Why Tim Tebow is great

[gatorboymike]

I am a Christian, however I do not believe that non-believers will go to Hell, nor that anyone who disagrees with me religiously will be tortured for eternity.

If that is so, then that puts you way above other Christians in my book. Although I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian if you don't believe that. That is the most central and most fundamental piece of dogma in the entire Christian religion.

[andrewhoya]

If that is so, then that puts you way above other Christians in my book. Although I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian if you don't believe that. That is the most central and most fundamental piece of dogma in the entire Christian religion.

If I believe in God, and believe in other Methodist ideas, in my book I am a Christian.

Do you agree with EVERYTHING in the US Constitution? If not, does that mean you aren't an American? Same thing with any religion, IMO.

[ensbergcollector]

You believe God is going to torture everyone who disagrees with you in hell for eternity. You believe everything God does is right. Therefore you believe people who disagree with you being tortured in hell for eternity is a good thing.



Do unto others, right? That's what Christians say they believe. Therefore the only possible conclusion when Christians belittle and verbally assault me is that they want me to belittle and verbally assault them. There's really no other possibility. Unless you, being the self-appointed editors of the Almanac of Life, have attached an asterisk to the golden rule, as almanac editors are wont to do, stating that you get to belittle and verbally assault others but others don't get to do it back to you, because you're just so much more awesomer and importanter and specialer than everyone else.

as for paragraph 1 - if i don't like onions and onions are a vegetable, that doesn't mean i don't like vegetables. your logic is horrible and the worst part is you know it. you just enjoy twisting things to attack christianity.

as for paragraph 2 - i love that you have developed a justification for hatred and wrongdoing. the "he did it first" argument works every time huh. so was it the "turn the other cheek and love your enemies" part of christianity that bothered you so much that you rebelled? seeing as how you take pride in hating those who hate you and doing evil to those who do evil to you

[habsheaven]

as for paragraph 1 - if i don't like onions and onions are a vegetable, that doesn't mean i don't like vegetables. your logic is horrible and the worst part is you know it. you just enjoy twisting things to attack christianity.

as for paragraph 2 - i love that you have developed a justification for hatred and wrongdoing. the "he did it first" argument works every time huh. so was it the "turn the other cheek and love your enemies" part of christianity that bothered you so much that you rebelled? seeing as how you take pride in hating those who hate you and doing evil to those who do evil to you

With the exception of ending his thought with "a good thing" (he should have stuck with the word "right") GBM first paragraph makes perfect sense. Your analogy to what he said is completely wrong. And I would think you know it.

[bangsportscards]

Go is simple.

He loves us.

It's us, speaking in general, that get in the way of realizing truth.

Our minds like to control things. Our mind can use the bible to confirm the own lie we are believing.

Tebow may say one thing and it'll be perceived in many different ways because each person has their own belief towards God whether known or not.

Tebow can be a very great hearted guy, while others are able to discern it, there are others who will judge based on their level of understanding.

Unfortunately we all have areas of blindness. You can know the bible and yet miss the true God and what's really going on.

One can try and figure out this and that and in the end it comes down to our free will to choose life or death.

While all this said is deep in some ways, it's quite peaceful, full of joy, wonder, and creativity.

Here's a little personal testimony.....I have sold myself short because of resistance to what God intends. In doing this I've missed many opportunities. I've come to see that God wants to help and lead me to a life that I've never imagined could happen. I've decided that's ok with me and that I want more of this awesome God. And to think others can be lifted up and touched in wake of how I choose to live, well that's even sweeter. Bottom line, I'm thankful to see God more clearly and boy it's the best exprience I've had to date. Who doesn't want to live with ease, ability, influence, and free of pain? That's what my God through Jesus Christ can offer.

I'll leave the discussion at that, God bless!

Brian

[gatorboymike]

If I believe in God, and believe in other Methodist ideas, in my book I am a Christian.

To each their own.

Do you agree with EVERYTHING in the US Constitution? If not, does that mean you aren't an American? Same thing with any religion, IMO.

Fair point, however, the US Constitution does not claim to be the infallible, inerrant word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural being. Nor does it proscribe an infinite punishment to those who are not in complete agreement with it. The Bible does.

[andrewhoya]

To each their own.



Fair point, however, the US Constitution does not claim to be the infallible, inerrant word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural being. Nor does it proscribe an infinite punishment to those who are not in complete agreement with it. The Bible does.

Which is why I am a "non-believer" of that/those part(s).

[gatorboymike]

as for paragraph 1 - if i don't like onions and onions are a vegetable, that doesn't mean i don't like vegetables. your logic is horrible and the worst part is you know it. you just enjoy twisting things to attack christianity.

Utterly, embarassingly, catastrophically wrong. What you just described is an inductive fallacy. My chain of logic was perfectly internally consistent:

1. God says X.
2. God is always right.
3. Therefore, X is right.

(In this case, X is "non-Christians deserve to go to hell.")

Admittedly, internal consistency is not necessarily indicative of truth. However, if you want to prove that this construction does not accurately reflect reality, you would have to demonstrate that either of the first two premises were false (or at the very least, not scriptural). Can you do that?

as for paragraph 2 - i love that you have developed a justification for hatred and wrongdoing. the "he did it first" argument works every time huh. so was it the "turn the other cheek and love your enemies" part of christianity that bothered you so much that you rebelled? seeing as how you take pride in hating those who hate you and doing evil to those who do evil to you

Says the guy whose religion rose to power on a platform of well-publicized martyrdom. Just last week I once again heard the "the disciples wouldn't die for a lie, so that proves Jesus was God" argument.

I'm just going to come right out and say that "turn the other cheek and love your enemies" is a stupid way to live. Aren't we lucky the police and the military don't operate on that policy? But no, that doesn't bother me per se; what bothers me is the fact that most self-described Christians operate by doing exactly the opposite of that. All of the most vengeful, vindictive, spiteful, hate-filled and violent people I've ever seen or known were fundamentalist Christians. And I'm also going to state flat-out that I think "You wronged me, so I'm going to wrong you back" is morally superior to "You're different from me, so I'm going to wrong you and then pretend I was ordered to do so by a supernatural being who, through some mind-blowing coincidence, hates all the same people I hate and whose political agenda is identical to mine."

[gatorboymike]

Which is why I am a "non-believer" of that/those part(s).

In that case I have no quarrel with you, sir.

[andrewhoya]

Utterly, embarassingly, catastrophically wrong. What you just described is an inductive fallacy. My chain of logic was perfectly internally consistent:

1. God says X.
2. God is always right.
3. Therefore, X is right.

(In this case, X is "non-Christians deserve to go to hell.")

Admittedly, internal consistency is not necessarily indicative of truth. However, if you want to prove that this construction does not accurately reflect reality, you would have to demonstrate that either of the first two premises were false (or at the very least, not scriptural). Can you do that?



Says the guy whose religion rose to power on a platform of well-publicized martyrdom. Just last week I once again heard the "the disciples wouldn't die for a lie, so that proves Jesus was God" argument.

I'm just going to come right out and say that "turn the other cheek and love your enemies" is a stupid way to live. Aren't we lucky the police and the military don't operate on that policy? But no, that doesn't bother me per se; what bothers me is the fact that most self-described Christians operate by doing exactly the opposite of that. All of the most vengeful, vindictive, spiteful, hate-filled and violent people I've ever seen or known were fundamentalist Christians. And I'm also going to state flat-out that I think "You wronged me, so I'm going to wrong you back" is morally superior to "You're different from me, so I'm going to wrong you and then pretend I was ordered to do so by a supernatural being who, through some mind-blowing coincidence, hates all the same people I hate and whose political agenda is identical to mine."

Not saying you're wrong, but this is one of the main problems I have. If God created 'em, why hate on them? So much for 'Love your enemies'?..