Dan56

No... Its not a ritual at all, nor an emotionally charged feeling, but a reverence permanently ingrained in my persona.

The Greek translation of this scripture is quite clear. It is "And lead us not into temptation." The scripture verse is not "leave us not unto temptation." The Greek is translated literally as saying, "lead us not into temptation: "καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃςἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν".

For who he is and what he did... Christ, Jesus of course... And that reverence is everyday, not just the start of a new year.

And altering the prayer of the Lord has the power to re-shape faith. I agree that the Lord's prayer was an example of how to pray, never intended to be repetitious. But changing the words of the sample prayer, can change the expression of the soul who offered the prayer. Imo, removing "Lead us not into temptation" is a no no.

Thought this was interesting.... Pope wants to change the Lord's Prayer ; https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/08/569385769/pope-francis-suggests-changing-the-words-to-lord-s-prayer

You took the words right out of my mouth Thank goodness I've never had that problem... Ya'll need to learn to be more open minded

Not a crime, perfectly legal.. Political influence has benefits.. Self-interest (money) often takes precedence over moral high ground. Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. So apparently, God owns the money, not the US Treasury, and you can't tax God... "In God We Trust" takes on a whole new meaning.

A church has 501c3 tax exempt status, so they pay no taxes on profit or even property taxes, a book store is not eligible for that. A subsidy is usually considered a monetary gift, so subsidies or being subsidized is receiving financial aid. Since churches don't get government money, I don't consider them subsidized. But as you say, giving them a free ride, is a form of monetary relief, the government is giving them money by not requiring them to be taxed.. if you itemize your personal tax deductions on IRS Schedule A, you can even write-off donations to a church, so religious congregations are eligible for tax breaks too. It pays to be religious in America.

Technically, they don't subsidize ( financially support ) churches, they just pay taxes that tax exempt organizations don't. Keep in mind that in 2013, the government said that atheist leaders can be ministers too, since atheism can function as a religion. So leaders of an atheist organization may qualify for the exemption. Its also notable that in 2012, the IRS unjustifiably scrutinized against conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status... Imo, its all bs, I think everyone should pay the same, no exceptions or exemptions for anyone, that's equality.

Everything dies, everything's forgotten, I don't even know who my great parents were or where they're buried. Unless your a prominent historical figure (Lincoln, Christ), there's generally no record or remembrance of you after a hundred years or so.. All we are is dust in the wind.. All in all your just another brick in the wall. Perhaps that's why people need to believe in a hereafter, where all things will be brought to remembrance and every deed is recorded? If true, everything we do matters, and nothing we do is in vain.

The problem with some Christians is that they believe you do need their opinion to have a decent and moral life.. They are convinced that non-believers have no code to live by.. Whereby, atheist having no standard of ethics or a primary base of principles to establish morality, can't possibly maintain a distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. But I don't hold to that, because you don't need a fundamental rule that says "Don't commit murder or steal from others" to be morally upright. Religion does not replace, nor is it a substitute for commonsense. I agree, evolution is not an accident, its a theory of how things evolved into what they are after some primary living cells accidentally came into existence.

Yes, the choice is either Creationism or Accidentalism ... I personally find the complexity of all that exist to be an impossible accident. There can't be an explanation for a Big Bang unless it demonstrates a cause, and since none exist, we're back to square one "God". Here's a semi-interesting 6 minute clip; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZLzLVAUJiU

There is no direct tangible evidence to substantiate God, except in what exist; "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1:20). Perhaps your looking for the sensational, when the evidence of creation is all around you, and in that sense, a tree itself is a miracle when you consider the million of things that had to happen for it to exist. We do have contemporary evidence in the sense that others living 2000 years ago witnessed and recorded the events, but you discard them as illegitimate because they weren't sourced by independent historians. But the fact is, there is more written about Christ than Julius Caesar, and most records of the Emperors weren't written until centuries later. But even though Christ’s story is just as well attested to as Caesar’s, people reject one and accept the other. I guess it all comes down to what's believable, and not necessarily the amount of documented records, which is why more has been written about Aliens than Caesar or Christ, but I don't believe any of it.

The difference is perception, I think the bible is an excellent written work.. If we look hard enough, we all find what we're looking for. I guess there weren't too many reporters following a peasant from Nazareth around back then.. Go figure ... And even if there was an independent source from the exact same time, I seriously doubt it would change anyone's mind. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that was just facilitating a process that the Pharaoh himself initiated. Prior to God turning the Pharaoh over to being a hard head, Exodus repeatedly states that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (Exodus 8:15 and 32). Saul believed in God, he was a zealous defender of the law, the intervention was to change his understanding and set him in the right direction. Of course God gave the prophets and apostles some direct evidence, they were all chosen for a specific purpose, but imo it was faith not belief that got the task done.

Close...... I believe because it makes sense.... As absurd as that may seem Moses & Saul believed, one was used to write most of the OT and the other wrote most of the NT. Remember that the Pharaoh witness many of the same miracles as Moses, and the Pharisees saw some of the same miracles as the disciples (John 9:16), but neither demonstrated faith despite the evidence. As Jesus said; "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

I very much doubt that the bible chiseled in stone would not make a difference to those who reject paper. They reject the message, not its authenticity. No independent verification would suffice, no non-believer would accept it. There are contemporary sources; https://probe.org/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources-2/ God has never relied on non-believers to verify himself, and why would he? There's a reason we are called by faith, doubters have never understood that.

I probably should not have said "most", since I doubt an official survey has been conducted to substantiate it. They did do a poll in England of 3000 people, 12% of which were atheist, and 40% of them believed Jesus was a mythical figure, meaning the other 60 percent thought the man Christ actually existed, but just not as a god. From page 10 of my link; "Atheist historian Michael Grant writes, “To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.." It was hard enough lugging the 10 commandments around, can you imagine the entire bible in stone?

There are no original manuscripts of anything thousands of years old.. They rot and decay, so we're reliant on accurate copies and translations into a hundred different languages. While subtle variations exist from the KJV and New Age versions, they all essentially transmit the exact same message. Most of the existing variants aren't from corrupt manuscripts, but translation choices. The bottom line for me is that nothing can be disproved. People look for proof that its true, but have zero evidence that it isn't true. So, a person is either convinced that Christ rose from the grave, or they concoct a reason of why it didn't happen, despite hundreds of witnesses and no official explanation or record to the contrary. Its impossible to write a single paragraph on a message board to convince anyone of anything, but each must weigh the culmination of evidence to reach their own conclusion. I have found this site states the case for Christ as plainly as anything I could write, even most Atheist think he existed. http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/1-jesus-real-person/

Sweet.... If all Christians were extreme pacifist, there probably wouldn't be any Christians.. Perhaps you missed the Old Testament? 1. God commanded Israel to go to war, and to kill. 2. God never changes morally. 3. Jesus is God. 4. Extreme pacifism forces a person to reject violence for any reason. 5. It is impossible to support killing and be an extreme pacifist Ergo, Jesus was not an extreme pacifist Do you really think that if someone was killing Mary, Jesus would have been content to sit by and watch his mother be murdered? I don't, in fact I'd interpret that as condoning evil (sin), but stopping it would be overcoming evil with good. Those who are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind.. Matthew 5 was an explanation of the spirit of the law, turning the other cheek was an idiom that meant not to return evil for evil, but to turn away, not perpetuate a problem by letting an offense go when possible, and not retaliating every time your offended. I believe vengeance is God's, but protection and self-preservation is ours. That's my interpretation.. To assert that I'm distorting words is to suggest I'm just conveniently twisting scripture to fit what I want it to say, which is why I haven't plucked out an offensive eye or cut off my right arm.

Lets just say that I don't interpret the teachings of Christ as pacifism. Turning the other cheek means not to return insult for insult in retaliation, that is tantamount to embracing evil by taking personal revenge for being insulted. Jesus denounced the Pharisees who attacked him and objected when he was struck by one of the officers of the high priest. He also advised his disciples to take measures to defend themselves. all of which conflict with the idea that Jesus was a pacifist. If we let everyone take advantage of us. turning the other cheek would become an encouragement for evil. I don't believe that is what Jesus had in mind, and it also conflicts with the law, which Jesus said he was not changing.

I believe another person can cause you to be sad or happy... Anyone's who's been married can probably attest to that. (Some times a Princess, other times a bitch)

Hey now, lets try to keep that religious crap off this thread

That's a big problem today, any degree of corporal punishment dished out for any reason can leave a teacher or parent liable. So at the risk of being sued or even brought up on criminal assault charges, most adults are encouraged to let the little darlings do whatever they want. Discipline that was once enforced with a ping pong paddle is a thing of the past. We saw the results in the Baltimore riot, where the police stood by and were content to watch the 'protestors' throw bricks and molotov cocktails into buildings and loot the businesses, no doubt done by adults who's parents refused to issue disciplinary action on them as children? jmo I believe that indoctrinating children into various hate groups or extreme religious cults is even more dangerous. Children are very impressionable and tend to believe whatever they're taught, so undoing what's been planted in their minds can be difficult. I believe you teach them the basics; right from wrong, politeness and respect, reliable and dependable, value of money, good work ethics, etc. Then when they come of age, they can make-up their own minds, but will have a good basic moral foundation and some necessary principles to stand on.

Thanks... I'd confess to the notion that I am one dimensional in what I've chosen to believe, monotheism pretty much demands that, but I don't think it prevents a person from being a free thinker. Others might categorize it differently, but I think anyone is capable of considering various positions on any subject. Unfortunately, they are often labeled "closed-minded" for not yielding to another point of view.

Thanks... All I can say is that I had no intent to divert the conversation.. I had not read anything Pete wrote prior to my initial posting, so I was unaware that the discussion switched to "victims".. I'm sorry he feels indoctrinated or pressured by his family, but I also know that I'm not the one to address his anger, guilt, and confusion.. I regret his bad experience, and its sad that he feels attacked by family or other Christians.. I can imagine being surrounded by Muslims who constantly spewed quotes from the Koran, or warnings of Allah's wrath against me. So on that level, I can certainly understand a nonbelievers distaste of the constant pressure to accept something they don't believe. And to be honest, I'd politely tell them to shut-up and go away too. But as previously stated, it was never my intent to discuss my faith on this thread, I was just making the case that a person who accepts any type of belief, does not necessary surrender the ability to form an independent thought. But obviously, that opinion did not sit well with some who are convinced I'm in some kind of mind-controlling cult.