Christian Yoga? It's a Stretch...(Is Yoga Demonic? Yes, it is.)

[PursuePeace]

Just watched the video.
Unfortunately, fear is a popular (and powerful) marketing tool.

 

[TER]

​

That is quite the given. There you guys go again; putting limitations on God's power and will.

Excuse me, but it is not I who have claimed that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life, and the Son of God Who was sent to save the world. it was He Himself Who claimed it. I am only a follower of His.

 

[specsaregood]

What you speak of is a "Blind" faith in some random Idea of God. Where there is no logic or reason to it, its just like believing in the tooth fairy. However, That is not what Christianity is, Christianity is not a blind faith. Christianity comes with a framework that God presents.

One particular framework from your particular pov and understanding.

Two contradictions both cannot be right as scripture tells us in
Matthew 6:24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."

If that is what you want to believe that says, then by all means you can have that belief. I see nothing to do with contradictions in that. This just strenghtens my point. you get from your framework what you personally want to get out of it. It doesn't mean you are right and others are wrong if they take something completely different from it. You can both be right.

What you argue is a straw man argument, kind of like saying “can God Tell a lie”?

See, I'd phrase it: Can an all-powerful God make an incorrect statement, correct? I say that he can, you say that God doesn't have that power.

If an all-powerful God wanted to change reality for everysingle one of us, he could. If he wanted to make your religious beliefs true, and at the same time make yieu's religious beliefs true, he could. Either that or he is not all-powerful.

 

[wannaberocker]

Do you realize that every religion claims exclusivity and warn against "false gods." You still haven't proven that yours is the correct path or differentiate yours from any other religion. Do you think that Jesus was the only one to come down an do miracles? How can you be so sure of the workings of God? He does what he pleases. Mohammad said he was the third and final seal. Why should I believe Jesus over him? What about Joseph Smith Jr. and the LDS? Even the Christians can't even determine who is right and who is wrong from just one prophet and you claim to know God because of a book as if you can contain his workings of mere pages.

It is hard for me to really address your ideas because you seem to jump all over the place with them. You began by suggesting that Christ and the Hindu God are the same. Now you say that all religions claim exclusivity and warn of "False gods". Then in the same post you go on to ask how we know Which religion is the true religion.

Now you do understand that Each topic requires alot of study. The discussion also requires a framework where one topic should be discussed at a time. Instead of what your doing which is jumping from topic to topic, without really discussing anything in depth.

So i would say if you really wish to learn and Hammer out one topic at a time. Please feel Free, But what you are currently doing is going around in circles.

 

[Brown Sapper]

Your religion is about the same and small difference than other ones. You think that there is only one god as do I but you do not believe that the same god cannot come down at his own will to save humanity in other forms but not be the same gods. This is why I do not follow Christ because you put limitations on the power of God and pervert his teachings. Anywho I usually don't like getting drawn into stupid topics like this. You can't prove your right and I can't prove mine so lets let it be. Just don't go bashing anyone's religion with asinine articles like this.

 

[Sam I am]

All I get from that article is that the preacher(who wrote it) knows how to preach, and doesn't know how to prove.

To be fair, I'll admit that after finding absolutely no worthwhile substance in the first half of his article, I stopped reading, but the only thing that he's said is that yoga is a religious hindu practice, and the only evidence he presents is that the people who invented it are hindu, and maybe that they practiced it in a religious way.


Nevermind that Christians who practice yoga don't explore the religious aspect of it.

Nevermind that when Christians in America celebrate "Christmas" They're actually celebrating the pagan Saturnalia.

Yoga is kinda sorta associated with some other religion, and therefore, it's the DEVIL!

 

[wannaberocker]

One particular framework from your particular pov and understanding.

Well when one is trying to understand Christianity, The framework would likely be a Christian framework. If i want to learn about economics, i will not pick up an "US" magazine to learn it would i.

If that is what you want to believe that says, then by all means you can have that belief. I see nothing to do with contradictions in that. This just strenghtens my point. you get from your framework what you personally want to get out of it. It doesn't mean you are right and others are wrong if they take something completely different from it. You can both be right.

No Sir. What you are arguing about are abstract points. You speak in Generic terms and never get specific. Its like the kid who makes the proclamation that “All religion is false". Yet, will never actually give any detail on what is False in each and every major religion.

You Sir are traveling the same path in your arguments. You are making generic statements about a "General Faith" where you dont really have to get specific or actually logically think about the subject. You in a sense are playing a game of "grand theft auto drive by's " with faith and religion.

My advice = get specific about your disagreements and move out of the abstract concepts of "God, faith and Religion".

The easiest thing to do is stand on the sidelines and make general statements about religion.

See, I'd phrase it: Can an all-powerful God make an incorrect statement, correct? I say that he can, you say that God doesn't have that power.

If an all-powerful God wanted to change reality for everysingle one of us, he could. If he wanted to make your religious beliefs true, and at the same time make yieu's religious beliefs true, he could. Either that or he is not all-powerful.

Again you are speaking of an abstract concept of God. Your proclamations have no root or base to them because they are not really based on anything to be specific. They are as meaningful as the words of a child who says "God i got an F on my exam convert it to an A".

At the end of it all i can say is that the "God" of Christianity is not a "God" that contradicts, he is the God of Truth and not confusion. He is a God of order and not disorder.

Again at the end of it you got to get a bit more specific. If you cant get any more specific, then id tell ya to just claim "all religions are false" and rest your case.

 

[specsaregood]

No Sir. What you are arguing about are abstract points. You speak in Generic terms and never get specific. Its like the kid who makes the proclamation that “All religion is false". Yet, will never actually give any detail on what is False in each and every major religion.
...
Again at the end of it you got to get a bit more specific. If you cant get any more specific, then id tell ya to just claim "all religions are false" and rest your case.

Always to the negative with you. My position would be more akin to "all religions are true" than "all religions are false". But I'm an optimist who thinks that if there is an all-powerful God he could do whatever he wants even if it is beyond my own realm of understanding.

edit: I for one, would never claim "all religions are false" as that would be the height of arrogance. Of course I would never take it upon myself to declare that anybody's religion is false.

 

[moostraks]

I dont see how defending the truth is belittling the spark of the ultimate Love in their fellow man.

My understanding of our Creator comes to me best by my own position as a parent. I have 8 children, one of which is very headstrong, defiant and not too pleasant to be around. For seven of my children my relationship and approach is very similar. As an earthly parent I attempted to force the difficult child to work within a structure that the other seven children were quite capable and successful at working within. Well because of the eighth childs personal quirks it caused an enormous amount of suffering for all parties. So I reassessed my manner of dealing with her. I deal with her differently but my expectations are still the same. We have a relationship with each other and relate to each other but through a different manner than I do with the other seven of my children. I know my child best when it comes down to it and approach her and can 'read' her better than anyone else and I am an earthly parent. How much more should we give room to the Creator to His relationship with His children?

When people get all caught up in defending their religious traditions that they are demanding another walk their path or they are not truly experiencing a relationship with their Creator, I believe it disrespects the right of the Father to come to His children in the manner He sees fit as He knows the heart of His children best. Ultimately it is that each person embrace Love as the beginning and ending of all things. By focusing one's energy on defending religion, the Love that is inside one's fellow man is not being fanned but dampered because the ill will is growing rather than what both parties share, the knowledge of a parent of ultimate Love. Therefore if I believe that the love one holds inside them is the Light of the soul, or Divine Spark, which draws them closer to God (in a like attracts like manner) by diminishing another persons walk I am belittling the spark of Ultimate Love.

I think this is why the Orthodox give a clause that they will not completely dismiss that there are those outside of the Orthodox religion who are not damned while not worshipping in the manner which they feel is the ideal means to approach Him. Pretty wise position in my opinion as to do otherwise means that He is then definable and limited.

 

[wannaberocker]

Your religion is about the same and small difference than other ones. You think that there is only one god as do I but you do not believe that the same god cannot come down at his own will to save humanity in other forms but not be the same gods. This is why I do not follow Christ because you put limitations on the power of God and pervert his teachings. Anywho I usually don't like getting drawn into stupid topics like this. You can't prove your right and I can't prove mine so lets let it be. Just don't go bashing anyone's religion with asinine articles like this.

And the logical fallacy in your stance is simple. Why would "God" come down and say "he is the only way and everyone apart from him is false". But then keep manifesting himself over n over but each time claiming that the one before him or after him is false.

If i am to follow your logic. THe conclusion i would come to is that "God" is a giant liar and has the memory span of a baby. Because he cant seem remember claiming that he was the "ONLY" way.

 

[wannaberocker]

Always to the negative with you. My position would be more akin to "all religions are true" than "all religions are false". But I'm an optimist who thinks that if there is an all-powerful God he could do whatever he wants even if it is beyond my own realm of understanding.

edit: I for one, would never claim "all religions are false" as that would be the height of arrogance. Of course I would never take it upon myself to declare that anybody's religion is false.

Its not about being positive or negative. Its about you making general claims that are not centered in anything in particular apart from your own opinions. If you were to get a bit more specific, i feel that the discussion could go in a more fruitful direction. But if you continue to make general statements then we are going round and round in circles.

Also to from a logical standpoint. To claim "all religions are true" is equally as arrogant as claiming "all religions are false". Claiming all is true requires the same amount of critical thinking (if not more) in order to smooth over the giant contradictions that each of the major religions presents.

To believe that God continuously Contradicts himself over n over n over again. Is a massive burden to clear.

 

[specsaregood]

Its not about being positive or negative. Its about you making general claims that are not centered in anything in particular apart from your own opinions. If you were to get a bit more specific, i feel that the discussion could go in a more fruitful direction. But if you continue to make general statements then we are going round and round in circles.

I don't know what you think I'm not being specific about. Is God All-powerful?

Also to from a logical standpoint. To claim "all religions are true" is equally as arrogant as claiming "all religions are false". Claiming all is true requires the same amount of critical thinking (if not more) in order to smooth over the giant contradictions that each of the major religions presents.

They are only contradictions in your reality. The contradiction you keep posting about eg: #330 is so easy to negate that I can only imagine you aren't open to other possibilities.

To believe that God continuously Contradicts himself over n over n over again. Is a massive burden to clear.

Unless it is just your understanding that is contradictory.

 

[libertyjam]

And the logical fallacy in your stance is simple. Why would "God" come down and say "he is the only way and everyone apart from him is false". But then keep manifesting himself over n over but each time claiming that the one before him or after him is false.

If i am to follow your logic. THe conclusion i would come to is that "God" is a giant liar and has the memory span of a baby. Because he cant seem remember claiming that he was the "ONLY" way.

Lord, Liar or Lunatic?
An Analysis of the Trilemma
James Still

Christian apologist C. S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity that Jesus was either Lord, a lunatic, or "the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse." Josh McDowell, Campus Crusade for Christ's popular evangelical speaker, took up Lewis's argument in his book Evidence That Demands a Verdict. McDowell argues that "Jesus' claim to be God must be either true or false. If Jesus's claims are true, then He is the Lord, and we must either accept or reject His lordship." This argument is known as the trilemma because it posits that Jesus must be either the Lord, a liar, or a lunatic. How powerful is this argument and should the nonbeliever take it seriously? I will show that the nonbeliever is justified in rejecting it. The trilemma is fallacious and by analyzing it carefully, we will see why it has come to possess such curious strength in the Fundamentalist community.

The trilemma concludes that Jesus is God so let p stand for the assertion "Jesus is God." McDowell's three premises that support p are that (1) Jesus's claims were true, or (2) Jesus's claims were false and he was a liar, or that (3) Jesus's claims were false and he was a lunatic. By ruling out the possibility of (2) and (3) McDowell concludes that (1) must be the case and Jesus is indeed Lord and God. To make the analysis easier I will schematize his argument as:

(1) Jesus is telling the truth by asserting that p.
(2) Jesus is not a liar by asserting that p.
(3) Jesus is not a lunatic by asserting that p.

If all three of these premises are true then it would seem that the argument is sound. In fact, at first glance the trilemma seems quite convincing because, like George Washington and the cherry tree, it plays on the notion of whether or not Jesus can tell a lie. However, the argument is not valid because a counterexample demonstrates a case where all of the premises are true while the conclusion is false. First, I will present this counterexample and then I will analyze the trilemma itself to see how it works.

Suppose that Sally asserts that she was born in New York City. Sally bases her knowledge on the fact that she has clear and distinct memories of growing up in New York City. Further, her mother confirms her claim as do teachers, friends, and neighbors. Her doctor tells us that Sally is in perfect mental health and she even passes a lie-detector test when asked about her claim that she was born in New York City. Finally, we concede that (1) Sally is telling the truth that she was born in New York City, (2) she is not lying about that fact, and (3) she is not insane for asserting so. Unfortunately, Sally was born in London. She was given up for adoption as a baby and her mother has never told her of her true origins. This counterexample shows a case where all of the premises are true and yet the conclusion is false. The trilemma is not a valid argument. What went wrong? Quite simply, the argument fails to allow for the possibility that Sally might be mistaken about her assertion. It assumes that the truth or falsity of Sally's assertion can be known from the fact that she has certain knowledge. This line of reasoning adheres to a theory of knowledge called infallibilism. Infallibilism holds that a knower is someone who cannot be mistaken about that which they claim to know. Let us look closer at the trilemma to see how infallibilism motivates the argument.

Premise (1) is the real workhorse of the trilemma. Notice that the argument leaves no room for Jesus to be mistaken. Since he is not a liar or a devil, his claim must be true. Since Jesus cannot be mistaken about something that he believes to be true, his claim to knowledge is sufficient justification for the truth. Thus, we can represent (1) more accurately as:

(1´) If Jesus knows that p, then it cannot be that he is mistaken that p.

This premise packs such a powerful punch because it very cleverly relies upon the notion that Jesus is perfect. However, notice that there are two possible ways to understand the role that "cannot" plays in this sentence. Because of a linguistic ambiguity, we can read (1´) with the understanding that "cannot" addresses the entire conditional statement (the whole "if-then" sentence) or the consequent only (everything following the word "then"). The former possibility is called a wide-scope reading while the latter possibility is called a narrow-scope reading. Here are the two possible readings with the wide- and narrow-scope versions of (1´) in brackets:

(1´ wide) It cannot be that {if Jesus knows p, then he is mistaken that p}.
(1´ narrow) If Jesus knows p, then it cannot be that {he is mistaken that p}.

The trilemma rests upon this ambiguity; yet, while the wide-scope reading is fallible and defeasible, the narrow-scope reading is infallible and problematic. Neither reading can reach the trilemma's conclusion alone. Let me explain. The wide-scope reading says that it is difficult to imagine a situation where, if I know a book is on the table I am somehow mistaken about that fact. However, I must admit that I may be dreaming or perhaps that I only think I see a book. Since I am only human, I may be mistaken about what I see. In other words, a wide-scope reading allows for mistakes and recognizes that knowledge is fallible and in need of some justification. Thus, the wide-scope reading allows that Jesus might be mistaken about his claim. For this reason, the trilemma cannot use the wide-scope reading to argue for Jesus's divinity.

What about the narrow-scope reading? Ultimately the trilemma rests upon this reading, however, it is very problematic. The narrow-scope reading states that it cannot be the case that Jesus's knowledge is mistaken. Under this infallible reading, it is impossible for there to be a case where, if Jesus knows something, that thing can be false. For the rest of us mere mortals, this is simply not possible. We all hold beliefs that we think are certain and yet our certainty does not guarantee the truth of those beliefs. The trilemma gets a lot of mileage out of the narrow-scope reading because the believer already assumes that anything Jesus knows is certain and true; however, it begs the question for Jesus's divinity through infallibilism.

In order for the trilemma to look convincing it must conflate the two scopes of "cannot" in the first premise. That way it gets the valid appearance of a wide-scope reading while falling back on the narrow-scope reading for the infallibilism it needs to conclude that Jesus is divine. This is the clever trick behind the trilemma. The believer who already holds the notion that the argument has yet to conclude to, namely, Jesus's divinity, is easily convinced of the argument's veracity. However, the nonbeliever who does not presuppose Jesus's divinity is rightly puzzled by the claim that the trilemma is a convincing proof. The nonbeliever is quite justified in rejecting the trilemma as fallacious.

 

[Simple]

In that case i guess the question ill ask you is "What is spirituality"?

My understanding of what Jesus taught comes from the Gospels. Where does your understanding on the matter come from?

My understanding comes from a nonreligious practice of a certain martial art that does mostly meditation, personal experience, the Bible, various Sutra, and my studies in Yoga. The truth is that breathing, yoga, and meditation are all well documented for their health benefits. When I started meditating I started sleeping less, my digestive system became more regular, I had more energy, my sinuses cleared up, I started driving slower, and I became aware of the greater world around us. I have no doubts in what I experienced, but I am was raised Christian and am not willing to dismiss these beliefs so in my mind I have reconciled Christianity to what I'll call Yoga. I can't believe that a demon improving my health and temperament. By their fruit you shall know them, and the mediators I've had dealings with have in my experience been more like Jesus than many in the Christian Church. I conclude that Yoga works because that is God's Will. I conclude that the Christian Church might have gone astray from what God wanted for us if we have to tell people that Yoga is the devil and if you practice yoga then you are going to hell.

I just try to think critically about the world and not be indoctrinated by the most common interpretations. Take the Holy Spirit. We use the word "spirit" but the word literally translates into breath. So my interpretation of Yoga can be described as submitting to God and communing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Okay, but what does that really mean? If he says he is the life does that mean? If Jesus is the life and we are alive then doesn't that mean that we have a little part of Jesus in all of us. Maybe letting Jesus into your heart doesn't just mean saying a prayer in church, get a free ticket to heaven. Maybe our interpretation is wrong? What if the "eastern mystics" believe that meditation is closely related to your life(Jesus)-force. What if Jesus, the Life, can only be reached through spirituality?

Spirituality means submitting, forgetting about your self, and listening to the voice of God, and then trying to do God's will. How is God going to speak to you if you never listen? If you give up doing what you want and instead pray and sit quietly contemplating God's Love, then according to my interpretation you are doing Yoga.

 

[TER]

My understanding of our Creator comes to me best by my own position as a parent. I have 8 children, one of which is very headstrong, defiant and not too pleasant to be around. For seven of my children my relationship and approach is very similar. As an earthly parent I attempted to force the difficult child to work within a structure that the other seven children were quite capable and successful at working within. Well because of the eighth childs personal quirks it caused an enormous amount of suffering for all parties. So I reassessed my manner of dealing with her. I deal with her differently but my expectations are still the same. We have a relationship with each other and relate to each other but through a different manner than I do with the other seven of my children. I know my child best when it comes down to it and approach her and can 'read' her better than anyone else and I am an earthly parent. How much more should we give room to the Creator to His relationship with His children?

When people get all caught up in defending their religious traditions that they are demanding another walk their path or they are not truly experiencing a relationship with their Creator, I believe it disrespects the right of the Father to come to His children in the manner He sees fit as He knows the heart of His children best. Ultimately it is that each person embrace Love as the beginning and ending of all things. By focusing one's energy on defending religion, the Love that is inside one's fellow man is not being fanned but dampered because the ill will is growing rather than what both parties share, the knowledge of a parent of ultimate Love. Therefore if I believe that the love one holds inside them is the Light of the soul, or Divine Spark, which draws them closer to God (in a like attracts like manner) by diminishing another persons walk I am belittling the spark of Ultimate Love.

I think this is why the Orthodox give a clause that they will not completely dismiss that there are those outside of the Orthodox religion who are not damned while not worshipping in the manner which they feel is the ideal means to approach Him. Pretty wise position in my opinion as to do otherwise means that He is then definable and limited.

All good and true moostraks, but I think you misunderstand my statement about whether defending the truth belittles the spark of love in our fellow men. Was St. Stephen the first martyr belittling the spark of love in the fellow Jews by proclaiming that Jesus is the Son of God as he was being stoned to death by them? Should he have said instead 'fine everyone, we all worship the same Father so let's just all get along'? Indeed, by his death many came to Christ and were saved. Similarly with other events in the history of the Church, where men and women converted many to Christ by their own blood being shed in order to testify to the truth that Jesus is Lord and is risen from the dead, not shirking from being witnesses of Christ, for He Himself said that 'Blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake'. Defending such truths have led countless others to salvation and has not only ignited the spark of love in their fellow man but the divine flame of love filling their entire spirit.

Matthew 10:

“Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."

Moostraks, the problem is not defending the truth, but how we defend the truth. If it accusatory or mocking, then it can create ill will and contention as you said and is counterproductive in our mission as servants of Christ, and I am guilty of such inappropriate methods. But that doesn't mean that the truths are still not truths because I or anyone else have difficulty relaying it to others who may have different ideas of what is truth.

You may teach your one children differently from the other, but I imagine you still maintain the same truths to them all. And the truth spoken by Jesus Christ are not ones we can mince and twist and pick and choose if we are to consider ourselves Christians. Christ has said clearly Who He is and how all men find their salvation, namely through Him alone. If another person thinks that I cast them aside because of repeating this, then they cast not me aside, but Christ Himself Who first spoke it. Our witness is not to sugarcoat and say 'its okay, its okay, Christ is just one way in which God came to reveal Himself to the world and we can find salvation in different ways'. No. Our witness is that in Christ alone do we find salvation, in Christ alone has the Father been revealed in full, and in Christ alone do find eternal life. Neither casting others to condemnation or judging the hearts of others, but focusing upon our own sins and failings and defending the Christian truths even with our very blood. As for everyone else, we pray for them to come to the truth and place their eternal souls in the merciful hands of God.

again from the same chapter in Mark:

“ And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved...

“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household! Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.

“Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

 

[PursuePeace]

My understanding comes from a nonreligious practice of a certain martial art that does mostly meditation, personal experience, the Bible, various Sutra, and my studies in Yoga. The truth is that breathing, yoga, and meditation are all well documented for their health benefits. When I started meditating I started sleeping less, my digestive system became more regular, I had more energy, my sinuses cleared up, I started driving slower, and I became aware of the greater world around us. I have no doubts in what I experienced, but I am was raised Christian and am not willing to dismiss these beliefs so in my mind I have reconciled Christianity to what I'll call Yoga. I can't believe that a demon improving my health and temperament. By their fruit you shall know them, and the mediators I've had dealings with have in my experience been more like Jesus than many in the Christian Church. I conclude that Yoga works because that is God's Will. I conclude that the Christian Church might have gone astray from what God wanted for us if we have to tell people that Yoga is the devil and if you practice yoga then you are going to hell.

I just try to think critically about the world and not be indoctrinated by the most common interpretations. Take the Holy Spirit. We use the word "spirit" but the word literally translates into breath. So my interpretation of Yoga can be described as submitting to God and communing with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Okay, but what does that really mean? If he says he is the life does that mean? If Jesus is the life and we are alive then doesn't that mean that we have a little part of Jesus in all of us. Maybe letting Jesus into your heart doesn't just mean saying a prayer in church, get a free ticket to heaven. Maybe our interpretation is wrong? What if the "eastern mystics" believe that meditation is closely related to your life(Jesus)-force. What if Jesus, the Life, can only be reached through spirituality?

Spirituality means submitting, forgetting about your self, and listening to the voice of God, and then trying to do God's will. How is God going to speak to you if you never listen? If you give up doing what you want and instead pray and sit quietly contemplating God's Love, then according to my interpretation you are doing Yoga.

That's a beautiful perspective. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Kotin]

I find it funny people with your attitude. You want to believe in an all-powerful God that can by definition do anything it wants; yet want to constrain God to your own pitiful human thinking within the bounds of earthly logic.

If an all-powerful God wanted to make 2+2=4 and at the exact same time make 2+2=5, he could. Stop thinking so limitedly.

It's worth quoting.. Damn right.


I always find it hilarious to hear about the god that I often do. The god who was obviously invented or restricted by man's ridiculously rigid understanding of the universe.


The real god of this universe is beyond your comprehension.. He is not a guy up there shaking his fist at you with threats.

 

[tttppp]

Anything that worships a false god is demonic.

Thats only if your narrow minded religion is correct, which it isn't.

 

[eduardo89]

Thats only if your narrow minded religion is correct, which it isn't.

Says the guy who doesn't believe in God but believes humans will somehow be able to live forever and create their own heaven...

 

[Nirvikalpa]

According to the Scriptures, Oh wait i forgot you reject scriptures. Yet claim to be a Christian.

Which is why i asked. Which Christ do you represent? the Christ of the scriptures or some other Christ.

I hope I follow a different Christ than one you and other people here talk about. You peach with your mouth and your hands through words and type, but the words are not resonating with your actions. You are pushy, judgmental, rude, and condescending; all negative traits the Christ I believe in would look down upon. Your reply to most is "You do not understand the Scripture," or "your knowledge is limited." The scripture is one thing. What you and other Christians need to realize is hardly anyone has the time to pick up the Bible and read it, so their first real dose of Christianity comes from the actions of so-called Christians.

That being said, within this thread you have said or done nothing that makes me want to look any closer for your 'Christ.' You have done your Christ a great disservice.