smj

Drunkard, I apologize if I have come off as arrogant or seem to ignore Jesus' message. I'm not sure exactly what I've written to do so but I suppose that is the nature of discussions like these. You are obviously intelligent and I don't want to turn you off in any way to further openness to Christ or His message. I actually view my faith as humble because believing in a all-powerful creator means I need to submit my will to God and be dependent upon His plan for my salvation. It is really very difficult to even try and conform my will to His. And obviously I cannot prove my faith because I wasn't there at the cross and after. But I believe there are evidences and logic that can support faith which is what I have tried to share. It seems you are a big believer in science which I understand completely. I just know science changes and I don't trust it to not change and I don't think it has disproven my faith either. For example, it wasn't long ago when we were building things out of asbestos and were using radium in paint (or lead for that matter). I think you would identify real well with the apostle Thomas. When Jesus appeared to Jesus when he was not there he basically said he would not believe Jesus was alive until he saw the nail marks in his hands and touched where the nails were. When Jesus appeared to Thomas He had Thomas touch His wounds and then said "Because you have seen me you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Of course I suspect you don't believe that story but I often doubt myself because I cannot see and touch. It is then I review the logic and evidence, some of which I have presented, and recall this verse. What I find fascinating is that people throughout history and all over the world have even had a need to invent belief systems and gods. The only explanation I can find that makes sense is that the Bible is accurate when it says God created us with the intention that we would know Him but would have the free will to come to Him or not. That explains to me why so many people need to believe in something. And I also wonder why many atheists are so bothered by others being duped into believing in God. If they don't believe in God why do they care. I guess I don't share your belief that because there are religious stories of old that are false that it means Christianity is false. As for Chaffey, I agree with you and don't believe the Bible is written to be a science or history book even though it contains science and history. There are plenty of allegories and parables, etc. If there is a Heaven I'll have lots of questions to ask when I get there. I don't think it is important if the world was created in 7 "days" or not. Finally, I know you didn't agree that moral judgments require belief in some higher power. But who sets the standards if there is no authority? You say the concept of right is known by everyone but then what explains the world we live in? I see very little agreement in what is right and wrong in this world and much conflict. My point is that without a foundation and believe in live after death I don't understand why anyone would make choices that would not be completely self-centered and pragmatic. What point would there be in living any other way?

I agree. I don't want to get into debate with my RC friends because I believe the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. It's a shame the church has been so splintered by men. But I believe it is quite a leap to propose that because Jesus called Peter the foundation He also put in motion events where each generation would vote on a new "foundation" legacy in the form of the papacy. I think if Jesus wanted to set up an organization for the ages He would have done so differently and with more deliberate instructions. Jesus knew He had to trust His followers to build the church but he devoted His teaching to an individual relationship with God through Himself with the help of the Holy Spirit. Each individual must make their own decision (their family or church cannot do it for them) and I emphasize that individual relationship. Thank you. Great points and comment about Easter. Without Easter everything is meaningless which is why I challenge people to honestly consider that it actually takes more faith the believe the resurrection didn't occur as described in the Bible than to simply accept the Biblical account.

Sorry I have been away...I don't know what you are wondering about this passage. I agree with the first three but still can't accept #4. The evidence is He said He was the Son of God because He was crucified. All He would have needed to do was deny His divinity and the authorities would not have had a problem with Him. Also, what motivation did the apostles have for creating a story that wasn't fully true? It is not like today where any crackpot may expect fame and maybe fortune. The apostles were persecuted for this "story". It only makes sense they believed it was true. And some did not believe like James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul until they saw him resurrected. For people who seem to be atheists or agnostics I find it odd that you are concerned with the message of a good person which is a moral judgment. If there is no God, or lawgiver, than who is to say what is good anyway? Drunkard - I find it illogical that you won't consider anything Chaffey writes because you do not agree with his beliefs on the age of the earth. I don't know if I agree with him on that either but it doesn't mean he is wrong about everything. I am a big Lincoln fan but I don't think he was error free and just because I think he was wrong about a point or two doesn't mean anything else he said was invalid. It seems like you wouldn't consider the gospel no matter what. What commandment needed to be changed? There is much misinformation about the life of Jesus being a copy of other ancient figures and stories. For example, there is no record of Horus being born on Dec 25th. The reference of birth is day 31 of Khoiak which roughly corresponds to November. But that is irrelevant anyway because the Bible never says Dec 25th is the date of the birth of Christ - that is just the day it is celebrated. Horus was born to Isis Meri but there is no record tying this to Mary and no reference to a virgin birth. Supposedly there is a reference to three kings visiting Horus but those originating these false connections to Horus didn't read their Bible very carefully because the Bible says Magi, not kings, visited Jesus and does not say how many. It is claimed Horus was a teacher at age 12 and baptized by someone named Anup who lost his head but there is no Egyptian record of these details. While Horus had followers there was no mention of a select group of 12. Horus had titles like Great God and Chief of Powers but nothing like Lamb of God of the Light as claimed. Finally, Horus was not crucified as crucifixion was not invented until a thousand years later and no claim to resurrection. Do you think Christianity would have ever gained traction if a copy of another story was this obvious? I get it. There are people who want so much to disprove the divinity of Christ they will put forth all kinds of these theories but upon examination they just aren't accurate.

I have to ask, even though you don't consider yourself a Christian, how can you not consider that His message was not simply about some platitudes. He was not at all like Ghandi because Ghandi did not claim to be God's Messiah. By the way, there is more historical evidence that Jesus existed than almost any other individual from that time. Non-Christian historians mentioned Him. I've heard these comparisons before but they just aren't that similar. Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey who touches on those comparisons if you are truly recognize the uniqueness of this claim among world religions as the only faith without works belief system.

I have heard about the Jefferson Bible as well. But that was the point I was trying to make. You can't take just the portions you like of what Jesus said and did, ignore the rest and call Jesus a good example. What Jefferson was really describing was a type of humanism. We can make it on our own and, over time, humanity will solve its own problems by utilizing wisdom from great thinkers like Jesus. I hope we can see by now that history shows us that will never happen because human nature is as the Bible describes it. Christ did not intend to leave thinking of Him as a good man as an option. In Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household." Jesus is figuratively describing what occurs what happens when someone follows Him as Lord. He knew His message would be divisive. If Christ claimed to be God and was wrong no amount of editing from even Jefferson can change that He led millions and millions of people astray and there is no good in that. I'd rather have people decide Jesus was crazy or a liar than try to theorize He was a good man but not the Son of God. Jesus Christ simply did not leave that as a logical option. The Gospel has to hang together or it is all pointless.

I will try to answer your question. Let me first say that I really do respect you and value our conversation. I don't consider the question as a dig at all. You have been respectful throughout and I appreciate it. I wish we could get together and watch a Bills or Sabres game some time. I think I understand what you are asking. It is really not personal in any way toward you and it is even difficult to express. And I am going to put it in a way that is not meant to imply you don't feel as strongly about your beliefs. It is because of my affection for Jesus Christ. I would say love but I think that would be too arrogant because I so often fall short of that goal. But I try to love Him as best I can knowing His love for all of us is perfect and unconditional. I believe He died for me and for you and all of us. Matthew 10:32 says. "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven." A great book I suggest reading is called "The Jesus I Never Knew" by Phillip Yancey. Jesus knew His claims were radical and He did not back down from them to appease opposition even though He loved them. I hope this begins to explain why I seem stubborn. I am actually pretty wimpy and don't like conflict. But I have to be bold about who Jesus Christ is and it doesn't allow accepting something that makes Him less than God's Son and plan for salvation. John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." If that is not true Jesus was not a good man or a prophet. I know some will say Jesus did not really claim this but if he was merely a good man telling parables and doing good works the Jewish leaders of the day would not have demanded His death for blasphemy.

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't believe the answer to all this is experiential. It really doesn't matter what I believe or, as you say, what works for me. There is Truth somewhere and that's what I try to pursue. I don't believe in good intentions. Also, you say you think both were blessed but I don't think that is the consensus of Islam. Another part of the conflict is that there can only be one who was to be sacrificed by Abraham: Isaac or Ishmeal. And Jews believe Rebekah was the legitimate wife of Abraham picked by God but Muslims believe Hagar was given to Abraham as a wife by Allah (and not because of a lack of faith by Abraham who believed Rebekah was barren and could not bear children in spite of God's promise). Most Muslims believe (from my research) the Bible was corrupted by men thus Muslims would be the Chosen People instead of the Jewish nation. I am sure Jews cannot accept the Old Testament as corrupted. If these types of conflicts were not at the core of these religions and were not important to them there would be peace in the Middle East. Here is another problem. You recognize Jesus as a prophet only but there are logically only a few options for who Jesus can be. Jesus clearly claimed to be God. John 10:30 says, "I and the Father are one." Even if you try to say this is an example of man corrupting the Bible the evidence disputes it because the Jews did ask for Jesus to be crucified and Islam agrees that the Jews rejected Jesus. They never would have done so if they merely recognized Jesus as a good man. They reacted by saying, "For a good work we stone thee not but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." (John 10:33). In John 8:58 Jesus said "Before Abraham was, I am" and, again, in response the Jews took up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus for claiming to be God. In reality you can only allow Jesus to play 3 roles. He was either crazy thinking He was honestly God but mistaken; a deceiver knowing He was not God but claiming to be or exactly who He said He was. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:14-19 that if Christ wasn't who He said He was and resurrected then all faith in Him is futile. So I would ask everyone to make a decision about Jesus Christ. He is either the Messiah, a deceiver or crazy but being a good man or even prophet is not one of the options. A good resource for asking questions is: www.gotquestions.org. If you type in: Where does the old testament predict the coming of Jesus Christ? you will find the passages referenced written long before Jesus was born that He fulfilled. You can also type in any other question.

Sabres Fan in NS, I appreciate your very gracious discussion. I enjoy talking about politics and religion, especially when it is civil even though it means you have to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. We can be passionate about our point of view without being emotional. I can tell you are an intelligent and kind person from the way you write. I will say I can't agree with the many roads lead to the same place theology I have bolded above which I have heard expressed many times in different ways. Some have said religions are like different rivers that all lead to the same place. I just cannot logically agree with that argument and do not think it is true. Religions seem the same peripherally in many ways - we may pray and worship in like ways but when you drill down theologically they contradict one another. I'd rather be open to the possibility I am wrong than try to believe it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe in something. If I ever got to that point I would throw up my hands and be an agnostic. For example, in the Bible Isaac was blessed while under Islam Ishmael was blessed. I know who was actually blessed is quite controversial but both cannot be true. It is an either/or scenario and as long as one nation appears to be blessed over another that version would appear to be correct at the expense of the other. The closer to the core one gets the more fanatical members of each nation/religion get because the proof of their beliefs are tied into the fortunes of the opposite scenario. I know it is politically correct to say both answers can be correct but I can't be honest intellectually with myself and say that. The best analogy I've heard is that when I cross the street it is either the bus or me - but not both. That's why I view the concept of Jesus Christ as redeemer through 100% grace as unique among all religions. Many forms of Christianity have been confusing on that issue which is unfortunate. That's why I quoted Ephesians 2:8-9 above.

First off, did not intend to be disrespectful with the term written. Christians believe the Bible was inspired by God and when others suggest it was merely written by men I assume it is a similar thing that you are finding offensive. At some point both were put into language so no harm intended. Another issue is what is to account for the empty tomb that was guarded by romans. Regardless of who was crucified for the moment the explanations of what happened to the body are harder to believe than the resurrection predicted in the OT written long before the events and predicted by Jesus. What of all the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection to both non-believers and believers alike? All of those were hallucinations or visions? What did the apostles and James and Paul get for their newfound preaching boldness? Not fame and fortune like today but lifetimes of persecution and martyrdom. I believe some Muslims believe God would never allow Christ to die because that would mean men could destroy the divine Word but that is not understanding that we needed Christ to die as reconciliation for our sins and it was God's plan which makes born-again Christianity unique to all other religions that require people to "earn" standing before God. I think that uniqueness is key. Ephesians 2:8-9 explain, "for by grace you have been saved through faith; and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not the result of works so that no one may boast. Also, If I am not mistaken most Muslims do believe the original interpretation I shared above which does call into question those original issues. Finally, I must say the political correctness of all of this is kind of amusing. We have to try and disagree without being offensive in any way or changing anyone else's mind. I have read and considered opposing points of view. Again, if you are interested please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey. Logically, it takes more faith to believe the alternative views that to simply believe Jesus was who He said He was, he was killed on a cross, resurrected as predicted well before His birth and by Him and as observed by hundreds of people whom early Christians could have checked with and saw taken up into Heaven at the Ascension.

We live in a crazy culture...no, a crazy world because the perversion of sex is not just a U.S. thing. But here we are in the U.S. in the 21st century trying to create a politically correct society but one where everything goes, sex is used to sell and draw attention to everything, porn is all over the internet and God forbid we restrict any of these freedoms to help people who are weak and/or tempted in these areas. Sicknfla's story really got to me. There were many victims in that story including the family member with so much guilt and baggage that she committed suicide. Our society has no idea where to draw the line or help people consumed by these urges or victims of them. In fact, it isn't even politically correct to call them bad urges as that might be judgmental. I think since we have stopped calling evil "EVIL" and sin "SIN" we are bound to struggle increasingly with these issues as a society. And people who are willing to take advantage of this situation by lying about things that don't actually happen make it all the worse. And who is really to know what happens in most of these circumstances?

Just to clarify the distinction and challenge this claim (as respectfully as possible) I believe a passage like Qur'an 4:157-158 explains this as it says...That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah" but they killed him not, nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not - nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. In other words, the Qur'an teaches that Jesus did not die on the cross but Jesus was taken up to heaven around the time of his arrest and someone like Judas, or one of the other disciples, took his place and was transformed to look just like Jesus. There are several problems with this. First, the writer refers to Jews who rejected and claimed to have crucified Christ Jesus. This is a major error because they would never use the term Christ. Christ was not part of Jesus' name but means Messiah in Greek. The Jews would have never called Him Messiah. If the Jews had recognized Jesus as their Messiah they never would have crucified Him. Second, the Jews never would have used the term, "Messenger of Allah" because Allah does not have the same meaning as Yahweh which is the God of the Bible. Furthermore the Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messenger of Allah - they crucified Jesus because they believed He was not Yahweh's messenger. Finally, this presents a huge theological problem. It shows Allah as a deceiver who tricked people into thinking they had crucified Jesus. If Allah is a deceiver how can the Qur'an be trusted as being true? Why would Allah want people to think Jesus died and was resurrected? Additionally, this denies that Jesus died by crucifixion but this is one of the minimal facts about His life that is accepted by the vast majority of scholars and also documented by non-Christian historians well before the Qur'an was written in the 7th century AD. If you are interested in the topic please read In Defense of Easter by Tim Chaffey.

I have no idea what australopithecus is so you'll have to educate me. I don't get the hostility against intelligent design. There are so many things we do not know and lets not pretend science is some infallible exercise in itself. How long ago was it that scientists were convinced the world was flat or would use leeches to try and cure disease? Sure it all looks silly now and the scientist will say, ah, but they weren't using real science. How many things do we think we know today that will be proven wrong tomorrow? Couldn't the existence of God be one of those things? Also, I don't think science has explained the complexity of life and evolution accounts for changes within species but not all changes, especially from on to another. Why are we even discussing this topic - no other species seems too concerned with what happens after they die or if there is a God. What placed that desire within us? The Bible was not intended to be a science book or a history book but I haven't seen anything in science or history that has disproven it and there is a reason for that. For me it all comes down to the resurrection of Christ because if that did not happen then feel free to think whatever you want but if it did happen then it changes everything. I think it is much more difficult to believe the opposing theories than it is to believe Christ was who He said He was and then all of these things begin to fall into place. But don't believe me. Please read In Defense of Easter by Chaffey and then argue an opposing theory.

At this point if they don't make the playoffs or come very, very close it will mean Murray missed on some important decisions like Lehner and ROR and the young players need a lot more time to develop. While it would be nice to have one more shot at the lottery and a real high pick if we finish poorly enough to have a real chance at an early pick I think it means too many things have gone wrong this year to root for that in any way. Why would having high expectations be a bad thing? That's what every good team lives with every year.

One thing we are all forgetting is that there are only a certain number of players a team can have signed. Mediocrity is the enemy of excellence. These draft picks (most likely yielding marginal players) and marginal players should be used to upgrade to solid/excellent players. Kane, ROR and Lehner may not turn out to be excellent but they are a lot closer than any of these "assets" people aren't happy we traded away. I am happy the tank is over. These players may or may not be the answer but at least we won't be waiting another five years to find out which is what happens if you try to turn these assets into players through the draft.

I love how everyone else is kissing up to Florida and their fans and Murray just growls 4 words. I love the way he said it. Just Jack Eichel would have been awesome.

Prospects are always overrated because everyone tends to focus on their strengths and ceilings forgetting that very few players reach their ceilings and most get stuck near their floors based on the sheer number of players competing. Samsonov, if he even makes it, likely has a career similar to the goalies we've had through Buffalo this year and were frustrated because they were not elite. Lehner is already NHL good and might be great. Plus you don't have to wait three years. You take that trade every time.

The best thing about these trades is that it signals the rebuild is over! There are a lot of risky moves here but we don't have to suffer through another couple years waiting for draft picks and prospects to develop. The most overrated asset in hockey is a young player unless they are a slam dunk like Eichel. I'd trade a prospect for a solid player any day. Most of these guys don't develop into great players or even good players. And it appears Murray is getting rid of any player whose effort is questionable like Zabs and Gringo. Now the question is how good of a talent evaluator is Murray? ROR, Bogs, Kane and Lehner. Those are the keys and those young players have to hit their potential or we will end up an average team like the Sabres of the last decade.

Thank you for all these write-ups. They are excellent and will help me enjoy the draft that much more!

The problem is I don't believe it is about being "good". I believe you would agree the definition of God is that He is perfect and I am glad you believe in that concept. My fear/belief is "good" won't get me into heaven. I am sinful. As we all do I wage a spiritual battle within myself and I sometimes made a good choice and sometimes do not. The apostle Paul put it I do not understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right but I can't. I sometimes do what I hate. There is a sin nature inside me that is stronger than I am. That realistically describes human nature, does it not? This isn't like baseball where if you hit over.400 you'll be acceptable and if I hit .200 I won't be. Where Christ is different is that He says no one can bat 1,000 and if we don't we are separated from God. The creation can't bridge the gap because we made it. God allowed Christ to be the ultimate propitiation (sacrifice) on the cross for our sins. His perfection covers our imperfection and builds the bridge to God. Ephesians says For by Grace you have been saved by faith in Christ and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not the result of works, so that no one may boast. When you look at all religions of the world they all require "goodness" and works in an attempt to solve the problem of a perfect God and imperfect mankind. Christianity (born-again Christianity - not to be confused with the religion Christianity that sometimes believes in works) is the only message that says we cannot meet God's standard through our own accord. We have to swallow our pride and accept the gift of the messiah, Jesus Christ. By the way, I think the explanations about Jesus not dying on the cross are much more difficult to believe than he did die on the cross and was raised from the dead because the old testament predicted this and was written long before Christ was born.

A fear of God isn't what I'm describing. So I guess you are arguing there is no God. However, if there is no God than what I've never been able to understand is where do morals originate from? What creates absolute truth if there is no lawgiver? If there isn't absolute truth and relativism carries the day as many people believe, then who determines morality? If truth is relative than how can anyone declare their viewpoint as valid over another? If no viewpoint carries more weight than another by definition than doesn't chaos become the eventual outcome with no absolute standard to tie things together? It seems that we want enough of God to prevent chaos but not enough of God to lose our independence. In other words, if there is no God why is anyone interested in playing fair? How can anyone define a "good" person?

MattPie - that's a good point regarding Stalin. Hitler essentially allowed the church to exist in Germany as long as it wouldn't interfere with his plans. I would argue that essentially removed God from Germany as well. A really interesting person to read is Dietrich Bonhoeffer who tried to live out his faith during that period in Germany and actually became part of a plot to kill Hitler and ended up dying in prison. A man who lived is convictions. I am not saying that people can't rule themselves without religion - I agree with you. The US with its separation of church and state is basically ruling itself without religion. I am arguing with the logic that if humans keep trying harder and we eliminate all these things that divide us like religion we will end up with a peaceful, utopian world. I am saying I believe that there is a God, humans are sinful beings and the Bible is the only book that explains who we are as psychological, emotional and spiritual beings and reconciliation to a perfect God is found through Christ on an individual basis.

I am sorry I was not more specific. Yes, I was referring to the period in Russia's history when, unfortunately, their government removed God from the country.

I hope the further explanation has helped because I was not trying to cherry pick Russia to prove you need God/Religion. I don't believe in Religion myself. You are exactly correct, all sorts of groups have done terrible things throughout history. To me that's one of the proofs that God exists. If there is no God then is there really morality anyway? I mean if we are just higher evolved animals why wouldn't we live 100% according to our own self-interest under whatever banner that might be? If there is no God how can I make a dishonest argument or make a "cheap" generalization? Not trying to argue so please don't get upset but human nature itself is one of the reasons for my faith even though by definition I can't prove I am right.

Thank you...yes this is the history I was referring to. I was not trying to disparage a whole nation and was not referring to today's Russia. I was trying to stay away from the C word (Communism). When Russia tried to eliminate God from the equation the results were not good and I was responding to someone that stated once we remove religion from the equation we will be able to move forward. I just don't think that is true. Similar to North Korea. I am not a humanist. I don't believe there is evidence that people, even well-intentioned, can create utopia on earth or anything close to it. I am also trying to make a distinction between true Christianity and religion. The evil done under the banner of religion is in direct contrast to the message of Christ. To me, an even clearer indication of why we need Christ - humans are flawed and always will be present company included. Thank you all for your comments. I am not trying to get anyone's blood boiling - I am just trying to share why I believe in Christ (distinct from religion in my view). I understand not everyone shares that view. No - this was a response to a statement that removing gods and saviors out of the equation will only help the core message. I was referring to a period in history when a country (Russia was not the only one) stated the intention to remove belief in God from the country and what the results were.