How much do looks matter for Christians?

[+Paranoid Android]

Non Catholics do not practice comunion. ( eating bread wafers).

not all christians have communion.

Most Christian groups will have a communion of some kind. However, it is primarily the Roman Catholics who believe in the concept of Transubstantiation. Most other groups simply think of the bread and wine as reminders of what Christ did, there is no literal flesh or blood of Jesus. Personally, my church has communion once a month, though I don't necessarily think it should be a ritualised event such as what it is. I feel Jesus' primary intention of the communion was for it to be an informal event that took place when believers met to share a meal with one another. But that's aside the point at this stage.

[+Paranoid Android]

Isn't it blasphemy to paint a false image of Jesus?

No. Why would it be blasphemous to paint a false image of Jesus? Of course, if the picture was depicting Jesus doing something sinful, that may be grounds for blasphemy, but the simple image - no.

If not, should Americans paint a Jesus that looks more like Michael Jordan now?

Why? Jesus wasn't African-American! Chances are he wasn't 6'6" either.

[White Crane Feather]

So, what you are asking in effect, is if Christians will give up Christianity and accept the beliefs of others.

Not give up Christianity, but yes. God may have reveled itself to many others in different contexts. It's quit obvious that for quit a while in north America or Paupa New guinea that there were souls dieing that never new of Christ and lived their own spiritual lives. Native Americans were doing just as good or better as any Christian nation pre Colombian. The had a solid spirituality connecting with god and nature. How can another spiritual and intelligent person then come and say "no no you have got it all wrong" and actually consider themselves still rational. What makes one spirituality more valid than another? Is it age? Is it how closely it matches scientific data? Is numbers of adaherants? What validates Christ as god and not some rebel rabbi? If I told you right now that I am god and you should have faith in me, would you believe me? Why not? Couldn't a modern day Christ type on an Internet forum?

[Mr Walker]

Do you people also worry if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is black, white, or pink-striped?

If not, why not?

What is the friggin difference?

Jesus (as opposed to god) is historically accepted as a real entity. The flying spaghetti monster is not.

Second it does not matter what colour an imagined being with no influence over millions of people's live is, whereas it is important to maintain historicla verisimiltude as far as possible for a real human being worshipped by bilions.

For example, jesus was a jew, as were all his first followers. They worshipped in synagogues and on saturday and followed jewish rituals and practices, and his teachings both transformed an element of judaism and created a nexus between judaism and its own historical antecedents and 2000 years of christian theological evolutionary development. Thus christ's jewish appearance is important, if not his actual personal looks.

Ps in my cultural experience spaghetti is always a light browny tan colour and so i perceive the FSM as being of that colour However i am not an exclusivist on the matter and would accept a black FSM as an equally legitimate construct. Not sure about pink striped. Hard to imagine a pink striped monster, unless it was a bit ambivalent about its sexuality. Maybe if it was a female pink striped monster, but then christ was definitely male.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

To be honest, I don't care how other Christians use the word "faith". To me, the only correct definition of faith is the one provided within the Bible. And that definition is inevitably linked to the concept of Trust. If someone wants to define Faith with a non-biblical understanding, that is their choice. But they are wrong to do so.

Of course they are not 'wrong', you're pretending like 'faith' has one definition. By your same logic here, are scientists 'wrong' when they use the word 'theory' as 'guess' ('I have a theory that Baltimore won the Super Bowl because they were motivated by the impending retirement of their longtime linebacker, Ray Lewis') because that is not consistent with what 'theory' means in a scientific sense? Here are the top 2 definitions from dictionary.com, which roughly cover what we are talking about:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You don't dispute (or care actually) that Christians use 'faith' in the sense of definition 2 when discussing why they believe in God. With all very due respect man, I think it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of 'abusing' the word 'faith' here. The fact is that I'm using the word faith consistently with how some Christians use the word (and who are under no obligation, even though it is confusing, to adhere to the biblical definition; they can use definitions 1 and 2 in different contexts), although I fully admit I may be misinterpreting exactly what these Christians mean. In addition, here's a quote from you on the problem of evil thread, emphasis mine: "I agree with you that God knows what will happen, but that doesn't lessen my belief in him, or in my belief that predestination and free will can coexist (despite being mutually exclusive concepts)." I'd say you've done far more violence to those two much less ambiguous terms than I have to 'faith' (although I sympathize with you that the limitations of language and our limited comprehension get in the way of discussions concerning both predestination and free will).

The point is that one can talk the talk as much as they like. They can praise Blondin and tell him he's the best in the world and can easily push a person across the Falls in a wheelbarrow. But paying lip-service like this is not faith. True faith is having the conviction in your beliefs to stand up and get into that wheelbarrow. The analogy was to show what Faith really is. Faith is not mouthing words of belief in God. Anyone can say "I have faith in God". But true faith, biblical faith, is not just your words, but the conviction of your beliefs to stand up and allow that conviction to change the way you act in the world. That is biblical faith, and as I said above, if someone wants to change that definition to suit themselves, that is a choice they can make but they would be wrong to do so.

It's probably my fault for not communicating clearly and talking about other subjects, but I don't see how this fits in to our conversation, although I appreciate the information. This mini-thread started when I responded to an objection you made to another commenter saying that the truth of Christianity I assume is based on 'flimsy evidence'. I've attempted and I'm sure failed to keep this discussion within this context: is it upon reason and evidence alone that one is to conclude that God exists and how good is this evidence? I'm interested in both what the bible says about this and what Christians say about this, but those are not necessarily always one in the same. Yes, I said I thought that some amount of 'faith definition 2' is inherent in many Christians beliefs and in the theology somehow in general, I guess I've never heard someone (successfully) defend the idea that one can conclude God exists using the exact same reasoning from evidence that I use to conclude the sun exists. Nor have I seen that many Christians attempt it. Regardless, I don't think your discussion here of Faith/Trust and what people say and give lip-service to has much to do, I don't think, with the context of the reasoning and evidence for God and whether or how 'faith definition 2' is involved. If it does, then I would argue that it doesn't matter what we call it, 'Trust' still has the same issue as 'faith'; I wouldn't go as far as 'without proof' like the definition, but 'Trust' involves some type of leap, you don't really 'trust' what you know.

Again, thanks for the info, I do recognize that this conversation is pretty far afield of the thread topic, but I appreciate your responses. If I feel that I can better put in to words my points on this subtopic, I may start another thread on it in the future.

[IamsSon]

Not give up Christianity, but yes.

So, "Yes."

God may have reveled itself to many others in different contexts.

Romans says that God reveals Himself to all through His creation and through our conscience. Expecting Christians to accept anything else would require they stop being Christians.

It's quit obvious that for quit a while in north America or Paupa New guinea that there were souls dieing that never new of Christ and lived their own spiritual lives. Native Americans were doing just as good or better as any Christian nation pre Colombian. The had a solid spirituality connecting with god and nature. How can another spiritual and intelligent person then come and say "no no you have got it all wrong" and actually consider themselves still rational. What makes one spirituality more valid than another? Is it age? Is it how closely it matches scientific data? Is numbers of adaherants?

What makes every spirituality as good as every other? And if you really believe this, then why would you expect Christians to give up their spirituality since it's as good as any other exactly as it is, including it's requirement of exclusivity? So, are all religions as good as all others? Or are all religions except Christianity as good as all others?

What validates Christ as god and not some rebel rabbi? If I told you right now that I am god and you should have faith in me, would you believe me? Why not? Couldn't a modern day Christ type on an Internet forum?

Jesus fulfilled specific prophesies.

[spartan max2]

this is a dumb thread

[Zaphod222]

Jesus (as opposed to god) is historically accepted as a real entity. The flying spaghetti monster is not.

Was there there some guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago? Heck, yes! There there thousands of guys called Jesus. Just there are today.

Was Jesus the result of some fictitious supernatural being impregnating a virgin Mary? Just as much as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The difference is zip, zilch, nada, nix,. nill.

So, you are discussing the skin color of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No banana, try again.

[Zaphod222]

First off I'm not Christian genius nor catholic ( the flesh eaters you are talking about). Non Catholics do not practice comunion. ( eating bread wafers).

The FSM is what is called a STRAW MAN a logical fallacy.

Is not. It is an entirely valid comparison. There is no logical reason to regard believers in the bible in any different from believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

An irrational belief system is an irrational belief system. To claim that one irrational belief system is superior to another irrational belief system is simply not a position that you can defend.... other than by posturing and name-calling.

[+Paranoid Android]

Was there there some guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago? Heck, yes! There there thousands of guys called Jesus. Just there are today.

Was Jesus the result of some fictitious supernatural being impregnating a virgin Mary? Just as much as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The difference is zip, zilch, nada, nix,. nill.

So, you are discussing the skin color of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No banana, try again.

Just in case you missed my post on the matter -

The difference is that the majority of historians accept that there most likely was a person named Jesus who began the movement later known as Christianity. In contrast, the FSM can be traced to a physics lecturer protesting the Evolution/Intelligent Design in 2005, whose words were later picked up and turned into an internet meme via bloggers and such.

That's a pretty big difference. While the FSM meme might work in a discussion about religion in the classroom, it's illogical to extend that to claim no difference between this and a person who most historians agree was a real flesh-and-blood human being.

Even if the discussion were about God and not Jesus, there's still the matter that we KNOW the FSM was invented in 2005, 7-8 years ago. We cannot have that same knowledge about a being thousands of years old. Even if it is an entirely invented being we cannot pinpoint where it started and certainly we cannot pinpoint that it was created as an ironic counterbalance to the evolution/creationism debate.

~ Regards, PA

Edited February 14, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[The Silver Thong]

I think Zeus had it right the whole time, opps Jesus my bad.

[+Paranoid Android]

Of course they are not 'wrong', you're pretending like 'faith' has one definition. By your same logic here, are scientists 'wrong' when they use the word 'theory' as 'guess' ('I have a theory that Baltimore won the Super Bowl because they were motivated by the impending retirement of their longtime linebacker, Ray Lewis') because that is not consistent with what 'theory' means in a scientific sense? Here are the top 2 definitions from dictionary.com, which roughly cover what we are talking about:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

You don't dispute (or care actually) that Christians use 'faith' in the sense of definition 2 when discussing why they believe in God. With all very due respect man, I think it's a bit rich for you to accuse me of 'abusing' the word 'faith' here. The fact is that I'm using the word faith consistently with how some Christians use the word (and who are under no obligation, even though it is confusing, to adhere to the biblical definition; they can use definitions 1 and 2 in different contexts), although I fully admit I may be misinterpreting exactly what these Christians mean. In addition, here's a quote from you on the problem of evil thread, emphasis mine: "I agree with you that God knows what will happen, but that doesn't lessen my belief in him, or in my belief that predestination and free will can coexist (despite being mutually exclusive concepts)." I'd say you've done far more violence to those two much less ambiguous terms than I have to 'faith' (although I sympathize with you that the limitations of language and our limited comprehension get in the way of discussions concerning both predestination and free will).

Definition 2 is a modern definition. It is not in the Bible. I think perhaps the definition came into Christian belief because of a misinterpretation of Hebrews 11:1.

On the matter of the layman theory vs the scientific theory, perhaps you inadvertently proved my point for me. Those pesky Young Earth Creationists ridicule evolution by saying "it's only a theory". Scientists and most of the rest of us shake our head at their misuse of the word "theory". Likewise, if someone says Christian faith is "believing without evidence", then Christians who know what biblical faith is shake their head at the misuse of the word. Just because a word has different meanings does not mean both are valid within certain contexts. Biblical faith is never "believing without evidence". Modern understanding of the word has that implication, but it is not what was intended in the original language 2000 years ago.

It's probably my fault for not communicating clearly and talking about other subjects, but I don't see how this fits in to our conversation, although I appreciate the information. This mini-thread started when I responded to an objection you made to another commenter saying that the truth of Christianity I assume is based on 'flimsy evidence'. I've attempted and I'm sure failed to keep this discussion within this context: is it upon reason and evidence alone that one is to conclude that God exists and how good is this evidence? I'm interested in both what the bible says about this and what Christians say about this, but those are not necessarily always one in the same. Yes, I said I thought that some amount of 'faith definition 2' is inherent in many Christians beliefs and in the theology somehow in general, I guess I've never heard someone (successfully) defend the idea that one can conclude God exists using the exact same reasoning from evidence that I use to conclude the sun exists. Nor have I seen that many Christians attempt it. Regardless, I don't think your discussion here of Faith/Trust and what people say and give lip-service to has much to do, I don't think, with the context of the reasoning and evidence for God and whether or how 'faith definition 2' is involved. If it does, then I would argue that it doesn't matter what we call it, 'Trust' still has the same issue as 'faith'; I wouldn't go as far as 'without proof' like the definition, but 'Trust' involves some type of leap, you don't really 'trust' what you know.

Again, thanks for the info, I do recognize that this conversation is pretty far afield of the thread topic, but I appreciate your responses. If I feel that I can better put in to words my points on this subtopic, I may start another thread on it in the future.

I was showing the difference between belief and faith! Saying "I believe you can carry me across the Niagara Falls" is one thing. To have the conviction to get in the wheelbarrow that is something else. And true biblical Faith is not possible until you get in that wheelbarrow, proverbially speaking, naturally. I can say "I believe" all I like, but if my belief does not lead to the TRUST required to step up and do something about it, then that is not true faith.

If God came up to me tomorrow and said "Paranoid Android, sell your computer, you need to go to Africa to spread my mission", I have two choices (assuming I'm not crazy and hallucinating, but for the purpose of this analogy let's say it's real). 1- I could say "Yes God, I believe".... and then post on UM about how I had a vision, and keep discussing and arguing this, but never actually stand up and do something about it. Or 2- I could get up, sell my computer for the ticket I need to Africa, find a Missionary organisation, tell them I'm ready to go on Mission, and then go.

The second of these is biblical faith. The first one is not. I can believe God all I want, but if I am not going to turn that belief into action, then it is not real faith. It is a fake faith. Non-biblical faith.

[Sean93]

I doubt looks would matter for any intelligent Christian/follower of Jesus.

But I bet there are those who think he was white.

[scowl]

No. Why would it be blasphemous to paint a false image of Jesus? Of course, if the picture was depicting Jesus doing something sinful, that may be grounds for blasphemy, but the simple image - no.

OK here's a painting of Jesus armwrestling with Satan. I say that Jesus is on the left and that handsome devil (painted as a Caucasian because why not?) is Satan is on the right.

No sins that I can see here. Any problems with it? I guess Jesus isn't as attractive as Satan but you say there's no problem as long as Jesus isn't depicted as committing sins.

Why? Jesus wasn't African-American! Chances are he wasn't 6'6" either.

Why not? Jesus wasn't European-Caucasian either.

What difference does it make how tall he was? Is height important to Christians? I know Christian Bibles added three feet onto Goliath's height.

[+Liquid Gardens]

On the matter of the layman theory vs the scientific theory, perhaps you inadvertently proved my point for me. Those pesky Young Earth Creationists ridicule evolution by saying "it's only a theory". Scientists and most of the rest of us shake our head at their misuse of the word "theory". Likewise, if someone says Christian faith is "believing without evidence", then Christians who know what biblical faith is shake their head at the misuse of the word. Just because a word has different meanings does not mean both are valid within certain contexts. Biblical faith is never "believing without evidence". Modern understanding of the word has that implication, but it is not what was intended in the original language 2000 years ago.

...

I can believe God all I want, but if I am not going to turn that belief into action, then it is not real faith. It is a fake faith. Non-biblical faith.

That's fine, I totally believe you, 'Biblical faith' or 'Faith' capitalized is not believing without evidence, it's something more specific involving trust and acting on it. Unfortunately for both of us, we didn't create a different word that refers to the modern definition of the word faith involving believing without evidence, as Christians invoke the word faith in this sense. Thus, 'the faith that Christians have' is not just restricted to 'Biblical faith', and leaves the term 'Christian faith' ambiguous as to what specifically is being referred to. Now I don't remember what formulation of faith I used, and I'm sure no matter what I said it is legitimate and fair for you to have interpreted me as referring to Faith. Is it fair to say that Biblical faith follows after a belief in God has been established? Am I correct that Biblical faith has almost nothing to do with how a believer arrived at this belief, unlike modern 'faith' which for some people is to some extent involved sometimes in arriving at their belief?

I was showing the difference between belief and faith! Saying "I believe you can carry me across the Niagara Falls" is one thing. To have the conviction to get in the wheelbarrow that is something else. And true biblical Faith is not possible until you get in that wheelbarrow, proverbially speaking, naturally. I can say "I believe" all I like, but if my belief does not lead to the TRUST required to step up and do something about it, then that is not true faith.

If God came up to me tomorrow and said "Paranoid Android, sell your computer, you need to go to Africa to spread my mission", I have two choices (assuming I'm not crazy and hallucinating, but for the purpose of this analogy let's say it's real). 1- I could say "Yes God, I believe".... and then post on UM about how I had a vision, and keep discussing and arguing this, but never actually stand up and do something about it. Or 2- I could get up, sell my computer for the ticket I need to Africa, find a Missionary organisation, tell them I'm ready to go on Mission, and then go.

I think where I'm getting blocked is that I'm still thinking about how 'belief' and 'trust' are interrelating here, specifically in "I can say "I believe" all I like, but if my belief does not lead to the TRUST required to step up and do something about it, then that is not true faith.". I can parse that a few ways. Is it possible for someone to believe with as much certainty as possible that the Christian God exists and to believe Jesus is their savior, and not have 'true faith', they don't put it into action? That would probably be the clarifying question for me. I don't think you mean it simply as 'some people say they believe but don't really'. One issue I have is that I keep wanting to end your sentence not with 'then that is not true faith', but with 'then they apparently don't actually really believe in the Christian God, for if you did you would automatically or by definition possess the trust required". If you don't trust enough to not put your faith into action, to stop or at least struggle against sinning I believe would probably be the primary requirement, in some sense it seems you don't believe in the Christian God. I think I'm overlapping what we had discussed briefly on another thread concerning whether it's really consistent or accurate to refer to 'Christian terrorists', and am probably just needlessly talking myself in circles just because of semantics here.

Concerning your example where God orders you to be a missionary, I guess, not believing myself, that maybe I've never thought of what's really going on when Christians intentionally sin or disobey. I suspect I've mistakenly thought that this happens partly out of doubt that their religious beliefs are correct, and maybe it is for some even if it's just for a short time, but I guess I've never considered someone who truly believes with absolute certainty and then commits adultery for example. If you truly know God is watching you and disapproves of what you are doing, I have trouble understanding how anyone can then do it, but as I said I just started thinking about it. I understand your missionary example as clarifying what Biblical faith means, but as a real scenario, I don't even understand why option #1 is there; the way you've defined it, it was certainly God, and I don't then understand not obeying an order by the Supreme Being of ultimate goodness who promises to provide you the ultimate reward.

[+Paranoid Android]

OK here's a painting of Jesus armwrestling with Satan. I say that Jesus is on the left and that handsome devil (painted as a Caucasian because why not?) is Satan is on the right.

No sins that I can see here. Any problems with it? I guess Jesus isn't as attractive as Satan but you say there's no problem as long as Jesus isn't depicted as committing sins.

I've got no problem with it, though I'm pretty sure whoever painted that picture intended Jesus to be on the right.

I was at a sci-fi convention a couple of years ago, someone was dressed as Jesus, white robes, long hair, beard. I took a photo of him shaking hands with Santa Claus. I thought it was hilarious.

Why not? Jesus wasn't European-Caucasian either.

What difference does it make how tall he was? Is height important to Christians? I know Christian Bibles added three feet onto Goliath's height.

You brought up Michael Jordan and said we should start making Jesus look like him. I was just curious why. I honestly don't care how people choose to draw or not draw Jesus, it just isn't a big deal for me. I don't have paintings of Jesus up on my wall at home, or at the church I attend.

[+Paranoid Android]

That's fine, I totally believe you, 'Biblical faith' or 'Faith' capitalized is not believing without evidence, it's something more specific involving trust and acting on it. Unfortunately for both of us, we didn't create a different word that refers to the modern definition of the word faith involving believing without evidence, as Christians invoke the word faith in this sense. Thus, 'the faith that Christians have' is not just restricted to 'Biblical faith', and leaves the term 'Christian faith' ambiguous as to what specifically is being referred to. Now I don't remember what formulation of faith I used, and I'm sure no matter what I said it is legitimate and fair for you to have interpreted me as referring to Faith. Is it fair to say that Biblical faith follows after a belief in God has been established? Am I correct that Biblical faith has almost nothing to do with how a believer arrived at this belief, unlike modern 'faith' which for some people is to some extent involved sometimes in arriving at their belief?

No one in the Bible credited with faith was done so solely for believing God exists. For me, I've always believed God exists. God was always there, in some ways God's existence has always been real to me. At moments of doubt in my teens I did move into agnosticism, but for the most part I knew God existed. It was a fact of my life. I wasn't always a Christian, though. I didn't turn to Christ until I was 19-20'ish. I moved from knowing God exists (not faith) to trusting that God spoke to me through the Bible and acting on it (faith). So yes, what you said was a fair comment. Faith has little to do with believing in God.

I think where I'm getting blocked is that I'm still thinking about how 'belief' and 'trust' are interrelating here, specifically in "I can say "I believe" all I like, but if my belief does not lead to the TRUST required to step up and do something about it, then that is not true faith.". I can parse that a few ways. Is it possible for someone to believe with as much certainty as possible that the Christian God exists and to believe Jesus is their savior, and not have 'true faith', they don't put it into action? That would probably be the clarifying question for me. I don't think you mean it simply as 'some people say they believe but don't really'. One issue I have is that I keep wanting to end your sentence not with 'then that is not true faith', but with 'then they apparently don't actually really believe in the Christian God, for if you did you would automatically or by definition possess the trust required". If you don't trust enough to not put your faith into action, to stop or at least struggle against sinning I believe would probably be the primary requirement, in some sense it seems you don't believe in the Christian God. I think I'm overlapping what we had discussed briefly on another thread concerning whether it's really consistent or accurate to refer to 'Christian terrorists', and am probably just needlessly talking myself in circles just because of semantics here.

If you believed truly what God says then how could you not put it into action? For example, if you and I were living in an apartment together, you're at the computer posting on UM and I come running in, telling you that the stove's caught fire and spread to the rest of the kitchen, I've called the fire brigade but we have to get out NOW. If you turn around and say, "sure PA, I believe you" and then turn and continue reading the forums did you truly believe me? Did you TRUST me (faith)? The way you would show faith in me would be to get up and try clearing the building.

That's not to say that followers of God are always perfect. There are times when we sin. It's a natural part of life. What matters to God is not whether we sin, but whether we try not to and make amends for it when we do.

And just to address your other point - I guess it is possible for someone to truly believe the Christian God but do nothing about it. They're called hypocrites, and when they meet Jesus he will tell them "Begone from me, I never knew you".

Concerning your example where God orders you to be a missionary, I guess, not believing myself, that maybe I've never thought of what's really going on when Christians intentionally sin or disobey. I suspect I've mistakenly thought that this happens partly out of doubt that their religious beliefs are correct, and maybe it is for some even if it's just for a short time, but I guess I've never considered someone who truly believes with absolute certainty and then commits adultery for example. If you truly know God is watching you and disapproves of what you are doing, I have trouble understanding how anyone can then do it, but as I said I just started thinking about it. I understand your missionary example as clarifying what Biblical faith means, but as a real scenario, I don't even understand why option #1 is there; the way you've defined it, it was certainly God, and I don't then understand not obeying an order by the Supreme Being of ultimate goodness who promises to provide you the ultimate reward.

Intentionally sinning is human nature. While I would never condone adultery, some people do it for various reasons. This may or may not indicate a complete loss of trust in God, but it does show that for a time their sinfulness got in the way of their relationship with God.

As to my scenario, #1 is on there because there are many reasons why I may not want to go on Mission. It would require me to give up my career (temporarily, at least). I couldn't go and play my weekly Poker tournament, which would be annoying. It would require that I go to an area of the world I don't want to go, among people I don't know. It would be scary. I do not believe I have what it takes to be a missionary. So if God came and asked me, it would be a decision to make, even with a direct command from God. Incidentally, though I did not intend it this way, this example parallels what happened to Jonah in the Bible. Jonah was sent by God to bring a message to the people of Ninevah. But Jonah hated the Ninevites and so ran from God's calling, taking a ship and crossing the ocean (the exact opposite direction he needed to go, to an inland city. Several calamities later and the whale/big fish vomits Jonah up where he should have been headed to begin with.

That said, I'd like to think that if God did require me to become a missionary that I would have the courage and conviction to follow even though I do not want to.

~ Regards, PA

[+Paranoid Android]

The word faith is not referred to in the quote but it is meant. To believe without seeing is faith. You don't have to use a word to get the message across.

one of several answers: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/faith

I have never seen Jesus but I do believe in him. Is that not faith?

The demons also believe in Jesus, and they shudder! I have never seen Jesus either, and I believe in him. But that alone is not faith. Leastaways this alone is not a living faith. The book of James deals with this and says that Faith, unless accompanied by works, is a dead faith.

That's not to say that we are saved by our works. It is still Grace through faith. But our works are a natural extension of our Faith, if they are not there then we must question whether the faith is there also.

[White Crane Feather]

I doubt looks would matter for any intelligent Christian/follower of Jesus.

But I bet there are those who think he was white.

There are are.

I once heard a KKK leader express

" Jesus hates Rag heads" of course bigotly referring to middle eastern people in which jesus surely is. I bursted out laughing on the spot.

[White Crane Feather]

Is not. It is an entirely valid comparison. There is no logical reason to regard believers in the bible in any different from believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

An irrational belief system is an irrational belief system. To claim that one irrational belief system is superior to another irrational belief system is simply not a position that you can defend.... other than by posturing and name-calling.

Except there is no irrational belief system in a FSM. it is a CONSTRUCT designed to RIDICULE another point of view by makeing Eronius comparisons. ( please see PAs information from where it came from). This is not logic. Infact logical reasoning frowns heavily on atacking any thing but the argument itself. Makeing up a STRAW MAN because YOU THINK it can be compared to what the discussion idabout is not in any sense of the word a logical argument. So you can say in your opinion it's a good comparison, but if you want to invoke LOGIC, you will be torn to shreds. In fact, it's not even slightly a logical position.

Most people do not even know the real anthropological and pysiological facts ( not even theists) concerning the origins of religions. In fact, its not even irrational to believe in god or gods. It's built into the very nature of our existence in more ways than most ever imagined.

The FSM is a straw man no matter which way you tilt or spin in. Sorry... Logic is logic. There is reason why logic is not based on opinions,

[Mr Walker]

Was there there some guy called Jesus in Palestine 2000 years ago? Heck, yes! There there thousands of guys called Jesus. Just there are today.

Was Jesus the result of some fictitious supernatural being impregnating a virgin Mary? Just as much as there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The difference is zip, zilch, nada, nix,. nill.

So, you are discussing the skin color of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No banana, try again.

Are you really as dim as this post makes you sound, or is there some other reason you are not discussing the point ?

Try reading and thinking about what I wrote.

A man called jesus (or something similar) back in judea 2000 years ago, taught something which established an immediate cult following and within a couple of decades was perceived by roman emporers as a threat to roman religions. It adapted judaism (itself an evolution of several other faiths) into an entirely new belief system. With the redirection of paul/saul in preaching to the gentiles, this teaching became the greatest (largest) religious belief in the world today.

OF course the man's ethnicity is critical. It was his role, as a jew reinterpeting old judaic theology, and later paul's expansion of this, which gave billions of human their modern beliefs. They need to know and understand the man he was.

In contrast the colour of the FSM is irrelevant to anyone. The theological constructs of christianity are not illogical or irrational But yes they do require belief. People who construct and hold a belief in christ (Or god) can be healed, empowered, live longer happier and healthier lives; feel less pain, not be lonely depressed angry or alienated. All this is demonstrable, scientifically and medically Thus even if no god existed it would be logical and rational to choose a belief in one, and illogical and irrational to condemn yourself to a inferior life by choosing not to believe. It doesnt have to be the christian god, but the nature of the psychological construct of the christian god makes it very powerful and beneficial in man yf these areas, compared with other belief systems

For example it teaches that all men are equal and the worst drunk or wife beater is loved by god and can be turned around via belief in god. The drunk can give up drinking and find they have no reason to drink. The wife beater can become a loving and gentle man .All this occurs via belief, and its power to transform human beings. Christianity also invites the power of god into humans, and be that a physical power of a real god, or a power generated via faith within a person, it can, and does, work miracles inside a human being. On their body and in their mind.

[hellig heilige]

I doubt looks would matter for any intelligent Christian/follower of Jesus.

But I bet there are those who think he was white.

Native people in Israel are "ethnic" Caucasians.

[scowl]

I've got no problem with it, though I'm pretty sure whoever painted that picture intended Jesus to be on the right.

How can you tell? The guy on the right looks like an ordinary powerless human while the guy on the left clearly has tremendous supernatural powers. I'd put my money on the guy on the left.

You brought up Michael Jordan and said we should start making Jesus look like him. I was just curious why.

Because Michael Jordan is a fine looking guy, better looking than this pale hippy that is supposed to be Jesus in old paintings. If there's nothing wrong with painting Jesus as a supermodel, why not update his look?

[+Paranoid Android]

How can you tell? The guy on the right looks like an ordinary powerless human while the guy on the left clearly has tremendous supernatural powers. I'd put my money on the guy on the left.

I honestly can't tell whether you're trolling right now, or whether you're just obtuse.

Because Michael Jordan is a fine looking guy, better looking than this pale hippy that is supposed to be Jesus in old paintings. If there's nothing wrong with painting Jesus as a supermodel, why not update his look?

I'd have nothing against it, though your "pale hippy" comment is very much a subjective statement. Not everyone finds Michael Jordan that good looking. Fact is, you're not going to find many people changing the archetypal Jesus-mould - the current depiction is steeped in centuries of artistic tradition. If one or two people draw him differently the majority will still have the white robe/long-hair/beard in their mind's eye simply because that is what they are used to.

Incidentally, the way you refer to Jesus as a "pale hippy", I'm not entirely certain you're not trolling here either!

Edited February 16, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[ranrod]

Jesus (as opposed to god) is historically accepted as a real entity. The flying spaghetti monster is not.

Second it does not matter what colour an imagined being with no influence over millions of people's live is, whereas it is important to maintain historicla verisimiltude as far as possible for a real human being worshipped by bilions.

But Jesus being a historical figure is not a fact. A lie is a lie even if billions believe it. The truth is the truth even if no one believes it.

Do you think there was a historical Jesus? ...I'm not quite sure where you stand on that.

Bronze-age cultures invented the pre-cursors to Judaism and Christianity, and didn't have the slightest clue what was causing the things that were happening to them. Why are their opinions more valid than ours? How likely are their tales to be accurate? I'd say no more than that of tribal men living in isolation today.

...btw, in answer to a previous post of yours, there are plenty of ugly people in the world with a ton of charisma. A historical Jesus (if there was one), could look like the guy on the left of my original post, and be charismatic enough to gather followers.