United Nations to ban religion?

[columbus]

Why does anyone put faith in Matthew, Mark, John and Luke ?

Usually it's because their parents didn't teach them any better.
Tom

 

[Notanumber]

Why, to me, is because Earth is Father's gift to us - Psalms 115:16
If someone spoke disparagingly about your beloved father, would you defend your father?_____
We mere mortals are challenged by Satan - Job 2:4-5 - that ' touch our flesh ' ( loose physical health ) and we would Not serve God. Both faithful Job and Jesus proved Satan a liar and so can we - Proverbs 27:11

We do Not need to fight literal battles for Him because its the executional words from Jesus' mouth along with angelic armies that will do the battling - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:11; Revelation 19:14-16

My father is no longer with us. If he was and someone spoke disparagingly about him, I would not resort to violence and he would not have expected me to do so.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Usually it's because their parents didn't teach them any better.
Tom

Good one ! Tom.
And who taught the parents but their parents, to me, we can trace religious teachings back to the clergy classes.
Since the clergy mostly teach their church customs, or their church traditions, then the people don't know what the Bible really teaches. So, to me, people are really being taught to put faith in their clergy's traditions which are often outside of Scripture, but just being taught as being Scripture rather than faith in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Since the Bible is Not written ABC as a dictionary, to me, then a person needs to research Scripture by subject or topic arrangement in order to get a clear picture of what the Bible really teaches. By that systematic method of study a person can come to really have confidence or faith in the Bible. - Acts of the Apostles 17:11

 

[URAVIP2ME]

My father is no longer with us. If he was and someone spoke disparagingly about him, I would not resort to violence and he would not have expected me to do so.

To me, Jesus would agree with you, because Jesus taught us Not to take up the sword ( violence )
- Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10; Psalms 11:5
So, as your father would Not have expected you to do so, nor does Jesus. ( so, your dad was a wise man )
We are to even ' turn the other cheek ', so to speak, when insulted or hearing insults.
The battle belongs to Jesus and angelic forces - Revelation 19:14-16 - No human involvement.

As far as some one speaking disparagingly about your father, would you stand up for your father's name or reputation and say what the person is saying is Not true. Perhaps by producing eyewitnesses showing your father was a righteous man.

I too lost my father to enemy death, and because of Jesus' teachings I am looking forward to being re-united with him on Resurrection Day meaning to take place during Jesus' millennium-long day of governing over Earth for a thousand years - 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8

 

[Notanumber]

He was not a religious man, he didn’t need to be, and his actions spoke louder than any words that could be uttered in any prayer.

He never raised his hand to any of his children or his wife. I can’t remember him even raising his voice to my mother.

He managed to gain our respect without the need for any violence.

Even though he only attended the chapel for weddings, christenings and funerals, the place was packed when it was his turn to go.

If he had been the leader of a religion, there wouldn’t have been the need to threaten anyone who wanted to leave the faith.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

This was a proposal submitted to the UN la few years back. The formulism site is now off line, but the formulism movement seems quite alive.

Quote:
The resolution is being proposed by Antony Last, founder of formulism.org, a site which claims that freedom FROM religion would be of far greater benefit to mankind than freedom OF religion.

Freedom from Religion | Proposed UN Resolution / Charter Amendment | Version 1.1

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY VOW
* to save succeeding generations from the scourge of organized religion, a folly which has brought untold sorrow to mankind through the division, hatred and conflict it engenders, and
* to reaffirm an individual's right to freedom of belief, freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer, and
* to establish conditions under which these freedoms can be privately exercised.
AND FOR THESE ENDS WE UNDERTAKE
1. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the public expression of religious beliefs, including the use of symbols, clothing or markings which are synonymous with any currently or previously existing religions.
2. To outlaw, with immediate effect, public acts of worship or religious declaration.
3. To outlaw, with immediate effect, private gatherings of three or more people for the purposes of engaging in acts of worship or religious services.
4. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the publication of books, literature or articles which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine.
5. To outlaw, after a period of amnesty, the personal ownership of books or materials which seek to promote religious beliefs or encourage adherence to religious doctrine. (Books of academic or social interest will be made freely available to schools, universities and public libraries).
6. To outlaw, with immediate effect, the celebration of religiously significant dates.
7. To begin, with immediate effect, the destruction or reassignment of predominantly religious buildings, such as churches, mosques and temples.


See Revelation Chapters 17 & 18

Is that some dream?

Google the lyrics to John Lennon's Imagine

Take note of religious developments in Russia.

That's weird because so many of them are religious. You can go look that one up.
I don't know if that means they get a thumbs up on peace developments??? (I'll leave three question marks.)
Or they get a paycheck?
UNDP DPRK UNRWA UNHCR
What about them too?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To me, God simply chose that His Word ( Bible ) would be where we would learn about Jesus.
Bible people are real historical people.
There is secular mention of others preforming miracles but taking the credit to themselves for what Jesus did.
There is Nothing ' fishy ' about Jesus informing us that his followers would be 'fishers' of men.
That 'spiritual fishing work' is done worldwide today just as Jesus' recorded words bring to our attention at Acts of the Apostles 1:8; Matthew 24:14. Such a global international campaign could Not be accomplished as it is being done today under just man's power but through helpful angelic direction - Revelation 14:6

I mean can you name any secular sources claiming to have done Jesus's miracles?

And the fishy part isn't about his teachings (well not the part I am referring to) it is the fact that if someone fed five thousand people with a miracle, that he walked on water, that he rose people from the dead and just went around giving sight to blind men and wholeness to the lame we would have heard about it elswhere. People would have investigated. People would have wrote about it that were not part of the movement.

Why, to me, is because KJV added to the ancient manuscripts which were completed by the year 100.
Because of the ancient manuscripts today we know those spurious verses and omit them.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves because they are out of harmony with the ' 66 ' books of Bible canon.

They are only the 66 books because they made it cannon. They could have gone with other books for example and excluded many in the 66 cannon. The 66 cannon didn't exist and the other books were omitied because it disagreed with them. They just took 66 books that matched the best with what THEY believed.

And I was wrong earlier. Cannonization offically didn't happen for Catholics till nearly 5th cenetury AD. Mutliple attempts at cannonizations happened starting around the year 300. The easter church which had already begun to split created its own orthodoxed cannon that differs from the Catholic cannon. The KJV of the bible is a protestant cannonizatino which was made in the 1500's which differs from the Catholic cannon.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I mean can you name any secular sources claiming to have done Jesus's miracles?
And the fishy part isn't about his teachings (well not the part I am referring to) it is the fact that if someone fed five thousand people with a miracle, that he walked on water, that he rose people from the dead and just went around giving sight to blind men and wholeness to the lame we would have heard about it elswhere. People would have investigated. People would have wrote about it that were not part of the movement.
They are only the 66 books because they made it cannon. They could have gone with other books for example and excluded many in the 66 cannon. The 66 cannon didn't exist and the other books were omitied because it disagreed with them. They just took 66 books that matched the best with what THEY believed.
And I was wrong earlier. Cannonization offically didn't happen for Catholics till nearly 5th cenetury AD. Mutliple attempts at cannonizations happened starting around the year 300. The easter church which had already begun to split created its own orthodoxed cannon that differs from the Catholic cannon. The KJV of the bible is a protestant cannonizatino which was made in the 1500's which differs from the Catholic cannon.

I do recall reading about some secular sources names, but is Not now in my memory.
If I do re-locate that info I will inform you.
Perhaps some did write but their writings perished.
The '66' make themselves as Bible canon because of the corresponding or parallel verses and passages among those '66' books. So, those 1st-century books were established early on the scene.
The ancient manuscripts support Bible canon thus the apocryphal books exclude themselves by Not having the cross-reference verses or passages as do the '66'. That is why Catholic canon differs. It differs from the '66' to the point that the Catholic book of Sirach blames Eve. - Sirach 25:23 - instead of the last eater Adam - Acts 5:12
Constantine was instrumental in trying to merge non-Christians with Christians thus creating the modern-day monstrosity called ' Christendom '. That is why we see the old secular Saturnalia re-named as Christmas.
In other words, biblical names and places are mixed with what was the secular Saturnalia festival.

The ancient manuscripts were Not written in English, so the KJV uses the English of the time even translating the word Gehenna as hellfire when Gehenna was garbage pit and Not a place of eternal burning.
None of which makes the Bible as wrong, but mistakes that crept into copies as wrong.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Usually it's because their parents didn't teach them any better.
Tom

Healer, heal thyself...
If I relied on my parents to teach me everything, I'd still think black people could occasionally be nice, but were generally a lesser sort of human.

 

[YmirGF]

Healer, heal thyself...
If I relied on my parents to teach me everything, I'd still think black people could occasionally be nice, but were generally a lesser sort of human.

Ouch. A very valid point however.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Ouch. A very valid point however.

I overstated it for effect, to be honest. Definitely an undercurrent of racism though.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do recall reading about some secular sources names, but is Not now in my memory.
If I do re-locate that info I will inform you.
Perhaps some did write but their writings perished.
The '66' make themselves as Bible canon because of the corresponding or parallel verses and passages among those '66' books. So, those 1st-century books were established early on the scene.
The ancient manuscripts support Bible canon thus the apocryphal books exclude themselves by Not having the cross-reference verses or passages as do the '66'. That is why Catholic canon differs. It differs from the '66' to the point that the Catholic book of Sirach blames Eve. - Sirach 25:23 - instead of the last eater Adam - Acts 5:12
Constantine was instrumental in trying to merge non-Christians with Christians thus creating the modern-day monstrosity called ' Christendom '. That is why we see the old secular Saturnalia re-named as Christmas.
In other words, biblical names and places are mixed with what was the secular Saturnalia festival.

The ancient manuscripts were Not written in English, so the KJV uses the English of the time even translating the word Gehenna as hellfire when Gehenna was garbage pit and Not a place of eternal burning.
None of which makes the Bible as wrong, but mistakes that crept into copies as wrong.

I don't really have much more to respond here. I am left with the previous point still standing. Most of what you have said here is true. The 66 is different than the much older cannon of the Catholics which is differnet still to the Eastern Orthodox which is differnet than the Jewish text which is vastly different to the Text of the Mormons and the Muslims. None of the books of the bible were written during Jesus's lifetime and likely no one that knew him personally wrote anything down. The last of the gospels were written some hundred years nearly after his death. I don't think there is any evidence that the bible is spiritually correct any more than any other acclaimed holy book.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't really have much more to respond here. I am left with the previous point still standing. Most of what you have said here is true. The 66 is different than the much older cannon of the Catholics which is differnet still to the Eastern Orthodox which is differnet than the Jewish text which is vastly different to the Text of the Mormons and the Muslims. None of the books of the bible were written during Jesus's lifetime and likely no one that knew him personally wrote anything down. The last of the gospels were written some hundred years nearly after his death. I don't think there is any evidence that the bible is spiritually correct any more than any other acclaimed holy book.

Then, you are saying Jesus' apostles did Not know him .

John wrote Revelation then John wrote his gospel account and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John all before the first century ended

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Then, you are saying Jesus' apostles did Not know him .

John wrote Revelation then John wrote his gospel account and 1st, 2nd and 3rd John all before the first century ended

This is most likely not true. The Gospel of John was written anonomously between 90 and 110 AD. So at the earliest estimate it would have been some 60 years after Jesus's death. Some loose Catholic tradition has retroactively given credit to John for revalation but it too was written anonomously a few decades earlier. However it seems that it has been re-written at least twice and most likely has several authors. None of which are verly likely to be either John the apostle or the author of the Gosple of john.

On John 1, 2 and 3 it is generally accepted that the three each were written by the same person. Now I don't claim to be a biblical expert but I don't believe mention of miracles was made in John 1,2, or 3. Rather it was a counter letter to another powerful movement of the time called docetism. Docetism, now this is only in the late century not even a 100 years after the death of Yeshua was one of many Jewish/early Christian sects of people. What made them different is that they didn't believe Yeshua came in flesh but rather in spirit. So we already have division and seeds of dobut of his actual existence not even a century later.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

This is most likely not true. The Gospel of John was written anonomously between 90 and 110 AD. So at the earliest estimate it would have been some 60 years after Jesus's death. Some loose Catholic tradition has retroactively given credit to John for revalation but it too was written anonomously a few decades earlier. However it seems that it has been re-written at least twice and most likely has several authors. None of which are verly likely to be either John the apostle or the author of the Gosple of john.
On John 1, 2 and 3 it is generally accepted that the three each were written by the same person. Now I don't claim to be a biblical expert but I don't believe mention of miracles was made in John 1,2, or 3. Rather it was a counter letter to another powerful movement of the time called docetism. Docetism, now this is only in the late century not even a 100 years after the death of Yeshua was one of many Jewish/early Christian sects of people. What made them different is that they didn't believe Yeshua came in flesh but rather in spirit. So we already have division and seeds of dobut of his actual existence not even a century later.

Right you are, 'seeds' of doubt just as Luke wrote would happen at Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30
Those grievous wolves, so described, are the false clergy classes - 2 Thessalonians 2:7; 2 Thessalonians 2:10
They started to develop after the death of the apostles. The apostles were acting as a restraint.
False clergy sit themselves in the ' temple ' ( houses of worship ) as if they are God when in reality they are anti-God. - 2 Thessalonians 2:4
After the end of the first century ' wolf-like ' clergy would speak twisted things - 2 Timothy 4:3
To me, Jesus' illustration about the genuine ' wheat ' Christians and the fake ' weed/tares ' Christians shows them both growing together over the many centuries until the ' harvest time ' or the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33 just ahead of us. The ' dark ages ' were a spiritually dark time, but now Daniel's words prove true for our time of the end when all badness is to come to an end - Daniel 12:4; Daniel 12:9; Proverbs 4:18

Jesus instructed his followers that while he was away (far country heaven) they should be busy in doing spiritual works as in telling others about God's kingdom before he would return in kingdom glory ( the glory time of Matthew 25:31-33 ) - Luke 19:11-15

Rapid Bible translation is now possible to quickly speed up the process of Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8 in reaching people even in remote area's of Earth so that they can have Scripture in their own mother tongue or native language as never before in history. Jesus' words have proven true.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's weird because so many of them are religious. You can go look that one up.
I don't know if that means they get a thumbs up on peace developments??? (I'll leave three question marks.)

Interesting that you mention ' peace developments ' because, to me, before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among men of goodwill, the ' powers that be ' will be saying, " Peace and Security "
according to 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
Their saying "P&S" however, will just be a precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 which will end with the executional words from Jesus' mouth ridding the Earth of the wicked.
- Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16

 

[URAVIP2ME]

He was not a religious man, he didn’t need to be, and his actions spoke louder than any words that could be uttered in any prayer.
He never raised his hand to any of his children or his wife. I can’t remember him even raising his voice to my mother.
He managed to gain our respect without the need for any violence.
Even though he only attended the chapel for weddings, christenings and funerals, the place was packed when it was his turn to go.
If he had been the leader of a religion, there wouldn’t have been the need to threaten anyone who wanted to leave the faith.

There is No record of Jesus threatening anyone who did Not want to follow him.
Jesus did Not even threaten Judas.

Religion and morality do go hand in hand, and it sounds as if your father was of moral character.
Even sounds as if your father cultivated the fruit of God's spirit as listed at Galatians 5:22-23

 

[columbus]

Jesus did Not even threaten Judas.

Just the opposite!
If basic Christian theology is anywhere close to accurate, Jesus Christ chose Judas to play the pivotal role in Salvation. If Jesus didn't die for our sins there would be no Salvation. And Jesus didn't want to "Drink from this Cup". So without Judas (or somebody) we would not be Saved. Judas is the most important human in history, except possibly Mother Mary, in terms of Salvation!
Why Judas is so vilified by the Apostles and such I don't know. It suggests to me that Jesus didn't do anything important between the Resurrection and Ascension. He left Judas to be smeared by Christians.
Tom

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Just the opposite!
If basic Christian theology is anywhere close to accurate, Jesus Christ chose Judas to play the pivotal role in Salvation. If Jesus didn't die for our sins there would be no Salvation. And Jesus didn't want to "Drink from this Cup". So without Judas (or somebody) we would not be Saved. Judas is the most important human in history, except possibly Mother Mary, in terms of Salvation!
Why Judas is so vilified by the Apostles and such I don't know. It suggests to me that Jesus didn't do anything important between the Resurrection and Ascension. He left Judas to be smeared by Christians.
Tom

Was it Judas vilified at Acts of the Apostles 3:13-15, or rather culpable community responsibility for Not bringing Jesus to justice as deemed proper under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law - Deuteronomy 21:1-9

Don't you consider Pentecost (start of the Christian congregation after Jesus' resurrection) important -
- Acts of the Apostles 2

Judas never repented, but he committed suicide by hanging himself - Acts of the Apostles 1:18; Matthew 27:5

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Just the opposite!
If basic Christian theology is anywhere close to accurate, Jesus Christ chose Judas to play the pivotal role in Salvation. If Jesus didn't die for our sins there would be no Salvation. And Jesus didn't want to "Drink from this Cup". So without Judas (or somebody) we would not be Saved. Judas is the most important human in history, except possibly Mother Mary, in terms of Salvation!
Why Judas is so vilified by the Apostles and such I don't know. It suggests to me that Jesus didn't do anything important between the Resurrection and Ascension. He left Judas to be smeared by Christians.
Tom

Actually there were two different Judas and the only guy I know off that has two different deaths. I don't know why he did a lot in between the resurrection and ascension except that they reported he committed suicide. Which I dont like but anyways, I don't actually hear much about him after....