Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

---

  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

[JSojourner]

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

That's a very thoughtful question.

Here's why, in my opinion. 

I don't believe you can accept the worship of other people, as Jesus did, and not lead them astray.  Leading people astray is cruel.  Now, if Jesus came along -- as John the Baptist and many of the prophets did -- and said, "I am not God but I have a message for you" -- then well and good. He could tell people to live their lives in this or that way...encourage them to do good...and remind them to pray, read the scriptures and help the poor.

But he, like Reverend Moon, Jim Jones, Father Divine and a host of others throughout history claimed to be God in the flesh.  And he demanded and accepted worship.  Jim Jones did so many wonderful things in his ministry.  But he also claimed to be God...and wound up leading his followers to their doom.  The same could be said of Jesus.  Nearly all his earliest followers, for at least three hundred years, were put to death or forced to live under the most brutal persecution.  All because he said, "I AM that I AM".  (In saying this, he was effectively say -- to the Jewish mind, in particular -- I am the I AM who gave Moses the law.   So, you shall have no other Gods but me.  A carpenter?  From Nazareth?

Too many people died or suffered because he claimed divinity.

Someone cannot do such a thing and not be cruel...or crazy. 

Or, perhaps it's worth considering, he actually WAS God. 

[JSojourner]

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

That's all you really needed to say, to hit the nail on the head as it were.

It is comments like this that ensure the United States will never elect an atheist President.

As a Christian, I see absolutely no reason a President cannot be an Atheist.  I am repulsed by comments like those of former President Bush (41), that Atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens.

Because I believe in Jesus, who taught -- "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" -- it's simple.  I wouldn't want a Christian to be disqualified from holding office because he was Christian.  So, I wouldn't want an Atheist (or Jew or Muslim or Wiccan) disqualified either.

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

[WMS]

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

That's all you really needed to say, to hit the nail on the head as it were.

It is comments like this that ensure the United States will never elect an atheist President.

As a Christian, I see absolutely no reason a President cannot be an Atheist.  I am repulsed by comments like those of former President Bush (41), that Atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens.

Because I believe in Jesus, who taught -- "Treat others as you would wish to be treated" -- it's simple.  I wouldn't want a Christian to be disqualified from holding office because he was Christian.  So, I wouldn't want an Atheist (or Jew or Muslim or Wiccan) disqualified either.

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

This appears to be Red Avatars Misunderstanding What WMS Is Saying Day.

KEmp's comment was insulting, rude, and arrogant toward Christians. Sad to say, I run into that a lot with atheists. It's never enough just to agree to disagree about matters of faith, they insist on outright attacking Christians (or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or fill-in-the-blank), and that hostile attitude toward believers (as shown in the anti-Christian example here) is what will prevent people from voting for them. It isn't a matter of legal status. There is no disqualification being referred to - it's that few people will want to have someone hostile or contemptuous to their faith in office and thus won't vote for them.

As I have said before, if you want to be an atheist I have no problems with that. Live and let live. But if you choose to go past that and attack other faiths...well, expect opposition.

Unless KEmp was joking. But he gave no indication of that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

actually, if you reject Jesus as God, then you can't say "do unto others" was Jesus' Great Commandment, for "do unto others" originated in the Law of Moses.

[Colin]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

So the 3 billion or so people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are, by your definition, evil?

[Bono]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

So the 3 billion or so people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are, by your definition, evil?

How can that be derived from what he said. He said "there is none good but God alone", not "there is none good but God and his followers alone".

[KEmperor]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

So the 3 billion or so people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are, by your definition, evil?

How can that be derived from what he said. He said "there is none good but God alone", not "there is none good but God and his followers alone".

All people are evil.  What a wonderful worldview.

[Gabu]

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

I always thought there was something in there about loving your neighbor as yourself and about generosity and not blindly seeking revenge and all that, but I guess not, since I tend to never hear a word about that.

That's a very thoughtful question.

Here's why, in my opinion. 

I don't believe you can accept the worship of other people, as Jesus did, and not lead them astray.  Leading people astray is cruel.  Now, if Jesus came along -- as John the Baptist and many of the prophets did -- and said, "I am not God but I have a message for you" -- then well and good. He could tell people to live their lives in this or that way...encourage them to do good...and remind them to pray, read the scriptures and help the poor.

But he, like Reverend Moon, Jim Jones, Father Divine and a host of others throughout history claimed to be God in the flesh.  And he demanded and accepted worship.  Jim Jones did so many wonderful things in his ministry.  But he also claimed to be God...and wound up leading his followers to their doom.  The same could be said of Jesus.  Nearly all his earliest followers, for at least three hundred years, were put to death or forced to live under the most brutal persecution.  All because he said, "I AM that I AM".  (In saying this, he was effectively say -- to the Jewish mind, in particular -- I am the I AM who gave Moses the law.   So, you shall have no other Gods but me.  A carpenter?  From Nazareth?

Too many people died or suffered because he claimed divinity.

Someone cannot do such a thing and not be cruel...or crazy. 

Or, perhaps it's worth considering, he actually WAS God.

It's worth considering, yes, but I still don't really see how that proves that he was.  All that it says to me is that he was really, really convinced that he was the Son of God and so were other people.  I certainly think it's possible that he was.  I just don't see why the above is reason to state concretely that he definitely was, with no ifs, ands, or buts.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All people are evil.  What a wonderful worldview.

yes, the ground around the cross is level - which is why Paul said, "Christ came into the world to save sinners, of which I am the worst."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

His 'good message' was that salvation was attained through him alone, which is why they killed him

I always thought there was something in there about loving your neighbor as yourself and about generosity and not blindly seeking revenge and all that, but I guess not, since I tend to never hear a word about that.

Why is it a dichotomy between 'salvation in Christ alone' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself'?

[minionofmidas]

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

It seems to me that one could also be evil and insane, and nonetheless be the Son of God.

[J. J.]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

So the 3 billion or so people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are, by your definition, evil?

How can that be derived from what he said. He said "there is none good but God alone", not "there is none good but God and his followers alone".

Bono, that statement really a bit unfair.

Here is what the Bible says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

What?

And whose to say that the man casting out demons in the name of Jesus was a "non follower"?!

If anything, Jesus' statement is lesson against sectarian conflicts within Christianity.

[ilikeverin]

Or they just, really, really value free will.  Or any number of other possible explanations.  Don't these statements kind of run contrary to your assertion above that humans have no idea what the creator's qualities are, if such a thing exists?

I don't think free will explains any of my concerns adequately; in regards to the existence of evil and suffering in the world, some of it is out of our control.  A person who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion didn't use his free will to make any poor choices.  Maybe this just means that God values free will so much that our decisions (about who to have sex with and what protection to use) can just kill other people.  To me, it simply shows a lack of care on God's part.  If someone who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion is meant to be a sign to tell us to stop having unprotected sex, what value does it do to the person who got AIDS?  Not that, if this were the purpose of AIDS from blood transfusions, it has been very effective in stopping unprotected sex, given the way the AIDS rate has been soaring.  The idea that God could create a child simply so that it could be born with AIDS strikes me as morally repugnant.  The child (or the blood transfusion victim, both work) had no free will in the matter.

The idea of God meaninglessly "creating" (too strong of a word... God created the processes that led to the mechanism of sexual reproduction that led to the birth of the child?) a child shocks and offends me, too.  That's why there must be a meaning to the madness if I am to reconcile omnipotence and omnibenevolence   So I say, that God doesn't arbitrarily do things like this.  There is some reason for it.  It's really not that hard of a leap to make if you accept God

But, as far as I know, the idea of a child meaninglessly being born with AIDS still exists with atheism too.

[Bono]

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?

because there is no one 'good' but God alone

So the 3 billion or so people who do not believe in the Abrahamic God are, by your definition, evil?

How can that be derived from what he said. He said "there is none good but God alone", not "there is none good but God and his followers alone".

Bono, that statement really a bit unfair.

Here is what the Bible says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

A good act. However first we have the depravity of man clearly taught in the Bible:

Romans 5:12 12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Ps 51:5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Rom 3:10-18 10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:15     Their feet are swift to shed blood:16Destruction and misery are in their ways:17And the way of peace have they not known:18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

This leads to the issue you're presenting--good works done by unregenerate men. The Bible teaches us that while for the matter of them they are things which God comands and are profitable to themselves and to others, becuase they do not proceed from a regenerated heart, nor are done in a right manner nor to the right end--which is the glory of God--they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God.

Haggai 2:14 Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean.

Titus 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Amos 5:21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. 22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is what the Bible says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Jesus very clearly recognised that good, in this case the expulsion of demons, can be performed by a non follower.

A good act. However first we...

No, I think first both you and J.J. need to reread that passage, for it NEVER states that the man who was casting out demons in Jesus' name was not a believer in Jesus.

[Gabu]

I don't think free will explains any of my concerns adequately; in regards to the existence of evil and suffering in the world, some of it is out of our control.  A person who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion didn't use his free will to make any poor choices.  Maybe this just means that God values free will so much that our decisions (about who to have sex with and what protection to use) can just kill other people.  To me, it simply shows a lack of care on God's part.  If someone who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion is meant to be a sign to tell us to stop having unprotected sex, what value does it do to the person who got AIDS?  Not that, if this were the purpose of AIDS from blood transfusions, it has been very effective in stopping unprotected sex, given the way the AIDS rate has been soaring.  The idea that God could create a child simply so that it could be born with AIDS strikes me as morally repugnant.  The child (or the blood transfusion victim, both work) had no free will in the matter.

It depends on how you define "out of our control".  If someone gets AIDS from a blood transfusion, you are correct to state that that was totally out of control of the person receiving the transfusion.  But it was probably not out of control of the person who initially gave the blood.  To insert a hand in things to prevent the person who gave the blood from doing things would certainly violate free will.

As to the existence of disease and such at all, it's largely a fact that one's happiness is not based not on the circumstances that one finds oneself in, but on one's perception of these circumstances.  Two people could be in exactly the same circumstances and one could be happy while the other was quite unhappy.  It's kind of a morbid thought, but would it really be possible for anyone to be happy at all if there was no suffering or heartache in life?  How would we know to be happy if we've never seen or experienced the alternative?

I make all of these statements on the hypothetical that God does indeed exist.  While it would be impossible to discern his purpose in creating the universe, I think it is incredibly unlikely that, if he exists, he cares about human affairs, based on the examples I have given.  Basically all of this is to say that if God exists, this raises far too many questions for us to even begin to consider the scientific ramifications of his existence.  But, based on pure speculation, it seems very unlikely that God cares about humans on anything more than a superficial level.  This video, IMO, displays why the idea that humans are the purpose of the universe's existence is so unlikely.  I realize that we can't ever conclusively rule out God's existence.  However, atheism is not only the belief that God doesn't exist (although it can be), but it is also better defined as the conscious absence of belief in any supernatural powers.  While the concept of deism is palatable to me, I see no reason to believe there is any deity that created the universe unless scientific evidence points towards it.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  You've admitted that it's possible for there to have been a creator, but now you're saying that you see no reason at all to believe that some sort of deity created the universe.

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

[Bono]

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

*bets on appeal to multiverses*

[Gabu]

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

*bets on appeal to multiverses*

However many there are, the question is the same.

[Bono]

Where do you feel that universe came from if nothing created it?

*bets on appeal to multiverses*

However many there are, the question is the same.

No, but you see, since the hypothetic multiverse cannot be observed, atheists are just free to say it's eternal and uncreated, which was what they did with the universe until Big Bang theory came along.

[WMS]

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

It seems to me that one could also be evil and insane, and nonetheless be the Son of God.

OK, now that's just scary.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I voted 'No'

[JSojourner]

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

actually, if you reject Jesus as God, then you can't say "do unto others" was Jesus' Great Commandment, for "do unto others" originated in the Law of Moses.

Of course, I don't reject Jesus as God.  I affirm the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.  And you're right about the origin of "the heart of the law".  Indeed, even the law of Moses came down to this...Jesus clarified that for all time.

My overarching points are two-fold, however....

1.  A person probably cannot be intellectually honest and just assign Jesus the "good teacher" role.  As C.S. Lewis said, "he is either liar, lunatic or the Lord of glory".

2.  A comment was made (which I evidently misinterpreted and for which I apologize) indicating that an Atheist would not make a good President.  While i didn't get the gist of the dispute between the two involved, I still maintain that a Christian should do to others as he would have done to him.  Therefore, unless he has no problem with forbidding people from holding office based on their Christian faith, he should not wish to preclude those of no religious faith from holding office.

President George H.W. Bush, though in many ways a good and decent man, made an egregiously anti-American and un-Christian comment some years ago when he said he didn't know if an Atheist should even be considered a citizen.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Many of my fellow Christians miss this.  The Great Commission of Jesus was to go into all the world and preach His Gospel.  Well and good.  But His Great Commission should never supercede or overrule His Great Commandment (do unto others).  The two should, ideally, compiment one another.

actually, if you reject Jesus as God, then you can't say "do unto others" was Jesus' Great Commandment, for "do unto others" originated in the Law of Moses.

Of course, I don't reject Jesus as God. 

understood, i was talking through you not to you.  sorry for the confusion.