If a child is unbaptised aren't they sent to "limbo"?

I can't imagine anything worse than spending eternity crawling backwards underneath bog doors

That's a matter of interpretation but I would say if you take a wife into your house and then she gives birth in a house in Bethlehem it's not a massive leap of logic to conclude that it's the same house in both instances. It would be bizarre in the extreme for Joseph to bring his already pregnant wife into his house in Nazareth and then take her to Bethlehem for no apparent reason.

Matthew says they were planning to return to Judea. Over versions say Bethlehem. Bethlehem is in Judea. Logic again concludes they were intending to return to Bethlehem rather than another random Town in Judea. They were not intending to return to Nazareth though which is in Galilea (see I know where it is). They only traveled to Nazareth so Matthew could tie up the prophecy which stated the messiah would be a "Nazarene" (whether that means he was from Nazareth or a member of a specific Jewish sect is another argument entirely).

Again was Joseph from Nazareth surely they would have returned to his house there rather than a Town he had no connection with other than that was where his son was born.

This seems like a good thread in which to post this link: www.justgiving.com/yah4schools Quote We would like to put a copy of The Young Atheist's Handbook (Reviews Here) in every secondary school library in England and Wales.'" I've paid enough for a couple of copies. If it stops even one kid growing up with views akin to Kirkstaller's it'll be money well spent.

This seems like a good thread in which to post this link: www.justgiving.com/yah4schools Quote We would like to put a copy of The Young Atheist's Handbook (Reviews Here) in every secondary school library in England and Wales.'" I've paid enough for a couple of copies. If it stops even one kid growing up with views akin to Kirkstaller's it'll be money well spent.

If man was totally depraved there would be no good done by him. The fact that good is done regularly by the vast majority of people (many of whom have no belief in religion) on a daily basis is more than enough evidence to suggest that man is neither totally depraved nor without personal morality.

Morality comes from many places and religion is not the sole arbitrator of it, as mentioned by one of the world's religious leaders the [url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dalai-lama-in-facebook-post-grounding-ethics-in-religion-is-no-longer-adequate/Dalai Lama[/url. The whole gay marriage situation is a perfect example of where some religions fail with their own morality.

As for the discussion on free will, [url=http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/why-quantum-physics-ends-the-free-will-debatewhy quantum physics ends the free will debate[/url.

Quote ="Kosh"This seems like a good thread in which to post this link: www.justgiving.com/yah4schools I've paid enough for a couple of copies. If it stops even one kid growing up with views akin to Kirkstaller's it'll be money well spent.'" If only we had a 'Like' button

Quote ="Kosh"This seems like a good thread in which to post this link: www.justgiving.com/yah4schools I've paid enough for a couple of copies. If it stops even one kid growing up with views akin to Kirkstaller's it'll be money well spent.'" If only we had a 'Like' button

Hasn't either the current pope (or his predecessor) got rid of limbo? It was certainly a particularly Catholic thing.

Let's go back to the scriptures.

[uMatthew 1:18-25 [/u
[iNow the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.[/i

Nothing here about Mary and Joseph living in either Nazareth or Bethlehem. However,the next verse tells us that Christ was born in Bethlehem.

[uMatthew 2:1 [/u
[iNow when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.[/i

Matthew does not mention the journey to Bethlehem. We only learn about this in Luke 2:4. That is the sum of your problem with the account of the nativity.

My cousin was born in Cornwall, though my entire family are from London. If someone told you that my cousin was born in Penzance, would you have a problem with me saying that my family are originally from London and that she was born on holiday in Cornwall? No, because there is no inconsistency.



Do they? Really? Which codexes?



We don't know where they were intending to settle. You've made a massive assumption in order to substantiate your alleged discrepancy. In any case, even if they were going to Bethlehem, this wouldn't be a massive news, given that it was Joseph's ancestral home, being of the house and lineage of David.

Even traditional Christian scholars themselves, apportioning earlier dates to the writing of the gospels than less-religiously minded scholars, do not pretend that any of the gospels were written at the time of the events described or even shortly afterwards.

So the earliest is [iMatthew[/i, which according to the former group, was written between 50 and 70 years after the crucifixion. Therefore a minimum of 83 years after the nativity.

You wouldn't get far in a court of law trying to claim that a witness statement to an event at least 83 years earlier was 100% reliable. But then again, that's why you need faith.

The Bible and its scriptures are not a definitive history either of Jesus or God. They are one interpretation of a history. We know that to be true because of other events which we know have occurred that aren't mentioned in The Bible e.g. the formation of planets, dinosaurs, Mayans etc.

Current academic thought places the writing of the earliest of the Gospels at forty years after Jesus' death. That forty year gap needs to be considered when thinking about these writings particularly because this was a time before the printing press when tales were handed down by word of mouth. Given people's experiences with storytelling e.g. William Tell, Robin Hood, Greek mythos, I think such stories should be viewed as moral parables rather than exact details of history.

I believe that academically Mark is now considered to be the oldest of the Gospels. I understand that Christians regard Matthew as the earliest.

But as you say, that was written at least 40 years after the final events that it claims to record.

Mark 7:31
"After leaving the region of Tyre, Jesus went through Sidon toward the Galilee Sea through the region of the Ten Cities."

Not unless he had Alzheimers he didn't.

The Sea of Galilee is South West of Tyre, as is, broadly speaking, the "Decapolis" (Ten Cities). Whereas Sidon is further North of Tyre, directly up the coast, and something like 40 miles North of Galilee. So starting with a simple test of the basic geography, the writer of this was talking bollox. If it can't even be relied upon for the basics like locations and routes, what use is it actually as anything other than parables and fiction?

Sandra The Terrorist 12:13

"And lo, God did swap the sign posts as an amusing jape and test of faith".

Interesting. Did he knock at the door or just materialise? Did he look like a typical depiction of Jesus?




And this is where discussions with religious types normally break down. You resort to the - "because god/the bible says it is so" argument. The beginning of circular reasoning.


So they've never been exposed to your god and have become Muslim/Hindu/whatever simply due to their location or family of birth, following possibly dozens of generations before them, and therefore they are all "duped by Satan"?


Just as many other believers claim to have met, or heard the word of, or been touched by, their chosen god. Your claims are NO different to those of other faiths, no matter how genuinely you believe them or vehemently you state your claim.


How?


Or, brainwashing. Indoctrination.


Hang on, we can CHOOSE to have faith? I thought we didn't have free will?

So if god wishes me to have faith in Jesus I get to choose whether to accept that faith?

You've just confirmed free will. Good job.


DOUBLE predestination! Is that better than normal predestination?


Your god, in your opinion. Doesn't make it true.

What's the point in saving people with faith if you've had to bestow that faith upon them? It all just seems rather...pointless.

God: I'll create this race of humans and only save those who believe in me in the name of Christianity, and even then only those I choose to bestow with faith. The rest can do nothing to save themselves and go burn in hell. And everything is predestined from the word go.


That's not an explanation. Again I ask, if all things are predetermined and we have no free will to act as we like, and god has already chosen those he wishes to save (on no particular criteria it seems), and nothing we can do can get us into heaven - what was the point of Jesus? Did he come to save us or not - because if he did, then we must be able to determine our own fate.


Ah, I see. Evidence flying in the face of your beliefs is silly. There are plenty of examples of contradiction in the scriptures. And forgery.


None? Ever? Odd, that academics and scholars have unearthed many mistranslations, yet you choose to ignore that?

Of course there have been mistranslations - the very fact there are differing versions of the bible floating around is proof of that fact. Otherwise they would all be identical.


Really? So prove otherwise. Don't just tell me it's shaky and sit back. I've made a claim that flies in the face of your belief and you just offer a poor rebuff?


Does he deceive everyone, or just a select few?


Eve, having been commanded NOT to eat of the tree, then made the decision to then eat of the tree. A demonstration of free will. Whether influenced by 'Satan' or not, as I'm sure you'll claim.


Nope, you might want to prove them wrong.


So you keep saying.

BTW, is that you in your avatar? I assume you're modelling your hair on the Crown of Thorns?

Verse 12.14
"Behold a message will be delivered unto the donkeys ear'oles via the medium of satnav and he will be sore afraid and probably go in the wrong direction which thee will follow regardless, so sayeth the lord"

So, we don't actually get to choose. The 'choice' is made for us.

We may finally be getting somewhere.

He did say earlier that he looked to be of Jewish ethnicity but didn't elaborate, so he could have looked anything like:



or



even

Well given these kirkstaller revelations, it seems that most people who do follow a religion are getting a pretty poor deal.

They should sue God.
Billy Connelly did.

kirkstaller doesn't believe in religion, I can see why now.

Not too dissimilar, although his facial hair was shorter. The encounter happened in my back garden when I returned home from work one day. I went out to check on my brother's rabbit (he was on holiday, I was looking after it) and Jesus was just standing right in the middle of the garden. I walked up to him and we spoke for about 10 minutes. He then said he had to leave. I walked back to my conservatory and turned around. He was no longer there.



I see where you are coming from, a dry, rationalist point of view, but you must understand that experiencing God and meeting Jesus quashes any doubt whatsoever.



Firstly, may I say that many believers such as I are striving to spread the good news to every single person on the planet. The work undertaken by the TBS and those who translate scripture into every known language is vastly under-appreciated. One of the main reasons I am so patient with people on here is because I genuinely want as many people as possible to come to God.

Secondly, those that are raised in the Islam faith know about Jesus but they deny his divinity. Same goes for most Hindus and Sikhs. They have been tricked into believing lies. So, to answer your question, they have been duped, without a doubt.



The Bible tells us that imposters are very convincing and persuasive,

[iBeware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves [/iMatthew 7:15



I don't what basis the decision is made on.



No, the Holy Spirit brings us to God.



We make the decision to believe but it is God who orchestrates that decision.



No, if God wants you to be a Christian then you will be a Christian. You can kick, you can scream, but eventually you will become a Christian.



Double predestination is where God selected who would be saved in the beginning.



He is not my God, he is everyone's God.



It's all to bring glory to God. That is the point of life, after all.



That's a harsh way of summarising it.



It is an explanation, the elect are sinners too, and those sins need paying for. The punishment I was due to receive was instead received by Christ, suffering and dying on the cross. As a direct result of this I no longer have a penalty to pay. If God had not delivered justice on his Son then I would have to go to Hell.



A contradiction is only a contradiction if there is absolutely no way both statements could be true. I've yet to find any scriptures that meet this criteria.



The KJV by my bedside is the uncorrupted word of God.



Well no, seeing as two words can have the same meaning and convey the same message.



Tekton has never meant solely working with stone, it was an overarching term for a whole range of industries, including carpentry which many early Christian writers associated with Jesus.



Most but not all.



How do you know that it was a demonstration of free will? How do you know that God did not preconfigure her brain to be rebellious? This is what scripture teaches.



You are the one relying on them. You probably haven't even read them.Just have a look at this one which you've quoted:

[iYet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God[/i John 1:12

How does that show that we have free will? How does it refute predestination?

Here's another one you quoted:

[ibut glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. [/iRomans 2:10

How does that support your argument?

Admittedly, a couple on your list can potentially be difficult for 5 point Calvinists who believe in limited atonement. I myself subscribe a more balanced 4 point view of limited/unlimited atonement. But seeing as you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about, I won't bore you with my theological musings.



I see you are getting personal now

So what happened to the rabbit ?

And did this bloke mention anything about having some spare tarmac after doing a local job and offering to do your drive for cash ?

Did he mention how he had learned to speak in modern English? Did he have an accent? Did he, like im sure we all imagine, have a voice like Morgan Freeman?

when he said he had to leave, did he explain where he was going and why the rush?

Also, considering the billions of people alive right now, and billions if not trillions who have lived before do you not find it quite strange that he chose to visit someone like you, who, no offence intended, has a limited amount of power? Why not Cameron or Obama or Hitler or King John or Henry the 8th or Shakespeare or the framers of US constitution, or Chairman Mao or Ghandi? Why in your back garden whilst you are tending a rabbit and not the UN? Considering that he supposedly loves us, does it not seem quite strange that he is wasting his time speaking to some no-name in kirkstall when he could, quite easily, improve the lives of billions of people drastically, and achieve his aims, by doing the same thing, simply elsewhere to someone else?

He works in mysterious ways!

What utter bollox.

First of all I offer apologies. I may well have misread or inserted a false memory on the Judeah/Bethlehem thing. You are right it doesn't mention it in our Art Bible and I can't find the other two Bibles we have so, as I can't be bothered trawling through all the others, I defer to your knowledge on that point.

But, and here's the kicker, it doesn't matter. Irrelevant of anything else they were returning to Judeah not Nazareth they traveled to Nazareth in Matthew as an after thought. Luke doesn't even have them fleeing to Egypt (note some Bibles state they fled to Isreal others name the area of Judea as Isreal) he has them return to Nazareth after Jesus' birth. He doesn't even mention the massacre of the innocents. that's one big discrepancy there. As is the location of Jesus' birth Matthew a house, Luke a manger.

On the Where did Joseph and Mary live? Again whether they lived in Bethlehem or not doesn't matter. You are right in Matthew it doesn't explicitly say where they lived, but there are many towns and cities they could've lived in; the odds are far more on the side of them not living in Nazareth as against. You have one town on your side, I have 100's. Law of chance say they didn't live in Nazareth. PS Matthew states they travelled to Nazareth to fulfill the prophecy. Odd wording if they had lived there before. Something you seem to ccompletely ignore.

Nice story about your cousin, real cute. Kinda like that Jehovas Witness who knocked on my door and said "If humans are descended from Apes why is my wife not covered with fur?". However like that it's not relevant. Last time I looked Cornwall, London and the South of England weren't an occupied warzone under military rule. Palestine at that time was. People didn't go on holiday, you couldn't even travel without the Romans permission. I'm fairly sure "We have to nip to Bethlehem in order for my wife, who is still a virgin, to give birth to the person who will overthrow you." wouldn't wash as a reason. Of course Luke got round this by inventing a "tax census" which required you to return to the town of your father's. Perhaps Matthew lackes his imagination. It isn't a Hollywood epic, the Jews were a troublesome lot for the Romans, they refused to accept their society and the idea of the Jewish god and the whole lack of statues and Tetragrammaton thing was a complete anathema to a people who had a far more personal relationship to their gods.

The Gospels are not contempary historical accounts and therefore there are holes in them. That is my issue with them. You may as well claim the plays of Shakespeare as valid historical accounts (I know some people do that, I find it equally as odd). It wouldn't help that Yeshua was a fairly common name in Isreal/Palestine, maybe they were talking about different people. It must have been difficult finding one person to pin the whole "Son of God" Romanic idea on. After all being a Jew Jesus/Yeshua wouldn't have claimed that himself during his lifetime.

I don't think Jesus' visit was to evangelise me personally. I was young in my faith and it was reassuring to speak to God about assurance. I don't think our encounter was meant to improve the lives of everyone on earth.

Of course anyone is welcome to speak to Jesus anytime they wish.

Visual and auditory hallucinations together....interesting