Ben Carson thinks Charles Darwin was encouraged by SATAN?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The point is that that was not part of his actual message at all.

You say Jesus was God, but then you claim he was limited.
Even after Jesus came back from the dead, which supposedly proved he was God, he was still limited?

An omnipotent ubiquitous God is limited?

[sirs]

No, you're trying to make Christ's message so complicated, it would require a lawyer to figure it out.  It wasn't and isn't.  And no, I never claimed Jesus was "limited", in any way, shape or form.  His message is crystal clear, for all to either accept/follow......or not.

[Xavier_Onassis]

"Being that at the time, he didn't have access to a private jet, his travels were a tad limited."

Well, that sounds like an admission of limitations to me. God is everywhere, God is all powerful.
So what does he need apostles for?

[sirs]

Limitations to Jesus, in the time of Jesus.  If God wanted, Jesus could have flown everywhere, but that would have completely screwed the notion of faith, which is the whole point behind accepting Christ.  Its one of faith, not some scientific method.  That's why he died, and rose on the 3rd day, and that's why all the apostles

And before you try to pull the literal card again, yes, Jesus was God as well as the Son of God.  I realize this concept is foreign to you, however it makes perfect sense to a Christian.

[Plane]

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
=================================================================
This is NOT a quote from Jesus when he was actually ALIVE. This was added after his death.
On the same occasion, he said he would return before the last of the disciples had died, and that was an unfulfilled promise as well.

During Jesus actual, pre-crucifixion ministry, he catered to Jews and Jess alone.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are discussing nothing of consequence.

Don't take my word alone for this , Paul agrees.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-284/what-if-christ-didnt-rise

verse 12 of 1 Corinthians 15,

...... But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover, we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God, that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, in fact, if the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied."

   It is ordinary in Islam to believe that Jesus has never yet died, but this is probably not the argument you wanted.

   Either way it is an effort to nullify the main mission of Jesus as described by Jesus and his disciples.

     

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles, he would have preached to more Gentiles. There were plenty about. And there would have been a Gospel According to Jesus, not four somewhat contradictory tales written decades after the events portrayed. The Hebrew religion revered the printed word, yet there is not one mention of Jesus reading or writing anything in any language.

What really happened is that most likely,  Paul had a nervous breakdown, saw it as a sign from God and used what he had heard about Jesus to whomp up a new religion. It was not necessarily a bad thing, considering that it was more humane that other religions around at the time.  Paul was not an eyewitness to anything that Jesus did or said. Most of what Paul knew or thought he knew was hearsay. But Paul was apparently a great PR man with a lot of charisma.

Paul probably did not write most of what is attributed to him. This is also true of most of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

[sirs]

If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles

BUT IT WASN'T.  IT WAS A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE, NOT JUST FOR "GENTILES".  That's also why the Apostles, so that message could spread.  You, a puny human, don't get to dictate the actions God must take in spreading his word

Again, this concept is rather simple to understand......for Christians.

[Xavier_Onassis]

God was not nearly so efficient as Coca Cola. More people have heard of Coca Cola than have heard of Jesus. And Coke has only been at it since 1886. That is only 129 years.

And Coca Cola did not have to get itself crucified and come back from the dead. It does not promise life everlasting, either, The truth is, it does not even satisfy thirst very well. Twelve teaspoons of sugar in colored flavored water.

I get to criticize anything I wish. I am not bound by your rules or what you think the rules are.

I do not dictate rules, and neither do you. But I know logic from illogic.

There was some saint that claimed that he was a believer precisely because the Christian religion does not make sense.

Or perhaps it was Tertullian:

    Natus est Dei Filius, non pudet, quia pudendum est;
    et mortuus est Dei Filius, prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est;
    et sepultus resurrexit, certum est, quia impossibile.

    “The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful.
    And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is unsound.
    And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”

None of this bit makes much sense, but it gets quoted a lot.

[sirs]

As I said, you don't get to dictate how God spreads his message, or what's lgical to God.  All you get to decide is if you're willing to listen and accept......or not.  That's it

[Xavier_Onassis]

Yes, I do.
I can say any damned thing I wish.
I do not believe that an all powerful creator deity would be illogical. And I get to say so. God can always pipe in if he wants to, but he seems to be mute.

[sirs]

No one claimed you couldn't say any damned thing that you wish.  The issue is the message of God.  You can accept it or not....That's it.  Criticising it, and condemning it, is akin to not accepting it.  Capice'?

[Plane]

If the main mission of Jesus was to create a religion for Gentiles, he would have preached to more Gentiles. There were plenty about.

Jesus did serve several Gentiles and preached to whomever there was to listen. That he went first to Jewish venues seems natural to those of us who consider the relationship between God and Abraham contractual. Fulfilling all as promised to the chosen ,he then opened his bounty to all comers when all Jews who would had come.

And there would have been a Gospel According to Jesus, not four somewhat contradictory tales written decades after the events portrayed. The Hebrew religion revered the printed word, yet there is not one mention of Jesus reading or writing anything in any language.

Discussing this with you has made me think on this. Jesus wrote in the sand , and made his apostles learn his words, but why didn't he use a more durable medium? Why was not one of the apostles made a secretary ? I can only speculate, but this doesn't seem to have harmed his message, four of the eyewitnesses wrote their account and earlier, and later prophecy matches, so what is the complaint really? If the message itself is hard to argue with , you will argue with the recording medium?

What really happened is that most likely,  Paul had a nervous breakdown, saw it as a sign from God and used what he had heard about Jesus to whomp up a new religion. It was not necessarily a bad thing, considering that it was more humane that other religions around at the time.  Paul was not an eyewitness to anything that Jesus did or said. Most of what Paul knew or thought he knew was hearsay. But Paul was apparently a great PR man with a lot of charisma.

Paul probably did not write most of what is attributed to him. This is also true of most of the books of the Old and New Testaments.

  Too bad for Saint Stephen that Paul did not have this nervous breakdown a little earlier?

    But of course I do not pity Saint Stephen, who in the sight of Paul was stoned to death while keeping a pretty positive attitude,....

     I should envy Saint Stephen, I won't be sure I can have such a positive attitude at the end till I get there.

[Xavier_Onassis]

? If the message itself is hard to argue with , you will argue with the recording medium?

The ,message itself is very EASY to argue with. The Gospels contradict one another, they are full of vague parables and crap that can be explained in various ways.

ANYONE who wants to get a message out to people correctly should WRITE THE FUCKING THING HIMSELF.

That is one thing that even the brighter members of the lesser primates know: if you want it done right, do it yourself.

If Jesus was God, and God is omnipotent and all knowing, then he was perfect and understood perfectly how to explain what he meant.

You claim that somehow people have to have faith in invisible beings. Why? People lack faith in visible beings. If God had written his own Gospel, then people would still either have to have faith that (1) God exists and (2) that he wrote it.

We have to prove some things, like the Laws of Gravity and Thermodynamics. But once proven, we assume they are still in effect and we have faith that the physical world will continue to operate in accordance with them. Having faith in something that is logically impossible does not make it a higher degree of faith. Belief in Jesus, his virgin birth,. his miracles and the resurrection are like faith in Santa or guardian angels. Or demons that cause madness and can be transferred to pigs, causing them to drown themselves.

Muslims tell me that the Koran is MORE miraculous because it was dictated to Mohammad, who then passed it on orally, BECAUSE MOHAMMAD WAS EFFING ILLITERATE..

Anyone with a brain knows that if you want to remember something accurately, you are always better off writing it down. Religion causes people to stop thinking. It is an influence for backwardness.

[sirs]

Like it has to repeated......you don't get to dictate how God must be required to have his message spread.  This is Faith, not Science.  There is no requirement of proof, to appease those who have no interest in believing in the 1st place

[Xavier_Onassis]

Anything that is, can be proven to exist.
Things that cannot be proven to exist, generally don't.


Anecdotal evidence is invalid. There is always plenty of that.
A dollar appears and the tooth disappears, it must have been the TOOTH FAIRY!
We left cookies and milk for Santa, and they were gone in the morning!
The next morning, the stone was rolled away and the tomb was EMPTY! O Hose Anna!