Why must Jesus be a white man?

[Wolf]

To answer Lozeewee's question, Christ died to save all humankind. Perhaps I am simply naive, but I would expect after saying that that it would be clear what happens to members of other faiths. I believe C.S. Lewis' explains it quite well, in that all human "gods" are, by nature, quite similar, and if there was a God, He would be understanding enough to appreciate worship in others as worship for Him.

[GUNWOUNDS]

To answer Lozeewee's question, Christ died to save all humankind. Perhaps I am simply naive, but I would expect after saying that that it would be clear what happens to members of other faiths. I believe C.S. Lewis' explains it quite well, in that all human "gods" are, by nature, quite similar, and if there was a God, He would be understanding enough to appreciate worship in others as worship for Him.

right but is this nullified once these people are visited by christian missionaries?

[Wolf]

You mean, if they are made aware of Christ, and choose not to accept him? It depends on the person. I believe that God is not some mechanical entity which just reads the papers and makes decisions. It's not like their application to Heaven is somehow invalidated. Rather, I think God would be far more understanding. A good man is still a good man, and his choice wether or not to accept Christ must be accepted in that goodness. If it is a choice based on pride, and ultimately leads to ill deeds and ill will, then I suppose there is a problem. If it is a choice made out of genuinely good intentions, good will, and a belief in service to a greater good, then I think God can be understanding. The point to emphasize here is that things like faith, or an all-powerful, all-knowing God are not as cut and dry as we might think...

[GUNWOUNDS]

You mean, if they are made aware of Christ, and choose not to accept him? It depends on the person. I believe that God is not some mechanical entity which just reads the papers and makes decisions. It's not like their application to Heaven is somehow invalidated. Rather, I think God would be far more understanding. A good man is still a good man, and his choice wether or not to accept Christ must be accepted in that goodness. If it is a choice based on pride, and ultimately leads to ill deeds and ill will, then I suppose there is a problem. If it is a choice made out of genuinely good intentions, good will, and a belief in service to a greater good, then I think God can be understanding. The point to emphasize here is that things like faith, or an all-powerful, all-knowing God are not as cut and dry as we might think...

actually ... without christ.... God is not a personal God...

without Christ,

[lowzeewee]

How do you know if your prayers "reach God"? :O

[GUNWOUNDS]

How do you know if your prayers "reach God"? :O

good question.

The Bible says God hears all of man's prayers.

And he answers them.... but what people fail to realize is that the answer can be "No" sometimes.

Also I do know there is a correct and incorrect way to pray.

There is a book i heard of called "Prayers that Avail Much"

i havent bought it yet but i plan to do so.

[lowzeewee]

Well I suppose it depends on the individual's personal belief. It is up to him to decide if he actually gets a reply...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well I suppose it depends on the individual's personal belief. It is up to him to decide if he actually gets a reply...

Well if what you prayed for comes to pass you can say that God answered your prayer with a "Yes"

If it doesnt come to pass then you can say that God answered your prayer with a "No"

I think people assume God is always going to say yes and then get upset when he decides to say no.

[Wolf]

How do you know if your prayers reach God? You have faith, Lowzeewee.

[lowzeewee]

How do you know if your prayers reach God? You have faith, Lowzeewee.

But how do you know if it's 'yes' or 'no'? People always assume it is 'yes'...

[GUNWOUNDS]

But how do you know if it's 'yes' or 'no'? People always assume it is 'yes'...

not true... many people dont get what they pray for .....and instead of taking it as a "No" ... they take it as an "ignore".....

[Barbarossa]

Honestly, whets the point of this discussion?

Jesus was just some protestor that lived and died several thousand years ago, seriously can anyone actually give proof he did what he supposedly did.  ???

No offense but Christianity just seems le a dumb religion to me.

[GUNWOUNDS]

yes we christians have to go on authority... on what Paul and John and Peter said etc,

[lowzeewee]

Every religion to me seems like a dumb one as there is no real proof in it but it is only the personal faith of the individual...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Every religion to me seems like a dumb one as there is no real proof in it but it is only the personal faith of the individual...

yes thats the problem.... as an atheist you have believe that ALL religions are false....

once you become a member of a faith you can become more liberal and see bits of the truth in each of the different faiths.

When you become a christian you dont have to believe all the other faiths are wrong in every aspect.....

[lowzeewee]

Yeah exactly...

[danielsh]

being a member of a faith actually frees you from the atheistic closemindedness of having to find each and every single thing of each and every single religion as being false.

and then add on top of that the athiest not only has to proclaim everything in each and every religion as "false" but he has to proclaim everything in each and every religion as "dumb" as well to reinforce his point.

[Barbarossa]

I just think that 99.99% of the shit Jesus supposedly did, is impossible!

If someone can scientifically prove any part of any religion I would undoubtedly join that religion, but until that day, I'm proud to be atheist!

And yes I

[GUNWOUNDS]

I just think that 99.99% of the shit Jesus supposedly did, is impossible!

If someone can scientifically prove any part of any religion I would undoubtedly join that religion, but until that day, I'm proud to be atheist!

And yes I

[Barbarossa]

my mind is quite free, I just pefer to rely on the actions and advances of humans, not some "Almighty".

I also dislike the hole "Miracal" thing...(Oh my, I have two weeks to live...TWO MONTHS LATER.....Wow I'm still alive! It could'nt of been all that surgery and medical science, It had to be a MIRACAL!!!!) Hmmm Theres that sarcasm again.  :P

[Wolf]

Well, first, specify the doctrine of science you would like me to work with you on.

From a logical standpoint, however, Christianity in general is not an impossible faith. Bear in mind that God is a metaphysical being, therefore, his existence is not contingent upon current physical laws (neither is the universe, if you subscribe to recent breakthroughs in quantum string theory). Even then, however, there is no empirical evidence leaning towards or against God's existence. While one may take the stance that a lack of evidence necessitates non-existence, this is simply not so. There are many things in this world that have happened, but even though I have no evidence of them, I have no reason to say that they never were. Furthermore, one might take the stance that in order for the religion to be established in the first place, certain "extraordinary" events must have taken place. The feast of "miracle" bread and fish, for example. If such a thing never happened (a gathering of hundreds of individuals) it would have been disputed by skeptics in the region. Remember, most people at that time would have done anything to disprove Christ; especially those in power-positions in religions, since they stood to lose. The fact that such a miraculous event was not adequately challenged says something.

Consider that, also, in order for Christianity to be established, there must have been many individuals who believed, without a doubt, that the religion was in the right. The Roman Empire was, by far, the most powerful empire in world history, and the one to which, arguably, the most fanatical dedication to the empire had been seen by the most diverse group. The Roman Legions were the first integrated army in history, as those of African decent (African Romans?) would join the military to gain citizenship. This same empire would later attempt to wipe out Christianity, and then, a hundred years later, adopt that same religion as the core entity of the state. Not even the state religion; the state itself. We call this the Holy Roman Empire. Perhaps a few individuals could have accomplished this; but how? And why such a total conversion?

That aside, let us turn to C. S. Lewis, a man who began as the most avowed atheist and student of science, who later proved to himself that religion in Christian terms was not only a valid world view, but also, perhaps, the most valid world view. His books, the Chronicles of Narnia, preempt the adoption of what we know as the multiverse theory. Quantum string theory, a more recent breakthrough, shows that the universe did not "begin" as a Big Bang, but was merely changed by one, and that there were others. Which brings me to the conclusion that science is not an absolute belief; it will change. What you hold to be true (The Big Bang, for example) may soon be disproved. While one may say it is, in turn, the method and not the topics of science that he believes in, the scientist then has no reason to say that the topics of science can be used to "disprove" religion, as these topics are, by nature, not necessarily absolutes. However, a religious individual may, too, believe in the method of science, of logical deduction, and so forth. It does not have to be one or the other, and therin lies the inherent intolerance in being a religious fanatic and an absolutist atheist. The bottom line; science is not necessarily a characteristic of atheism alone, and religion does not necessarily preclude science or its progress. While the Scopes Monkey Trial was challenged on religious grounds, the religious challengers did not stop to think that no one ever said that evolution was not God's tool for creation, and that, in fact, the two beliefs were reconcilable and compatible.

[GUNWOUNDS]

my mind is quite free, I just pefer to rely on the actions and advances of humans, not some "Almighty".

I also dislike the hole "Miracal" thing...(Oh my, I have two weeks to live...TWO MONTHS LATER.....Wow I'm still alive! It could'nt of been all that surgery and medical science, It had to be a MIRACAL!!!!) Hmmm Theres that sarcasm again.

[GUNWOUNDS]

The bottom line; science is not necessarily a characteristic of atheism alone, and religion does not necessarily preclude science or its progress.

says it all..... i think i might add this to my sig

[Wolf]

Thank you, Gunwounds. I, personally, resent it when atheism is presented to me as the "scientific" belief. I, who enjoy such pursuits as studying physics and avid readership of Scientific American, find it awkward and totally absurd when an individual approaches me with such a notion. Often, these same people later go on to say how their belief is even more tolerant than religions that took the mantle of moral good. To me, this is just atheism taking the mantle of scientific good. Let us, for a moment, think that science is the true, and only verfiable good. Now, reconcile to me why scientists willingly built the atomic bomb. Not just invented it, but built it and kept on building it. Explain to me the scientific breakthroughs in the trebuchet, the cannon, the man-o-war, the ICE, and the first jet engine (mounted on a Nazi Me-262, no less -- a favorite example of mine). Maybe you could argue these scientists were forced to build such things, but why so consistently in every era of history, and why do they continue to build such things? Remember, a scientist is the first to behold new physical knowledge. He can keep such things to himself, and others would never know.

Stephen Hawking, an atheist, once said that the universe is made in such a way that he would not be surprised if there was a God. At another time, he said it was impossible to understand a thing (namely, the universe) without understanding its creator...

[Gobalopper]

Yep a good book to read is Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It deals with some of those topics.