Part 26 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

So do you worship Jesus Christ yes or no?

I have already answer that and the answer is no one is not a Christian if they do not believe and accept Jesus Christ is God.
Worship is to God alone.
You are contradicting yourself how can one worship Jesus and not accept him is God or worship God through Jesus Christ?

I will ask Inc after you answer my question so will you answer or no?

But WR says you are not a christian?
Clearly I said dairy is not a Christian maybe you got mixed up with spelling.
I will quote your statement clearly you are using deceptive means it is a good thing it only works with you.
Quote Originally Posted by dairyair View Post
Lest ye not forget.
Satan is very clever and is a deceiver and deceives those who seek for truth outside the Bible.

 

Is jesus god? Yes or No. In your view.
BTW you have stated a few times, jesus is NOT god.

 

holy moly. Look at all the back peddling and back stabbing going here.
WR says, if you don't think god and jesus are the same entity, you are not a christian.

Incorporeal is on record, many times, god is not jesus.

I merely point out the contradiction, and both attack me. And never, ever, ask each other for clarification. Just attack.

It is like it's the same person trying to live 2 different personalities on this forum.
And this post will get deleted.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=383817&page=10
Here ye go. Blessed is he who seeks the truth. Although, 26 of these is a lot of reading. And you may throw up on 1/2 of the answers.

 

You say, ' no one is not a Christian if they do not believe and accept Jesus Christ is God.'
Incorporeal, your alter ego, has said many times, jesus in NOT god.

I have made no claim, jesus is not god. Only Incorporeal in these threads has made the claim. Jesus is not god. What I think, is really relevant. I haven't cowtowed to your posts like alter ego Inorporeal has to yours.
Matter of fact, I think, your posts are full of deception. And Incorp and Mitt have agreeed. I;ve seen them like many posts of yours where you flat out are deceptive.
It makes this thread a complete fail.

Neither one has questioned the moronic claim of world wide cannibalism of all children, babies, and fetuses. And I've seen them like posts of yours where you have made such a statement.
You think Inc isn't a chirsitian, cuz he says jesus is not god.
You think Mitt isn't a christian, cuz, he says RC church lies..

What are folks who read this thread to think??

 

I like the way you wiggle about how things are not to be taken literally. So just for crap and grins will you please list 10 things that a reader should take literally in the Bible?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to enlighten me. You're a swell guy.

 

The link you provided is invalid, as it only directed me to the the OP of a thread .... Not to the specific posting. You are caught in yet another prevarication.

 

Jesus was a man and it is accounted to each man to die once. Jesus did die... the Christ lives on.
Jesus was the vehicle which was inhabited by the Christ (the Messiah). Jesus was resurrected and now sits at the right hand of the Father.

 

Matthew 27. The tombs open, dead arise, leave the cemetery and appear to many in Jerusalem. I bet that gave the inhabitants a scare. Not only that, think of all the inheritance money they're going to have to pay back.

 

Who do you think was the ultimate ruler of Rome? Caesar.

 

Which definition of "ultimate" are you using?

 

So the Christ was born of sinful flesh? Or the Christ entered the body of a sinner?

The 'prediction' in Isaiah 9:6 so loved by Christianity tells us 'For a child is born to us, a son is given to us'.NLT Note child - a son - not a Son.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops. Another sidestep.

 

Let’s just get things into perspective.

Over 2,000 years ago a VERY insignificant event occurred. A baby was born - supposedly in Bethlehem - probably in Nazareth. The birth is embellished with ‘events’. Then the baby is promptly forgotten about for 30 years - apart from a Bar Mitzvah 13 years later.

All around in the known world events were going on as normal. People were going about their every day life. Romans were in control of a vast area and their ‘rules’ applied. Religions abounded. And so it would be for the vast amount of the world population for 3 centuries to come. Even more.

For 3 years an itinerant Rabbi/teacher/messiah wandered mainly Galilee preaching a message, was tried, crucified and supposedly rose again.

During this period the world went on in its normal way. A few men in Jerusalem started preaching a new message. And the world went on as normal. For 300 years there was some trouble between religions - Jews and Christians - Jews and Rome - Rome and Christians. Somewhere amongst it all the Pagans joined in. All sorted by the Romans and life went on as normal.

BUT

Christians have a different view because they concentrate only on what the Bible says. And what does the Bible do. IT concentrates on ‘promoting’ Christianity. It ignores what is going on elsewhere. Thus we get a biased view of the world of the time. We imagine that Christianity was greater than it really was. We read of Paul’s Missionary works and imagine that it was ‘setting the world on fire’, when it was in fact opening a few churches in major cities and making some converts. Look at the world around outside the Bible. Christianity was not making the progress the Bible makes us think.

Jerusalem Christians were still Judaistic in some ways. Paul was trying to adapt some Judaistic ways to fit in with Christianity. I know you will disagree with that but look at Paul’s acts and teaching in the book of Acts.

In its first 300 years Christianity makes some gains, but it was not the potent force imagined by many. It’s dominance came with Constantine making it the State religion. It was then enforced by the power of the Church demanding obedience to its doctrine for many centuries.

IMHO if Constantine had not acted as he had Christianity would not have survived the centuries. It is completely against man’s natural instincts.

How many who call themselves Christians on here will not study outside the Bible in case they find something that will shake their understanding and indoctrination.

How many non-Christians on here would, knowing what we know today about the Bible and it’s errancy, become Christians.

Human nature is selfish. It wants to state its own claim to its own life. It tolerates being told what to do only for its own benefit. Christianity is opposite. It is reliant on a being that can neither be proven or unproven.

Like it or not after 300 years and Constantine’s intervention Christianity became a religion of ‘believe it or you will go to hell’. THAT was the spread of Christianity. NOT the love for a miraculous baby son.

 

Neither. But such a response from you was anticipated. Read the scripture,,, study,,,, and hopefully learn.

Wow.. talking about sidesteps.... I didn't even mention the word "son" or "Son"

Now for those high school drop-outs we have the following feature being presented.
ultimate:
adj.1. Being last in a series, process, or progression: "As the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, the Supreme Court occupies a central place in our scheme of government" (Richard A. Epstein).
2. Fundamental; elemental: an ultimate truth.
3. a. Of the greatest possible size or significance; maximum: Has the ultimate diamond been found?
b. Representing or exhibiting the greatest possible development or sophistication: the ultimate bicycle.
c. Utmost; extreme: the ultimate insult.

4. Being most distant or remote; farthest. See Synonyms at last[SUP]1[/SUP].
5. Eventual: hoped for ultimate victory.

n.1. The basic or fundamental fact, element, or principle.
2. The final point; the conclusion.
3. The greatest extreme; the maximum: actions that represented the ultimate in political expediency."

Now once again.... which of the above definitions of the term "ultimate' are you using?

 

Since a lack of sex is grounds for annulment of even something as sacred as a religious marriage; it is morally wrong to inform women that if they aren't doing us we don't have to put out a serious relationship with them?

 

1. You can't have it both ways. Jesus (according to Christians) was both a baby born of the flesh of the sinner (acc/to Christianity) Mary and also the Messiah foretold of old. The son I mentioned. Or he took over the body of Jesus later. So my 'son' is in answer to you. Not a sidestep. Of course you have your own ideas of what is right and wrong in the Bible.
2. It is sad that a person, obviously intelligent, has to employ such silly word games. If I want to play word games I use the Telegraph cryptic crossword and books of cryptic crosswords.

 

And remember chics, it is "be Ruth" not, be rude.

 

And nowhere did you address the simple question "what definition of the term "ultimate" are you using?" Instead you evade the question by addressing my comment about your use of the word "son" and "Son" and then proceed to an innuendo pertaining to intelligence and word games. Are you afraid to be intellectually honest and respond to the question pertaining to the definition of 'ultimate'?

 

Oh dear. Let's pander to the childish desires. Ultimate = eventual, last, final, concluding, conclusive, terminal, end, endmost, furthest;

Caesar was the ultimate authority. None higher. Even Paul knew that.

 

Well, if you already knew, then why did you ask?

 

You should then stop back peddling and back stabbing as you continue contradict yourself.
And yes again as I have said one is not a Christian if they do not worship Jesus Christ.
So, question to you again are you a Christian?

Here is the record on file;
Quote Originally Posted by dairyair View Post
Lest ye not forget.
Satan is very clever and is a deceiver and deceives those who seek for truth outside the Bible.

So you consider asking you question as an attack if you would stop spreading falsehood about the historicity of the Christian Bible then we will not be asking you question or as you prefer attacking you.
So you would prefer that we don't ask you question and that it should only be you that should be asking question?

Where? thread 26 has lots of yours and your horsemen wild and distorted claims as well as our answers and responses to it all.
What is in record that does not require lots of reading is this:
Quote Originally Posted by dairyair View Post
Lest ye not forget.
Satan is very clever and is a deceiver and deceives those who seek for truth outside the Bible.

 

First you ask me "how I know Paul was referring to Caesar" which means that you don't know. And then you accuse me of making things up.

I realized English is not your first language so will translate for you.

Paul says"

1) The existing authorities have been put there by God.

This means all of them including Caesar, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin. "No authority exists without Gods permission"

If you oppose existing authority you are opposing God according to Paul.

So as it turns out, once again your made up story does not reflect what is written.

I am merely stating what it says in the Bible.

 

What are you talking about? I asked WarRen who he thought the ultimate ruler was, and then gave him the answer before he repeated his gibberish. (unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing; nonsense.)

 

I agree that Satan did evil things to Job. This was done according to the will of God.

You are projecting our deficiencies onto others again. It is you who is so desperate to deny history.

 

Well, if you suspected that he would provide nothing more than "unintelligible or meaningless speech or writing, gibberish", then why did you even bother asking him in the first place?