of that method if we tried it over here