Homosexual Books for First Graders

[pokeruler1]

fjhfgjhgfjhgfjhgfhgh

[Andrew]

Pokeruler, one more post like that and its a temp ban for a month for you.

[Green_Pikachu]

um...yeah. you're gonna be banned soon. although, if you're willing to do that, odds are that's what you were going for anyway.

[Heracross20]

I'm not going to take the time to read through every post, but Raz, from your opening post, it upsets me that somebody who seems to be as smart as you are as close minded as you are.

If you don't allow first graders to read books because they contain homosexual content, you are telling them that homosexuality is wrong, and it isn't. Why teach your kids to hate. Hate is what led to the terrorist attacks on September 11. We should prevent that, not provoke it.

[yeah5]

are you saying that there is any doubt that Jesus existed? there are other historical documents that aren't the Bible that mention him, such as the writings of the ancient historian Joesphus.

[yeah5]

um. the Bible is a historical document. you don't have to be a Christian to claim that. In the Bible, he claimed to be God's Son. What argument do you have against that? i know you will say one but i'd liketo know it

oh that las post, i think it is spelled "Josephus"

[b121]

well I dint read the other pages jsut the first one but I dont really have a problem wiht (sex) I learned about it at early age around 5 and its not that big of a deal now but you do think differently of the opposite sex, or maybe the same sex all I know is so who cares if some boys like other boys or girls like other girls, and they learn about it at early age its their choice , and its their lives . if they start lycking the same sex as theirs then well its up to them, really in the end theyll learn about it aniways, and in the end theyll know what gender they like if its the opposite or the same, its their choice too if they whant to learn about it and about same sex relation ships at early age well then let them choose whats right and whats wrong....


well I did have a different opinion beffore but now its not really a problem im even friends with some homosexuals/or whatever that word is called...

thats all I have to say

[Ash_300]

Which historical documents mention his existence? If you do not give names/urls etc then what you say does not mean anything.

[yeah5]

why don't you take the New Testament as fact? it passes all 8 historical accuracy test (8 i think). why then does the supernatural part have to be wrong? The men that knew Jesus beleived he was God' son (and God Himself) and they died for that beleif. if Jesus had never claimed to be that, why would they beleive it if they new him personally? and why would they have died for their beleif in it when they could have said "it's all a lie, let me free". this shows that the people that knew Jesus beleived that about Jesus and that Jesus told them He was. Jesus beleived he was those things. That's why he was killed. if he didn't beleive it, why did the Jewish leaders accuse him of it? In the Gospel of Luke, luke decides to, "having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught." does that sound like he's trying to get the exact truth? yes. and if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then why didn't the Roman or Jewish authorities show everyone his body and say "here is his body, see, he's dead. he never rose from the dead". They didn't have it! why as it gone?

[Ash_300]

All of the arguments which propose that god existed refer to the bible in one way or another. What those people are continually failing to realise is that quoting a supposed historical document which is not widely accepted as being credible is not evidence.

In the Bible, he claimed to be God's Son.

Well I "claim" to have seen ET irl, does that mean that it is true?

You also quoted the bible and as many supporters of the bible have said before, it is prone to misinterpretations. So how can you be sure that he actually did claim to God's son? Furthermore, how do you know that his claim is true?

[Checkmate]

Jesus claimed it many times. If you want a quote or two I'll read some of the gospels and will surely not fail to find a place where Jesus calls himself the son of God. He did it often. Some things are open to interpretation, about the Bible. Not to say that these are opinions but to say there are somewhat logical alternative views that can be expressed from them. But saying that calling Jesus the son of god is just an interpretation is like saying the phrase "the sky is currently blue" is open to interpretation. You might disagree with me, but you can't logically misinterpret my sentence.

This goes out to the Rusted One. I noticed you never talked to me during your post. You talked to Sorovis about me. You called Sorovis a hypocrite. Now a hypocrite is basically someone who says something and then says or does another.

However Sorovis does not fit this definition. He never said that one can't call personal experiences wrong. In fact he argued the contrary against you. You said that your personal experiences were your proof that homo/bisexuality was ok.

You said that in your personal experience, love for a person of the same gender, feels just like love for a person of the opposite gender.

My personal experience says that God exists because he speaks to Christians and sometimes non-christians.

If I'm right, then God exists and the Bible is true. (he spoke to me through the Bible. The Bible is nicknamed "the word of god") If the Bible is true homosexuality is wrong and you are wrong.

If you're right then homosexuality is ok. If homosexuality is ok that means the Bible is fallable. If the Bible is fallable that means that isn't wasn't inspired by God.

You get the point here. We can't both be right. But we're both calling our personal experience wrong. One of us is wrong.

If you say I'm right, then you say that you're wrong. That would pretty much mean I win the debate.

If you say you're right, then you say I'm wrong. If you say I'm wrong then you are the hypocrite. You've said before that you wouldn't say my personal experience is wrong. Also, if you're entire proof is personal experience how can you say that mine is wrong. You have no more proof that mine is wrong than I could claim that yours is wrong.

Long message short: (too late) You have to tell me which one of us (if either) is right. It's impossible for both of us to be right.

And Pariah, the higher deity you worship is not a minor point. It's the difference between heaven and hell. Not a point I call minor.

Yeah5, thank you for putting the basic Christian creed out there. I didn't get around to it, and i'm glad you did

[Rei_Zero]

I said that even though it had historical facts it doesn't mean that everything can be taken for granted. Its like saying (again) that the US won the Korean War in the US and the Chinese won the Korean War in China. I also never said there wasn't a man named Jesus who didn't become famous. The only thing is that only 1 source says that he is the supernatural God's Son, even though it is one of the more inaccurate sources.

[Ash_300]

Colour is something that humans see, not every single thing see it. There is also the the difference in the way that people see colours. Therefore, you cannot state that the sky is blue(which is visual, you actually see it) as if it is absolutely correct. You could argue about wavelengths but we cannot actually see wavelengths now can we?

Supposing that a statement which implies or explicitly says that Jesus is the son of God means just that and cannot be misinterpreted. There is still the question of whether or not God existed. If he does not exist then the claim that Jesus is his son is obviously not true, since you cannot be a son to someone who does not exist. Now, if you claim that God exists then you would need to prove it since it is not widely accepted that he does exist. It is not the same as proving that you or I have/had a mother since without or mothers we would not be here now would we?

The main reason for my previous post was because I did not agree with yeah's approach to the topic. He stated his beliefs as if they were fact and tried to impose such opinions on other people - "why don't you take the New Testament as fact?"

[Heracross20]

I think it's really funny that people continue to use religious justification for why homosexuality is wrong.

Yeah5: Yes, I realize Jesus did exist, but that doesn't mean he is really the son of God. Just because he claims that he was and other men believed him doesn't mean that he actually is. I could claim to be superman! Would that make me Superman? I think not.

The problem with using religion as a justification is because it is forcing a set of values on a group of people.

1 out of 10 people are gay. That's 10 percent of the American Population. No, it's not a huge number, but everytime you are in a classroom of 30 or 40, statistically 3 or 4 of them are probably gay. Your siblings, your best friend, you may never know.

I don't find anything wrong with homosexuality, and I would call myself Christian. You have no right to dictate what any other kid reads simply because it has something you don't agree wtih, because you are too religious and you don't think it's Christian. I have news for you. You may believe in the Bible, not everybody does. It is a beautiful piece of literature, but that's all that it might be. That's what you need to consider. That's what you need to think about.

How would you feel if homosexuals outnumbered heterosexuals 9 to 1 and they didn't feel it was okay to have their kids reading about heterosexuals? That puts it in a new light.

What if you were the minority being supressed. What if you alone were one of the few preaching the Christian faith and people were trying to suppress you and promote hate against you? That is what you are doing to homosexuals by not allowing books containing homosexual subjects to be read by first graders.

[Checkmate]

Ash, as I said in my previous point you can disagree with my statement that the sky is currently blue. (right now it's black) But you cannot intelllectually misinterpret it.

You're confusing the term 'misinterpret' and the term 'disagree'. You can disagree that Jesus is the son of god. But if you see him say it, (forget the unlikelihood of that clause) you cannot misinterpret what he just said. You know what he said. You know what he meant. Whether it's true or not is open to more intellectual debate.

Heracross a) I would like to see some credible proof of your 1 in 10 statistic. I don't buy it for a second. b) I am in the minority. My proof is the number of people on this site that say I'm wrong and the two that say I'm right.

Someone who I don't believe is Heracross20 said that we're going against the minority by saying God doesn't exist. If you walk up to twenty random people on the street and ask them where they think they're going when they die a definite majority will most likely say "I hope I go to heaven." or "while I've been a good person so I'll probably go to heaven." or "I know I'll go to heaven." All of these responses imply a belief in God.

So as far as believing in God I'm in the majority and according to Damien that puts the burden of proof on the minority. (all of you against God)

[Heracross20]

Um I think that you misinterpreted what I said. The only time I referenced being in the minority was as a "imagine if this happened" situation. I wasn't saying it actually existed, Christians are by far the majority in the US. But that does not give them the right to ban books from first graders simply because they promote homosexuality. That goes against the first amendment.

NOTE: I feel very strongly on this subject, and sometimes, I get writing and different things pop up that would be used as justification here or there. Bottom line is, I don't believe that some book should be banned from an age group based on religous beliefs, especially since nobody knows if God truly exists. There is no reason to hate a group of people because a book doesn't agree with it. I believe it is ignorance if a Christian thinks homosexuality is wrong (that's my opinion, and my belief). I am around highly intellecual people all the time, who are VERY Christian, VERY Catholic in fact, and they feel the same as I. How are you promoting the word of God by promoting hate against a group of people? I don't get it. I'm sorry, but it's just silly and wrong to me.

[The Rusted One]

This goes out to the Rusted One. I noticed you never talked to me during your post. You talked to Sorovis about me. You called Sorovis a hypocrite. Now a hypocrite is basically someone who says something and then says or does another.

I didn't talk to you because at the time, I couldn't be bothered searching the thread for your replies; that was all. I'll do them at the end of this response, if it makes you feel better.

I called Sorovis a hypocrite because he was trying to tell me that I couldn't do one thing, which I wasn't doing, while he continued to do the thing he was telling me not to do (although I don't doubt for a second that he was doing it more as an attempt to make a point).

However Sorovis does not fit this definition. He never said that one can't call personal experiences wrong. In fact he argued the contrary against you. You said that your personal experiences were your proof that homo/bisexuality was ok.

No, he didn't say that; and I readily admit it was because I was feeling less tolerant at the time, that was all. However, as he "argued", he failed to make a point. At all.

You said that in your personal experience, love for a person of the same gender, feels just like love for a person of the opposite gender.

My personal experience says that God exists because he speaks to Christians and sometimes non-christians.

No, this is your interpretation; this is not something that has happened to you that only you can know, and it is not something about yourself that only you can know. My point is that someone else cannot claim to know something about me that I say is false; it's like claiming that they know me better than I do. You and he tried to argue that you believe in "god", and that I can't tell you that you're wrong - the problem is, however, that this is a different issue. Why? Because I can claim that you exist - and that would not be something about me that only I can say is true or not. You can claim that George W. Bush doesn't exist, but that would also be folly because he's not part of you, and only you could possibly know. The same is true of "god". You can claim that it exists all you want; but it is not part of you. It is not a personal aspect of your self-conscious that only you can say "yea" or "nay" to. Your personal interpretation of things is that "god" speaks to people - and perhaps you believe you have heard it talk to you - but the point is, regardless of whether you claim it exists and I say it doesn't, "god" isn't part of you. "God" isn't an aspect of your personality that only you could know for sure about, like, say, whether or not you like tomatoes or not. The existence of "god" doesn't depend on you; if it exists, and you didn't, then it would still exist and you wouldn't - however, if you didn't exist, your dislike of tomatoes also would not. The same is true for me - if I didn't exist, somebody like my mother still would; but my bisexuality would not, because that is utterly dependent on my continued existence. It's part of me, not of someone else, and it is not interpretation of events or instances above and beyond my control that I witness.

If I'm right, then God exists and the Bible is true. (he spoke to me through the Bible. The Bible is nicknamed "the word of god") If the Bible is true homosexuality is wrong and you are wrong.

If you're right then homosexuality is ok. If homosexuality is ok that means the Bible is fallable. If the Bible is fallable that means that isn't wasn't inspired by God.

You get the point here. We can't both be right. But we're both calling our personal experience wrong. One of us is wrong.

Personal belief in one thing or another is not the same as knowing an aspect of your own personality that is utterly independent of anyone and everyone but yourself. Like I said, you can believe in "god", but if you didn't, other people would (and if it exists, it wouldn't not exist if you weren't around) - however, if you didn't exist, then an allergy to a particular medicine that you have also wouldn't. Other people might be personally allergic, but your allergy wouldn't.

If you say I'm right, then you say that you're wrong. That would pretty much mean I win the debate.

If you say you're right, then you say I'm wrong. If you say I'm wrong then you are the hypocrite. You've said before that you wouldn't say my personal experience is wrong. Also, if you're entire proof is personal experience how can you say that mine is wrong. You have no more proof that mine is wrong than I could claim that yours is wrong.

And I still say I wouldn't say your personal experience of things that only affect you are wrong - like perhaps, a time you were depressed - but this is not belief. You believe in something outside yourself, then it's no longer limited only to you, and is no longer something only you can know, because it is not part of you and that's it. An aspect of your personality is yours, and nobody else's; but belief is not a part of your personality. It is belief. You don't believe you're you - you are you. You believe in something, but that doesn't mean that if you didn't, you wouldn't be alive. You would still be aware. You would still be you. You might think slightly differently, but you would still be alive and aware, right (ignoring, for a second, your religious beliefs, okay)? Right. If you find women attractive, then you don't believe women are more attractive, and that's why you find them attractive - you just do. It's an aspect of you. Believing that to hit a woman is appropriate, or wrong, or any other possibility, however, is something you believe - it doesn't make you you. It could change, and you'd still find women attractive.

In other words, when I mention personal experience, I mean, personal knowledge of yourself that nobody else could possibly know - not what you think of someone else, but what you know of yourself. Not what people think of you, but what you know of yourself. You know you're attracted to women. You may, like Sorovis, claim that you were born straight - and that would be something about yourself that only you would know. Nobody else can tell you that you're wrong for knowing it of yourself, because it's you. You are the only one who can know this of yourself. I know that I never chose to be bisexual; I know that I'm me because I'm me, not because I've decided to be a certain way. That is what I mean when I say personal experience, because I mean it in the, "personal experience of what and who you are that nobody else can know."

Long message short: (too late) You have to tell me which one of us (if either) is right. It's impossible for both of us to be right.

I've done so - in this case, I'm right in that you can't tell me what and who I am, and I can't tell you what and who you are. That doesn't include what you think of things outside yourself, i.e., beliefs, or knowledge of how a dog's metabolism speeds up or down when it exercises. That's not who you are. You ask me to tell you which of us is right, but you give two options that actually have naught to do with each other - you want me to either say that I know myself better than you know me, or that you interpret things that happen without you, and independently of you, and that that is the same as who you are. But it isn't. You can't decide who I am, or what I am, or what I think, or who I like, or why I like them. I can't do the same to you. You can, however, tell me that my belief that there is no "god" is wrong - and you've done so. I can tell you that your belief is wrong, too (these both being opinions) - but because these are beliefs about things without either of us, this is not the same as telling each other that actually, neither of us knows ourselves as well as the other person knows us. You don't know me at all. I don't know you at all. Even if I did, I couldn't claim to know what's in your head. But I can know what you think of other people, what you think of the world, if you make it clear to me - and because it's your thoughts, I can't tell you that you don't think that at all. I can say I don't agree, but that's because I'm disagreeing with the opinion - not that it's your thought. Of course it's your thought. It's your knowledge of yourself. That isn't wrong, because nothing you know about yourself is wrong by anyone else's behest. That's what I'm telling you - I know that I never chose to be bisexual - and you can't tell me that this knowledge of myself, that only I would know, is wrong, and that you know better. Because you don't. You can't. Ever.

Now, something tells me that now that I've explained that here, your last post that I didn't get to doesn't need replying to - however, if it does, say so and I'll go back and do so.

[RedStarWarrior]

Someone who I don't believe is Heracross20 said that we're going against the minority by saying God doesn't exist. If you walk up to twenty random people on the street and ask them where they think they're going when they die a definite majority will most likely say "I hope I go to heaven." or "while I've been a good person so I'll probably go to heaven." or "I know I'll go to heaven." All of these responses imply a belief in God.

So as far as believing in God I'm in the majority and according to Damien that puts the burden of proof on the minority. (all of you against God)

One can believe in a 'heaven' without believing in a god. That used to be a part of my beliefs. Based on people's responses to your question you can not decide whether or not they believe in God. You can more than likely assume, if their response involves heaven, that they believe in God, but it isn't a given. Also in regards to the burden of proof, it lies with anyone who has convictions, whether they are the majority or minority.

[Ash_300]

Firstly, about my last post, it was mainly directed to yeah's post. You summed up the interpretation issue(interpretation as in its meaing only, which in no way relates to religous beliefs) pretty well so it can be left as it is.

You said that in your personal experience, love for a person of the same gender, feels just like love for a person of the opposite gender.

My personal experience says that God exists because he speaks to Christians and sometimes non-christians.

You are attempting to draw parallels between your "experience" and that of other people. They may have told you that God talked to them but how do you know that the voice they heard was that of God, how do you know that it was not a hulicination? How do you know that the voice you hear or the image you see is not a halucination? The fact that you used the word "sometimes" in reference to the frequency of God's supposed conversations with non-christians already hints at the divisions that exists between christians and non-christians in terms of God's love for them. Does that not contradict with the equality with which God is supposed to treat his people?

If I'm right, then God exists and the Bible is true. (he spoke to me through the Bible. The Bible is nicknamed "the word of god") If the Bible is true homosexuality is wrong and you are wrong.

If you're right then homosexuality is ok. If homosexuality is ok that means the Bible is fallable. If the Bible is fallable that means that isn't wasn't inspired by God.

You get the point here. We can't both be right. But we're both calling our personal experience wrong. One of us is wrong.

In my experience I have never been able to talk to a book before so I cannot relate to what you are trying to say. You say that if homosexuality is okay then the bible is fallable. Hmm, did you not say or allude to the fact that certain, or rather, many aspects of the bible are open to interpretation? Since the bible is indeed open to interpretation then there would be a 'wrong' way of interpreting it. Thus, the bible is not absolute and is fallable. By that chain of logic, you are wrong ad homosexuality is right.

[Damian Silverblade]

Ah, Checkmate, I do believe we're not yet done adressing the points I raised in regard to history and the bible.

Unless I missed your reply to the lists of points I mentioned again, anyway. Wouldn't be impossible given the nature of this thread and the signal to noise ratio with quite a few on both sides posting plenty of large posts to say not much in the end)

I do believe you said you wouldn't be using the bible in the argument again until my poitns were adressed ;-)

[yeah5]

about the birds with teeth.

"The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without."

source- http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/engl...idences.html#1

[yeah5]

Heracross20 said "Yes, I realize Jesus did exist, but that doesn't mean he is really the son of God. Just because he claims that he was and other men believed him doesn't mean that he actually is. I could claim to be superman! Would that make me Superman? I think not."

so, Heracross20, are you willing to argue that Jesus was crazy, or a hypnotist, or whatever? ill argue with you if you want to say THAT

[Damian Silverblade]

We could argue that Jesus was a religious figure (there were many, many, many people running around the ancient world claiming to be gods or the chidren thereof. We have many witness speaking of meeting such people. And no, they were not odd - simply (for the best) taking advantage of the credulity of some people to spread their message on other topics. The worse of course took advantage of them to obtain leadership or power). He claimed to be the Messiah (and son of God) because then it meant people would listen to his message. (And before you bring up being willing to die - lots of people have been willing to die for some cause or some message. If Jesus considered that getting others to follow his teachings on life was important enough (because he didn't like the way things worked back in his days), why wouldn't he be willing to give his life to get his point across?

We could argue also that Jesus was a mythified figure - that the historical Jesus never claimed to be the son of God and that this was an invention of the Gospel writers when they wrote, which means thirty to seventy years after Jesus went on the cross.

We could argue that Jesus was in fact slightly crazy.

Just three possible explanations.

[The Muffin Man]

Heracross20 said "Yes, I realize Jesus did exist, but that doesn't mean he is really the son of God. Just because he claims that he was and other men believed him doesn't mean that he actually is. I could claim to be superman! Would that make me Superman? I think not."

so, Heracross20, are you willing to argue that Jesus was crazy, or a hypnotist, or whatever? ill argue with you if you want to say THAT

Did Jesus actually claim HIMSELF that he was the son of God? Perhaps Mary was ashamed of being promiscuous and claimed he was born by the touch of no man?

[Sorovis]

Yes, the Muffin Man, he did.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Hmm..Sorovis isn't on yet...hope he gets around because I'm pretty much sitting here...

Oh, about morals and why animals can't sin because they are instintive, let's see. I was lying awake last night and began to picture something. Weren't morals first introduced in the Bible?

So, if they were first introduced in the Bible, then animals cannot have morals because morals are a human creation, like the Bible. So pretty much animals cannot sin because to sin is to be human and animals do not have morals because to have morals would be to be human. We can't teach them this since humans created it.

Many will agrue God created the foundation of the Bible. Well, if he wants us to be equal, then why not give animals morals as well? Intelligence has nothing to do with this.

And, about the birds having teeth. Birds can have teeth, very scary teeth. They don't need them though. They needed it a while back as they were meat eating and didn't have the bendable claws and sharp beak to rip off flesh.

And no one's answered my question about the whales. Why in the world give a sea-faring creature a pelvis when it does not need one since it doesn't have any back legs?

[Sorovis]

The Rusted One: Your whole first paragraph was completely pointless. Are you so desperate now as to go to that drastic of measures? The intelligence of dolphins HAS been measured, and, even worse for you, I've watched and read up on it. Once again I bring up that some animals are also cannibalistic and murderous in some instances. So obviously both of these must be natural for humans as well. You can't use animals to justify homosexuality, so save yourself the humiliation and give it up.

So each individual living the way they want to is the right way to live (individual freedom)? Well then I'll just kill my neighbor for the heck of it. Hey, it's what I want to do. I'm a killer and that's just how I want to live, I can't help it, it's just the way I am. I mean, if you think about it, everyone's just going to die anyways, so the world's not going to miss one person. Right?

Good, so war is a human characteristic. Another thing that seperates us from animals. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you getting desperate or something? Are you even taking yourself seriously any more? That paragraph was utterly ludicrous.

Heterosexuals becoming homosexual means that they're not born like that. Of course, you'll probobly come up with something completely groundless to attack that.

What you seem to have forgotten is that I did not start this debate. I stated my opinion and was attacked. Please use actual facts.

Already countered that.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? And while you didn't directly say he was wrong, you tried to justify what his experience came from without actually being there yourself. God does leave proof, it's just that people refuse to acknowledge it as that. I tried to justify why you don't remember making the choice; the same thing you did to Checkmate.

Yes, you DID try to classify what Checkmate saw. Go back and read that post.

You see, I don't like unnecessarily long posts. If Rambunctious or Damian or Scythemantis want to come up here and tell me to stop double posting, then I will, because I'm doing it for their benefit. Until then, I will continue.

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious: Yes, the Bible did. And yes, to sin and have morals is to be human. There is not an animal to date to understand morals or sin, just what they are told. Alex did not know of sin, although he could communicate to some degree with humans. Also, it is God who created the morals; not humans.

The Bible says man was created in the image of God. And yes, intelligence does come into play because in order to sin you have to make choices that could include sin; Alex could not do this because he/she (I forget which, sorry) did not make choices that could be sinful. Making wrong choices for Alex was not a sin, but a mistake. Had he chosen to take a gun to shoot someone and known what he was doing and that it was wrong, now THAT would be a sin.

I'm going to have to leave your last two points to yeah5.

[Chris]

Yeah5:

[Green_Pikachu]

actually, in the gospel of john, he never claims to be the son of god. so, do we believe that gospel, or the other gospels? which one is right, and which one is wrong. they both can't be right. because in the other 3 he says he is, but the other 1 he never mentions it. what's going on?

edit: chris wins the topic.

[Sorovis]

Chris: That was totally uncalled for. Unless you have an argument that could be used on this board, you are just spamming.

Pariah: Each of the Gospels is the account from each of the Apostles. John may not have thought it important to repeat that he was the Son of God. (note: though I'm not going to put all of my posts in one reply, both of these were short enough to do so without really messing anything up)

[yeah5]

ThePariah, in the Gospel of John, Jesus says:
"I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

In John, peter says:
" We have beleived and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God."

Jesus says: " You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."

and

peter asks who the Son of Man is (a diety term) and Jesus says'

"You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."

and here's a killer

"I and the Father are one."

Jews ask him..."How lont will You keep us in suspense? IF you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Jesus replies:
"I told you, and you do not beleive; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not beleive because you are not of My sheep."



all....in the Gospel of John

[Green_Pikachu]

well, first off half of those quotes are by peter. and, i'm pretty sure i never saw in any of those quotes you gave me, jesus saying, "I am the Son of God"

[yeah5]

why would he say "I am the son of God" when people asked him and he could just say "I told you and you didn't beleive"

second, there is only one quote by peter there. Most of those are by Jesus. did you read it?

He makes it pretty clear there. You don't have to be a Christian to see that. Re-read them please

[Green_Pikachu]

two quotes from peter, one from the jews, and a couple from jesus. none of which proved your point. good job.

[yeah5]

um, there are 5 quotes by Jesus. maybe i want clear enough.



1-"I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."



2-" You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."


3-"You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you."


4-I and the Father are one."


5-"I told you, and you do not beleive; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. But you do not beleive because you are not of My sheep."

[Green_Pikachu]

um, there are 5 quotes by Jesus. maybe i want clear enough.

1-"I am the Light of the world, he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

i dont see anything about being the son of god here.

2-" You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."

i am from god too. this means nothing.

3-" You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."

hmm....seems like you doubled up here. nice counting job.

4-" You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."

hmm....tripling up? real smart.

5-" You know both Me and know where I am from; and I have not come of Myself, but He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know. I know Him, because I am from Him, and He sent Me."

nice, let's post the same quote 4 times, none of which prove your point. hooray for stupidity.

[yeah5]

oh, yeah. i could get a lot more, but i thought 5 was plenty

[Green_Pikachu]

the point is yeah5, none of your quotes have the words, "I am the Son of God" in them, and the other 3 gospels do. Whenever he is questioned about it he always says something like, "if you think so" or some stuff like that. nothing to get into a hissy fit about.

[yeah5]

my bad. i messd up copying and pasting. look at the post again. there are 5 differnt quotes.