Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#489203 Feb 16, 2013
Grace Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Lucy,
Jesus had a BIG problem with the Pharisee's and Scribes. They were teachers of the Law. They demanded that the people keep the Law that they themselves could not keep. Jesus called the Pharisee's " Hypocries" seven different times and are now calling them blind guides!! WHY? Because the Pharisee's felt that honoring the Law and Traditions would get them closer to God.(In other words) They felt that they were above all others by their WORKS of the flesh (obedience) They honored God with lip service and not out of Love.( heart) It's a lot like an adult child who has moved out of their parents home..They are not "under" their parents rules anymore but out of LOVE and Honor..They still obey their parents rules because they WANT to, NOT because it is forced upon them..What some religious people dont seem to understand is that..Its NOT the "acts" of homosexuality, murder and such that keeps people away from God...Its their Unbelief. Unbelief is the ONLY unforgiven sin. Religion and its man made rules and hypocricy is what keeps people away from God...God Bless You Lucy
I will say this...
Jesus spoke against those "pharisees" because they were forwarding conditions of "men" upon "man", and he knew they were meaningless edicts in the light of love and light.
For that he was "eliminated" as an influence.
That is it in a nutshell.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#489204 Feb 16, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
That's your claim?
That you denied it because I said "proof" not evidence"?
Here is the definition of "evidence"
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
If you had the evidence you would have proof. It is the same thing in that context. I can see where IANS jr gets his differences between "jab" and "slam"
Here is the first word listed as a synonym for evidence.. PROOF
evidence
&#8194;Main Entry:
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: proof
http://thesaurus.com/browse/evidence
man are you a liar!
Edit

that actually isn't even the first synonym listed. It is the actual definition

The definition for "evidence" listed is "proof"

http://thesaurus.com/browse/evidence

Let's talk about the character of a man that denies he said something based on regularly interchangeable words where one is defined as the other and not only denies that he said something but conveniently leaves out the reason he is denying it knowing people will assume he is denying he made the statement, not that he is denying it because someone used an interchangeable word

I notice not once did you bother to correct me and state that you did care about your patients and they weren't just a means to an end (money).

How many patients did you screw over with these tactics? You did the medical community a favor by retiring. Was it voluntary?
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#489205 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFLMAO
Pleeaaase, take an ESL course!
RATHER you take elementary moral ethics and stop insult foreign spoken people

your nationalistic hate reveal clearly and plain ,that you are not professor of all kinds of students, only piece of primitive s....backing up own lies by not by you written web pages from internet

look at around how they work, all like all those aick like you,"sick saints"'accusers,mockers, atheistic trush,and moral dung

I said in my haste every man is LIAR psalm 116;11

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#489206 Feb 16, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>But wait....
you brain not engage.
look at the definition. if you remorseful about something, then you going to make amends.
REPENT and CONFESS. Then forgiveness. So what you say about a Jesus follower having secrets and murmuring a prayer nothing no go so.
James 5:16 “Therefore CONFESS your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”(NIV)
Matt 4:17
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is near."
If a person hurt someone and want to be a Jesus follower, then need to go to that person and ask forgiveness.
look here writer, I not here to explain Christian Theology to you, but both CONFESSION and REPENTANCE is needed to be a Jesus follower.
As I said, I commend you on your stance concerning this, but unfortunately, that isn't the stance of all, and I stand by my observations.

All you've done is highlight that there are good Christians and bad Christians. That's true of all humans regardless of whatever theistic belief they hold or don't have at all, no?

I never said there weren't either of those.

The problem I pointed out is within that particular "philosophy", there are some who feel that's all that needs to be done, say a prayer, "repent", and it's done. You can't say that all Christians do the exact right thing when it comes to what you feel repentance entails, just as I can't, and didn't, say that all Christians interpret "repentance" to mean what we both know does happen - at times - be it murder, a lie, or some other wrongful thing done towards a fellow human, or humanity at large.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#489207 Feb 16, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be a good size Evil Kneivel.Guess just tell on myself.I much like I was when I was young same height,same weight,same size shoe none of that stuff changed much.My change came in around the heart area.Let see it is has been cracked,stomped on smashed,broken,ripped toren,run thru a grinder humm think that covers it.It been super glued,tugga war glued,flour pasted,cemented,mended,sewed,h ealed.All the damages have been thrown away,never thought about, forgotten never talked about and forgiven.My mirror says I still cut a fine figure and still can cut a rug when I dance.lol lol And the beat of the heart only hears music theses days.lol lol It called happiness.
That would be me too LW.
Shot at an missed...sh!t at an hit! The way of the world. Stepp'n out'a the rapids, an sitt'n by the pools as long as possible now.
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#489208 Feb 16, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Like most people, you do not know th difference between apology and ammemds.
If I burn down your house and say "I am sorry"; that is an apology.
Ammends occurs when I build you a new house.
ammends occurs when you get properly by law punished and after sentence build new house,or pay all monetary value of this house

try to burn my house
after your apology
I twist your hands, 24 times kick your sick a...
2 /call police
3/sue to receive from you all payemnts even pay for one nail ot pin inside of my home

Since: Feb 12

Seattle, WA

#489209 Feb 16, 2013
hmph...
simplyput

Aurora, CO

#489210 Feb 16, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
SP...the ironic aspect of your post...homosexuality was not brought to the forefront of this thread by a homosexual nor by anyone that supports them. If you look back over the history of this thread...most often it is brought up by the very posters that you are saying are against it.
There are some...that in their zeal to talk about sin...most often focus on homosexuality. Since this thread might be of a religious topic it is in actuality an opinion/discussion thread located on "Top Stories" on a secular medium called Topix it is open to any and all...just as the threads with a non-religious topic is open to all Christians.
If someone on this threads condemns any segment of society there is and will be someone to espouse the opposite view. It is common for debates/discussion to get heated. It is the way that works...nature of this game you might say.
One can not assume IMO that all that are against homosexuals for whatever reason are bigots. Most of us oppose something that is legal. Does that make us all bigots...no...just means that we don't agree.
Bigotry doesn't come in to play until one sets out to denigrate a group of people. When someone states, implies, infers that a group of people are less than themselves...that is bigotry.
You can figure out for yourself if your posts putting homosexuals and pedophiles in the same sentence as if they were synonymous was stating, implying, inferring that homosexuals are pedophiles. Others will form their own opinions about your intentions and form an opinion.
Sometimes it would behoove us all to put ourselves in another persons shoes and read our posts from their perspective.
You made a statement in one of your posts...
"Not all homosexuals are pedophiles I suppose" or maybe it went this way..."Not all pedophiles are homosexuals I suppose". Either version leaves the reader with the impression that you are undecided.
What if someone had said...
Not all Christians hate...I suppose.
Not all Christians are bigots...I suppose.
Not all heterosexual men rape women...I suppose.
Not all...not all...not all...I suppose.
I do not recall using 'I suppose, on any posts, so please get your story straight.

If your going to resort to name calling, I don't mind being called a bigot on the organization of NAMBLA, I do think they evil.

You do a good job of cutting down Christianity also, do I detect a little two-faced person in you?

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#489211 Feb 16, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice.
Your "soul" is already lost. The highest form of existence for a human being is called "self-actualization. " From Wiki:

"Self-actualization' is a term that has been used in various psychology theories, often in slightly different ways. The term was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize one's full potential. In his view, it is the organism's master motive, the only real motive: "the tendency to actualize itself as fully as possible is the basic drive...the drive of self-actualization."
----------
Is Wikipedia Reliable?

In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#489212 Feb 16, 2013
Senecus wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhh...you're Nihon! Troubled us much in the past on the peninsula , yet during Joseon did not expect to confront the likes of Yi Soon Shin!
But I jest, hello HFY, pleasure,
I followed yours and Duane's dialog in the past, looks a bit like things broke down between Macro and Micro evolution. Not here to get between the debate, I would recuse myself as Duane is a personal friend.
But do have a question for you , from your professional standpoint. What do you see as transitional forms on a macro-evolutionary scale,aside from those attributed to the Homo genus?
Thanks in advance, kiwo tsukete kudasai
OH BOY! Yer prolly gonna lite some fires!

Since: Sep 10

Hermosa Beach, CA

#489213 Feb 16, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
That's your claim?
That you denied it because I said "proof" not evidence"?
Here is the definition of "evidence"
n
1. ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evidence
If you had the evidence you would have proof. It is the same thing in that context. I can see where IANS jr gets his differences between "jab" and "slam"
Here is the first word listed as a synonym for evidence.. PROOF
evidence
&#8194;Main Entry:
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: proof
http://thesaurus.com/browse/evidence
man are you a liar!
No.

Evidence is not proof, although you cannot prove anything without evidence.

If somebody has been shot, and your fingerprints are found on the gun used for the shooting, this is evidence that you were the shooter.

If you produce a traffic citation showing that you were elsewhere at the time of the shooting, this is evidence that you were not the shooter.

The fingerprints, and the citation, are evidence.

Not proof.

Proof requires evidence that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. In my example, there is evidence that you were the shooter, and there is evidence that you were not the shooter. Proof has not been established.

In my line of work, conflicting evidence is commonplace.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#489214 Feb 16, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
----------
Is Wikipedia Reliable?
In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."
I think Wikipedia is pretty reliable, with this simple caveat; Check the references.

The references are cited, and you can easily check those with a little bit of effort. It's been my experience that in just about every instance I've used Wikipedia, it has presented, or represented the subject spoken of in a pretty comprehensive way. It's also an excellent starting point to steer you towards more indepth information concerning a subject.

Rule #1 concerning Wikipedia; Check the references, do a little reading.

But, that should always be the rule whether it's Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, shouldn't it?

Just a side note; A couple times I've sourced the online Encyclopedia Britannica and found it to be outdated and in error.

Take from that what you will.

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#489215 Feb 16, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
I laughting at you so hard it is unreal lol lol.Captain why do you think they call me lil whispers.(soft voice almost like a whisper)Three things I cannot do yawn,stretch,or yell.Never learned how to whistle either.lol However I can talk up a storm with the eyes.lol.
You know the old saying if looks could kill I be one dead hornet.lol that is me.
Lol.. I can't whistle either...
Doctor REALITY

United States

#489216 Feb 16, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol.. I can't whistle either...
Hi,Ree Ree Mae. Why do you hide?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#489217 Feb 16, 2013
dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
RATHER you take elementary moral ethics and stop insult foreign spoken people
your nationalistic hate reveal clearly and plain ,that you are not professor of all kinds of students, only piece of primitive s....backing up own lies by not by you written web pages from internet
look at around how they work, all like all those aick like you,"sick saints"'accusers,mockers, atheistic trush,and moral dung
I said in my haste every man is LIAR psalm 116;11
You need EST

“ IT'S A CHOICE !!!”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#489218 Feb 16, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text> I think Wikipedia is pretty reliable, with this simple caveat; Check the references.
The references are cited, and you can easily check those with a little bit of effort. It's been my experience that in just about every instance I've used Wikipedia, it has presented, or represented the subject spoken of in a pretty comprehensive way. It's also an excellent starting point to steer you towards more indepth information concerning a subject.
Rule #1 concerning Wikipedia; Check the references, do a little reading.
But, that should always be the rule whether it's Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, shouldn't it?
Just a side note; A couple times I've sourced the online Encyclopedia Britannica and found it to be outdated and in error.
Take from that what you will.
Yes, I agree with you on that Wiki is a very good 'starting point,' just know anyone can change ideas in Wiki...(not all know that)
With that being said... I do my own research and read quite a few books on area's that has my attention, or interviews...:)
Doctor REALITY

United States

#489219 Feb 16, 2013
Le_le wrote:
<quoted text>
I know how he regards his salvation. It's all about himself and
how many points he can earn to get himself a front row seat in
his
heaven.
Christians who don't accept OSAS are like silly dogs chasing their own tails.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#489220 Feb 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Evidence is not proof, although you cannot prove anything without evidence.
If somebody has been shot, and your fingerprints are found on the gun used for the shooting, this is evidence that you were the shooter.
If you produce a traffic citation showing that you were elsewhere at the time of the shooting, this is evidence that you were not the shooter.
The fingerprints, and the citation, are evidence.
Not proof.
Proof requires evidence that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. In my example, there is evidence that you were the shooter, and there is evidence that you were not the shooter. Proof has not been established.
In my line of work, conflicting evidence is commonplace.
For most people the words are interchangeable

But even going by your usage then proof would be a higher standard correct?

So if someone believes it is possible creator gods exist (just as they think many things are possible), what would be wrong about saying someone would require proof before they would believe in them?

It clearly is an accurate statement unless IANS is going to say he believes its possible creator gods exist but proof wouldn't convince him

And the context of this conversation was my making the point that if it is possible creator gods exist then he can't say for a fact (like he has many times) that even if God exists that Jesus does not. By his own admission it is possible and he can't rule it out

But because he didn't want to admit that instead he simply replied "Nope. I'm not going to continue to correct you any more."

Of course that makes it look like he is denying he said creator gods exist. But because he didn't want to concede the point I was making he made a blanket denial without bothering to say it was because I used the term proof not evidence. I had to ask him half a dozen times before he would come out and say this was the reason because he knew he was using a technicality to give an impression that was false.

Just like he is trying to say he wasn't slamming the character of Christians but rather a doctrine that would allow Christians with bad character to use a loophole. It is the same thing since his statement implied all Christians and he made no attempt to qualify "some"

Honest people don't have to use technicalities and synonyms as excuses to deny something they said. A good comparison would be the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In the spirit of honesty he is lying by not saying he is denying he said it based on the use of a synonym. And in the letter of the law he is just plain lying when he says he didn't imply Christians lack empathy for those they hurt

Adults shouldn't have to play these games but I guess when someone's pride is so great that they will stoop to any low before conceding a point that is what they do. He has been called on it by other posters as well. He has done it in here quite a few times including with Juicy saying she had him all wrong saying all or most Christians are indoctrinated and then went on to say Christians think how they do because of what their church teaches them

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and so on. IANS is not honest and as far as I am concerned anyone who is can see the difference between honesty and semantic games.

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#489222 Feb 16, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish more of the Christian posters here felt as you do.
Thank you Catcher1, I think you will find that a lot of them do :)

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#489223 Feb 16, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been reading along with interest during this exchange, and it comes to mind that what you point out is something you and I and others have discussed at times - over on the atheist thread.
As a matter of fact, here's something I posted a while back and it speaks to this "state" seen in theism, and Christianity more specifically than most.
....
This relates to this mentality fostered within theism. The mentality that the believer is only responsible to the god(S) for whatever they do, whether in the name of the god, or not.
Ultimately, under most theistic beliefs you can only be good with the help of the perfect god, and bad because of the trickster gods help. According to believers, we are incapable of no more or less without the intervention of the god(S).
The perfect god(S) and trickster god(S) are given credit for what we do all by ourselves.
This is a flawed and escapist sort of reasoning used by theists. They are able to avoid being truly accountable to their fellow man, and, depending on the circumstance, will claim a type of immunity by divine authority or forgiveness by that divinity, or claim being manipulated by the evil agent, expecting sympathy and leniency due to either circumstance.
Some, even being so bold as to not need to be absolved on any material level since they've been forgiven by the perfect god, and have no need of mans involvement at all.
It negates morals, even those morals claimed by the theist to have been given by the particular deity. A person, whether practicing the religion "correctly", or, "incorrectly", can obtain absolution at all times. No matter the circumstance.
Ultimately, within that framework of skewed theistic moral view and responsibility, no one need ever know about crimes or transgressions. Those things can remain "dirty little secrets". That's not a good thing for a society. Or civilization.
That mentality is dangerous. It amounts to a person muttering under their breath a prayer of forgiveness to the ceiling fan whirring overhead and it's forgiven and forgotten. The ceiling fan will tell no one. The silence of the fan is its acknowledgement of your prayer.
Fortunately, the deity always says it's okay, always~/.
You are forgiven. Right?
Where is the morality in that type of system?
I'll answer your question with a question ~ where is the morality in the judicial system of this world we all call home?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
should i give my brother a bj? (Dec '12) 1 min ticklebuddy 34
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Anthony MN 649,793
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min Happy Lesbo 55,939
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 1 hr RiccardoFire 70,225
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 44,923
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 1 hr WasteWater 2,293
dubai airport any gay men for sex contact me on... (Jun '15) 2 hr jelly 11
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 7 hr River Tam 972,382
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) Fri Noname 69
More from around the web