What lifestyle is easier and more fun? Jesus's way, or your way?And why?

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

"They don't advocate turning the other cheek or allowing the lion's to eat them"

here are the clearly delineated differences between the liberals and Republicans. Feel free to let the lions eat you and your family- but I am fighting back.

Did you seriously just turn this into a political thread?

Just go beat off to a picture of George Bush or something.

[Air Force Cane]

for the idiots who can't read- it was the THIRD post in the entire thread that turned it political when BURGOLD stated Republicans were pro-war and wanted the sword rather than the plowshare.

" Example, many in the religious right are pro-war. They don't advocate turning the other cheek or allowing the lion's to eat them. The religious right relish the sword and not the plow."

try reading rather than telling guys to go whack off- it is the jesus way jerks.

[Zguy28]

I'd still like to hear your response to this:GNOSTIC GOSPELS

It depends on which Gnostics you're talking about. There were many unorthodox theists who believed in gnosis (hidden knowledge). Unfortunately for them, God's revelation of HImself was to make things clear to us, not to confuse. There is nothing in the Bible that can't be understood through Illumination by the Holy SPirit, diligent and disciplined study, and fellowship.

I would suggest you start here: ante-nicene writings

Particularly focus on Irenaeus.

You know what's funny? Seems that most of you overly religious zealots have this bone to pick with us who say that we live by the example that Jesus set. But just because we say that we don't believe that Jesus was the "only" son of god, then all of a sudden our views are not valuable.

Not at all, just wrong. Anything wrong with that?

However if you do your research you'll realize that there was a counsel (when the Christian Church was being formed) to debate the merits of Jesus and the sole philosophy of Christianity. There was one group that believed in Jesus and the Holy Trinity ... the Trinitarians. Another group debated that Jesus was indeed a good and noble man, but not the son of "God" ... I believe they were called "Aurelians" or something to that effect. There was a debate, on who was right. After pretty much flipping a coin to figure who was "correct", they decided that the Trinitarians were correct. From that point any doctrines of Aurelius were to be turned in to the church and be burned. Anyone that was found to have possession of his writings after the "turn-in" period were to be killed. Now you tell me if Jesus is cool with that? Also tell me that if you have to have a debate and, essentially, a "coin flip" to make a decision, what makes your view 100% correct? Is it because the bible is self-authenticating?

You are referring to the "Arian controversy"? And the First Council of Nicea in 325?

Arius was a Bishop who believed that the Son(Christ;Logos or Word) was not always with God, nor of the same essence , but was created by Him with the purpose to create the Universe and redeem it. He was highly influenced by Greek philosophy in his thinking. There were only two dissenters who supported Arius at the Council of Nicea, out of at least 250 attendees, not half as some would make believe.

How supercilious to put your explanation/understanding out there as unquestionable truth. Is you're ability to discern what the gospels mean that absolute? Or, is it the abilities of those who taught you that are. If you can't accept that subtilities might have been lost through the translations and interpretations of the bible, you are a very stubborn man.

I never said it is unquestionable. I would suggest, no I insist, that you research it yourselves. Search the Scriptures, search the writings of the times. Verify what I am telling you.

When I read this I read you saying that Jesus was not a good teacher. I know that's not what you meant.

What I am saying is, Jesus said A,B, & C. You choose not believe A. How do you know B & C are true? Certainly if he lied about one, what does that say about his character? Does he have integrity after that?

[Air Force Cane]

"Another group debated that Jesus was indeed a good and noble man, but not the son of "God"

actually that would be the Jews and Muslims :cool:

[rincewind]

for the idiots who can't read- it was the THIRD post in the entire thread that turned it political when BURGOLD stated Republicans were pro-war and wanted the sword rather than the plowshare.

" Example, many in the religious right are pro-war. They don't advocate turning the other cheek or allowing the lion's to eat them. The religious right relish the sword and not the plow."

try reading rather than telling guys to go whack off- it is the jesus way jerks.

:laugh: :laugh:

Oh the irony... Before you charge others with not being able to read, you should learn a little yourself. NO WHERE in the post that you pretend to quote does the word Republican appear as you claim. Case dismissed.

[Zguy28]

First tell us what is "your way".

And then break it down from there, wether you think your way is easier and or more fun and why.

Are there some things you do that make life harder?

This should be interesting. :munchout:

I think some people have more fun "the Jesus way" and others have fun "their way".

I, for example, like my way because I've had copious amounts of sex with many anonymous women out of wedlock. It is awesome.

I also like to throw down on Saturday night and going to church hungover as a little tacky.

But those are things I find fun. Some of you may not.

Your's definitely sounds like more "fun." Anybody that claims the "Jesus way" is fun...well, I don't consider picking up your cross daily constitutes "fun."

[Midnight Judges]

I am an atheist. I think the Jesus way is easier than my way because Christians believe in afterlife. They believe after you die everything is going to be OK and you will spend eternity with your friends and family. Basically, they are pretending there is no death. I still hold myself to basically the same moral standards as Christians, but I do it out of loyalty to friends and family, not God.

It would be easy to believe you will exist forever. It feels good to think that way. Unfortunately, it's not true.

So I would say my way is harder, but the truth isn't always what you want it to be.

As far as fun goes, it's a tie IMO.

[dfitzo53]

try reading rather than telling guys to go whack off- it is the jesus way jerks.

At first glance I read that as "the way Jesus jerks." Rather funny in the context of SSM's comment.

[alexey]

What I am saying is, Jesus said A,B, & C. You choose not believe A. How do you know B & C are true? Certainly if he lied about one, what does that say about his character? Does he have integrity after that?

There is no way of knowing what Jesus said word for word, and there are multiple ways of interpreting things.

What we have is multiple people writing down what they understood Jesus to say. Then we have more people trying to understand that and re-writting it, over and over again.

You making it sound so simple and straighforward, all-or-nothing sort of deal. That mindset is the devil.

[Henry]

I am an atheist. I think the Jesus way is easier than my way because Christians believe in afterlife. They believe after you die everything is going to be OK and you will spend eternity with your friends and family. Basically, they are pretending there is no death. I still hold myself to basically the same moral standards as Christians, but I do it out of loyalty to friends and family, not God.

It would be easy to believe you will exist forever. It feels good to think that way. Unfortunately, it's not true.

So I would say my way is harder and less fun, but the truth isn't always what you want it to be.

I'm not an atheist, but I agree with this somewhat. I envy the comfort the devout must feel in knowing they have all the answers, and that those answers lead to eternal joy. To me that seems a lot easier than facing the unknown.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

for the idiots who can't read- it was the THIRD post in the entire thread that turned it political when BURGOLD stated Republicans were pro-war and wanted the sword rather than the plowshare.

" Example, many in the religious right are pro-war. They don't advocate turning the other cheek or allowing the lion's to eat them. The religious right relish the sword and not the plow."

try reading rather than telling guys to go whack off- it is the jesus way jerks.

I saw that post, and I saw yours. However, the difference that I see in both is that, you obviously have a bone to pick with the liberals and spouted off about it while not even adding much to the conversation at hand. I think there's a major difference. Burgold threw his view out there, and gave an example of how he thought it would tie into the conversation (using the religious right). Your comment, while not being completely different in nature, doesn't even touch on, or give any type of opinion on the actual conversation. Which is why I say that you should just go jack off onto a picture of G.W. (I have one of him wearing a toga, in a very scintillating pose, if you'd like). I wouldn't even have much of a problem with your post if it seemed to even relate to the bulk of what we're talking about, but it doesn't.

[Air Force Cane]

"It would be easy to believe you will exist forever. It feels good to think that way. Unfortunately, it's not true."

now exactly how do you know what you just wrote?

Have you died and then been reincarnated to bless us with your wisdom?

[Henry]

I saw that post, and I saw yours. However, the difference that I see in both is that, you obviously have a bone to pick with the liberals and spouted off about it while not even adding much to the conversation at hand. I think there's a major difference. Burgold threw his view out there, and gave an example of how he thought it would tie into the conversation (using the religious right). Your comment, while not being completely different in nature, doesn't even touch on, or give any type of opinion on the actual conversation. Which is why I say that you should just go jack off onto a picture of G.W. (I have one of him wearing a toga, in a very scintillating pose, if you'd like). I wouldn't even have much of a problem with your post if it seemed to even relate to the bulk of what we're talking about, but it doesn't.

While I pretty much agree with this interpretation, the vulgar suggestions need to stop right now.

[ashburnskinsfan]

I am an atheist. I think the Jesus way is easier than my way because Christians believe in afterlife. They believe after you die everything is going to be OK and you will spend eternity with your friends and family. Basically, they are pretending there is no death. I still hold myself to basically the same moral standards as Christians, but I do it out of loyalty to friends and family, not God.

It would be easy to believe you will exist forever. It feels good to think that way. Unfortunately, it's not true.

So I would say my way is harder and less fun, but the truth isn't always what you want it to be.

The atheist who makes good choices, does so not because of fear of retribution or in return for some eternal reward, but because it is the right thing to do for his fellow humans.

Somewhat related, George Bernard Shaw put it this way:

Every man to whom salvation is offered has an inalienable natural right to say “No, thank you: I prefer to retain my full moral responsibility: it is not good for me to be able to load a scapegoat with my sins: I should be less careful how I committed them if I knew they would cost me nothing.”

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

The atheist who makes good choices, does so not because of fear of retribution or in return for some eternal reward, but because it is the right thing to do for his fellow humans.

Somewhat related, George Bernard Shaw put it this way:

Every man to whom salvation is offered has an inalienable natural right to say “No, thank you: I prefer to retain my full moral responsibility: it is not good for me to be able to load a scapegoat with my sins: I should be less careful how I committed them if I knew they would cost me nothing.”

:applause: Great post.

[70th Week]

After pretty much flipping a coin to figure who was "correct", they decided that the Trinitarians were correct.

Uh,no.I like how people twist things to their advantage when needs be.

There were only two dissenters who supported Arius at the Council of Nicea, out of at least 250 attendees, not half as some would make believe.

Zguy has it correct with a little history study.Funny also how people try to discredit the gospels wrote from eyewitnesses from 4 different writers who say virtually the same things but credit the gnostics which was written well afterwards just to fit their twisted beliefs.

[AJ_Skins]

Ultimately, the "Jesus way" is easier and more fun. That doesn't mean it's always easy or fun.

[Sweet Sassy Molassy]

So what we've all concluded here, while we all have certain information, there are obviously 2 sides to the story.

Some accounts shed one light, others shed another. Wouldn't that sort of prove the point that some of us are making, that, while we all have info that says completely different things, we really don't know anything? Again, is it so inconceivable that there was a mistake made when deciding what "we're" going to believe?

[The 12th Commandment]

So what we've all concluded here, while we all have certain information, there are obviously 2 sides to the story.

Some accounts shed one light, others shed another. Wouldn't that sort of prove the point that some of us are making, that, while we all have info that says completely different things, we really don't know anything? Again, is it so inconceivable that there was a mistake made when deciding what "we're" going to believe?

Ah, the fallibility of man. Seems easier to rely on faith though, like Midnight and Henry said, it's much harder to accept that we don't know.

[AJ_Skins]

So what we've all concluded here, while we all have certain information, there are obviously 2 sides to the story.

Some accounts shed one light, others shed another. Wouldn't that sort of prove the point that some of us are making, that, while we all have info that says completely different things, we really don't know anything? Again, is it so inconceivable that there was a mistake made when deciding what "we're" going to believe?

All of this talk about what was or was not decided to be canon by early church leaders is a red herring. It may take some knowledge of theology to understand why, but simply put, the non-canonical writings like the "gnostic gospels" are so incompatible with pre-existing scripture (i.e. Jewish scripture, or the "Old Testament"), that they clearly cannot both be true. On those grounds, they are not even worth consideration.

[Zguy28]

Ah, the fallibility of man.

That is a true statement.

Seems easier to rely on faith though, like Midnight and Henry said, it's much harder to accept that we don't know.

From that point of view, I would agree. Its definitely good to have something to trust in, since that is what faith is. :2cents:

[SUNSTONE]

I just spent 40 minutes reading all of that.

Now I'll go through and pick out the ones that answered the questions, and I'll try to get this back on track.

[SUNSTONE]

I suppose I'm living the Jesus way....

I am Catholic and preparing for seminary. My lifestyle requires obediance, chastity, and poverty.

Is this easy? Absolutely not. More fun? I'd say yes. It's funny how the good things in life take effort. Living as close to the way that Christ did is difficult but extremely rewarding.

Not being trained Catholic, I don't know all the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

Tell me more about how your lifestyle, and these "good things in life" that you are referring to.

[PleaseBlitz]

The atheist who makes good choices, does so not because of fear of retribution or in return for some eternal reward, but because it is the right thing to do for his fellow humans.

Somewhat related, George Bernard Shaw put it this way:

Every man to whom salvation is offered has an inalienable natural right to say “No, thank you: I prefer to retain my full moral responsibility: it is not good for me to be able to load a scapegoat with my sins: I should be less careful how I committed them if I knew they would cost me nothing.”

Yeah, but those people are still going to burn in hell for all eternity.

I prefer this quote by Twain: "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company."

[SUNSTONE]

If everyone lived as Jesus wanted us to certainly the world would be an easier place to live. Problem is, if you adhere and your neighbors don't, you're bound to be pretty miserable. Example, many in the religious right are pro-war. They don't advocate turning the other cheek or allowing the lion's to eat them. The religious right relish the sword and not the plow.

Ok, I'll stray off course on this post, and then get back on track.

"turn the other cheek" has nothing to do with war, or even fighting with fists.

Go look up that chapter and you will clearly see that this verse is talking about insults.

Being smacked on the face is a very high form of insult.

On the other hand, if you were struck in the face with a fist, there would be no turning of the cheek, there would only be darkness and cold pavement in your near future with a blow like that.

Perhaps you are right in that Jesus was totally against war(I don't believe so) and that we should just die.

But consider other passages.

A time for peace and a time for war.

Jesus Himself is coming back, and He's coming to fight in the war of Armageddon.

Perhaps Christians are too blood hungry and want to fight war at the drop of a hat.

But there is no doubt in my mind that wars like WW2 were totally justified.

In my opinion, it would be a sin to not fight a war like WW2 than to just sit and be taken over, allowing the enemy to wipe out the Jews and other people.

The bible says that if you watch an innocent person being dragged to their death and you don't do anything about it, then their blood is on your hands as well.