op: He sounds like he has been brainwashed by the happy clappers. do his parents know? if so, what do they think? maybe you need to have a chat with them?
well, i guess a thousand years of oppression and murder of athiests wont really help the christians. a lot of christian people are people with the least christian values (i.e. *********)
maybe athiests are finally getting their say? and not being killed by the church?
i also believe that the punch him in the face comments are just joking. but if he is starting to judge and **** people off it seems he is less christian that us athiests. religion is ok, keep it to yourself. organised religion is a scar on the face of the planet. doesnt the bible even say not to preach to those who arent interested? the problem is that many religious types try to force their way of live on the rest of us. for example religious leaders trying to affect political policy. they also pick and choose which bits to follow.
You claim that religion is ok and to keep it to yourself but yet you suggest to the OP to possibly mention to the guys parents to see if they know what he is up to. I detect a slight bit of hypocrisy there? Live and let live - remember? Are you seriously suggesting that the OP approach the guys parents and interfere in his personal beliefs? OK.
You could also mention all the thousands of Christians who have been murdered down through the years. Look at the records of the persecution endured under Nero for example.
********* you say? I think you are now stooping to exactly the same level as that implied in the OP. Saying things about people and their families? Very tolerant you are.
"A scar on the face of the planet" - is it possible that my own faith adds to this scar? If so, how can I change, how can I make things better? I mentioned it before - let's abolish religion from now on. Is the world suddenly a better place? I'd suggest that you will still call people ********* regardless of the fact that religion exists/doesn't.
And to correct another point - no the Bible says that Christians should engage in sharing their faith with other people. It doesn't say to force it to anyone either. As a Christian I know that people will only be willing to listen to my beliefs if I appear to be a normal guy, friendly, good work colleague, respectable neighbour etc. I can't really expect to win respect if I am forcing something on people.
Made me laugh. Historical accounts of a rumour. What historical accounts and eye witness reports are available from that period of history, because I'm going to guess with not a huge number.
What's your opinion on Noah and the suggestion by the bible he lived to be 950 years old? Is that backed up by historical evidence?
I have said it before that the resurrection is one of the most well attested claims in the Bible. What is so shocking about the reporting of a rumour that supposedly spread like wildfire in the local area with the aim of denouncing the resurrection? History is allowed to record rumour as well as events or anything else.
What I don't understand is that we supposedly have historical proof of things that happened millions of years ago and yet literal historical records which have been found thousands of years ago are rubbished.
Not looked into Noah but I will do a bit of research.
See this is what I find really sad about religion. Why do you need some promise of eternal salvation and reward etc. to not be a **** to other people?
While I agree with some of the ideology behind the teachings of the bible, to try and claim it was written with any divine inspiration is just as delusional as claiming your best mate is called Gandalf and recently got back from A&E after a bit of punch up with a Balrog of Morgoth.
There is absolutely no link between having eternal salvation and being a **** to other people? You could have any belief or no belief and still be a **** to other people. In this example the person being a **** just happens to be religious.
Ok, to repeat a point from a previous post. Let's assume that as of now the Bible doesn't claim to be inspired. All it is therefore is just another historical writing. Do you now accept the accounts in it? If not, then do you accept that many other historians from similar time periods are also wrong?