There's a question that causes debate among many believers, and that is the age old question... Are Jesus and God the same? Well, it does say that "for God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son", so naturally you would think the answer is a simple no.


On the contrary,

John 8:58

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.

Jesus not only claimed to pre-exist Abraham, but He took the divine name, I am, for Himself:

Exodus 3:13-15

13Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?”

14God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’

The jews knew exactly what He was saying, which is the reason they were trying to kill Him

Jesus claimed to be equal with God:

John 5:17-18

17Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.” 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God

And again:

John 10:30-34

I and my Father are one.

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Again, the jews were trying to kill Him because He claimed to be God.

Here again, Jesus claims the divine name for Himself:

Mark 12:35-37

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?

For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

Notice that He is referring to David as the "Lord" and Himself as the "LORD". The "LORD" is God.

Jesus often referred to Himself as the Son of Man..who is the Son of Man?

Daniel 7:13-15

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed

The Son of Man is the rightful heir to the divine throne who will rule, forever, and only God receives worship:

Matthew 4:10

Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Jesus received worship many times, never correcting them:

Matthew 2:2

Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”

Matthew 14:33

And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, “You are certainly God’s Son!

Matthew 28:9

And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.

John 9:35-38

Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

36 He answered, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?”

Scripture also declares that He is God:

John 1:1;14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth

John 20:28-29,

"Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed

Heb. 1:8, "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.'"

The reason God became a person is what the gospel is all about. If you're asking how, I think that would be a trivial thing for God to do. Jesus came as a man to reconcile men back to God. All men are sinners, and we have a corrupt nature predisposed to sin. We've all broken Gods laws, and the wages of our sin is death. Jesus, however lived a perfect, sinless life, which qualified Him to be a sacrifice for the sins of the world. He took all of our sins upon Himself and took the punishment that we deserved on the cross. In this, He reconciled the two natures. We have a sinful, corrupt nature which is separated from God..but He brought the righteousness of God into it by becoming a man and imbued into mans nature, so that we could once again have fellowship with God..but it is only through His righteousness that we are justified. That is why He is the way, the truth and the life.









>> ^lurgee

Why delude yourself into believing something you can't prove exists?
Does this comfort you? Are you scared of an inevitable end?
Do you need in imaginary story-book man to hold your hand as you face the end of your life-span?

I will never understand the trumped-up theory of religion.

God proves Himself through revelation. He revealed Himself to me, and He would do so with you, if you would just open the door to one of all the many times He has knocked upon it.

>> ^Sagemind:

What is so fucking hard about saying "I don't know."

The dilemma for you is, if you don't know, then how can you say that I don't know either? You assume that I don't, because you don't (and perhaps you assume that I can't). Obviously, it would be a trivial thing for God to reveal Himself to me in such a way as that I could know it, and Him, for certain. You seem rather closed minded to the idea for someone who doesn't know.

You want to believe in a creator? more power to you. I got zero problem with that. The problem comes when we have people of different faiths or non-faiths. We all have to live together on this mudball. So when a faith tries to claim moral authority, it tends to end in tears and bloodshed.

Bloodshed comes when evil men seize power over others and use something like religion as a pretense. Men have never been short of excuses for killing. Millions of Christians were exterminated under the atheistic state in communist Russia. The problem is when men claim moral authority and are a law unto themselves, instead of submitting to the God from whence all law and authority is derived.

Being a moral person is simple survival 101. I have a better chance of survival if I work together with people instead of against them. We can all do more, be more productive, and live happier lives if we're all healthy. We live happier, more productive lives if we don't steal from or kill each other.

There's your basic morality right there and it did not require god. It's that simple people.

Some people feel it is happier and more productive to steal from or kill each other. Who is right?

Scripture says that God has written His laws on our hearts. Everyone has a conscience that tells them right from wrong. Even psychopaths know right from wrong, they just ignore it.

I won't say god is dead however, BECAUSE I DON'T FUCKING KNOW! I don't have any grand insights into the inner workings of creation and what created life, the universe, and everything so I simply can't say and neither can you because in that regard, you're just like me.

I can't tell you how God did it, exactly, but I know that He is. I can tell you that because He has revealed Himself to me, personally. God gives revelation of His existence to anyone who wants to know Him. To those whose minds and hearts are closed to all the ways He tries to reach them, He keeps knocking, but it is their choice ultimately to open the door.

Revelation 3:20

Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.

You could know God, but the question is, why don't you want to? Ask yourself why you are keeping that door shut.

>> ^VoodooV:

does it take more arrogance to assert divine creation or that "we don't know, we should investigate"?

I think it takes more arrogance to rule it out. Investigation is great; we have better evidence today of creation than we ever did before.

Question: If yahweh created everything? Who created yahweh?
If yahweh spontaneously created itself or existed forever without a precise beginning..

Why can't you just apply that to the universe itself and ShutTheFUUUUUUCKUp

No one created God, He is eternal. If you're fine with an eternal universe then you obviously don't have a problem with something being eternal. Your problem seem to come when that something is an eternal person. The reason I don't apply it to the Universe is because all of the evidence points to it having an absolute beginning.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick

>> ^A10anis:
It is NOT a choice between "god and nothingness," It is a choice between childish myth, wishful thinking, and divine slavery based upon brain washing and fear, or the choice of reality, based upon logic, free thought, education and common sense. Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.


That's a very unsophisticated analysis, A10anis, and very biased as well. It's really a big surprise that you've attributed rationality solely to your viewpoint. Based on what? You've made all sorts of claims here, but nothing to substantiate them.

It is a clear choice between a Universe that was created intentionally, with meaning and purpose, and a Universe that is a product of chance, without meaning and purpose. What other choices are there?

Another question is, how would you know which one you were in?

Faith is simply faith. After all, if god existed, faith would not be necessary, he would be fact.

That's a false dilemma, A10anis. A couple of them, actually. Clearly God can exist and require our faith at the same time.

i have seen his spoken word tour and he his one of the best story tellers alive.

wow. this is less like a song and more like a really vulgar spoken word poem.. with a kick drum in the background

My direct experience with Asians (specifically Indian origin) at college were that a lot of them were admitted with scholarships or worked as teaching assistants to pay back what they owed as the difference. Many of them were in the graduate program while I was in the undergraduate, but my last two years there about half my classes were graduate classes with a couple projects removed for undergrads.

And what I witnessed to make up the higher than average test scores of the Indian students was that they would cheat. I had one of them turn around during a test and try to cheat off of my work. I turned him in so I wouldn't be blamed if he copied word for word something before I noticed, nothing happened.

They would take past students homework, put their name on it. Photocopy it 5 times and all the indians in the class would turn it in as their own work. They would get together to work on projects, despite it not being group projects...it was all heads on one screen for hours on end.

So, they may test better and score better, but after speaking with a few....their society doesn't seem to punish cheating like you have here in the US. So I don't put much stock in scores, I spoke with a number of them and they had their smart members who carried the dumb ones along.

And the reverse can also happen. The dumb ones can smother the smart ones potential. Seen it happen while I was in school, "jocks" who were obviously very intelligent would blow off classes and homework because it wasn't what the other guys in their group were doing. These were white folks mostly.

And then you have native born US people of white or black families who are just not capable of mathematics beyond simple multiplication and division. And don't absorb most subjects, but might be a wizard at automotive or electrical given the opportunity. Perhaps they are developing more slowly than others, or perhaps they will never be capable of what you expect of them. But they reflect poorly in your scores, and are not immigrants.

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for them in society.

Now if you tell me that the jobs that would normally be there for folks like this are just swamped by the immigration.....then that's another thing they should be accounted for.
Or if their low scores are holding back other students, that's nationwide...and I'll agree it's a problem that needs to be addressed.


Obviously in immigrants or native born, if you don't see improve in certain cultures after one generation...something is wrong. And it can't simply be that these people are from a certain background that is incapable of adapting...they are human after all.

But I don't think immigration is causing the flaws you see. I think they are exacerbating the problem that already existed prior to their arrival. And that native born and people with established cultural centers in those areas have learned to adapt to and taught to the new arrivals.

A few flaws I saw while in high school:

- Over indulgence in sports programs. The books would be literally falling apart and they would be paying to have a new sports complex built. Saw this in a number of schools. I even did some work on one once I was out of high school. Multi-million dollar project where half of it was in their field and complex. The other big chunk was for the administration, and a quarter or less was put into stuff for the kids...you know the reason the place exists in the first place. The common thinking was that the sports complex would "make them money", except if it had to pay it's own way and cover the payments on the property, upkeep costs, etc...it would spent it's entire years "earnings" in a single month. But the board thought it was making money, despite what everyone else told them. While the actual classrooms were all cost (in their eyes)....even though they should be the core of the school's focus and were rarely without issues. Leaking roofs, leaking windows, etc.

- Teachers overworked. Many of them had extra curricular things they were in charge of in addition to teaching class, grading homework, meeting with parents, etc. Some even worked second jobs so they could supplement their income....especially the newer teachers.

- Teachers over-controlled. Discussion was kept a little too politically correct in most explanations of topics. It makes it more difficult to wade through the language to get to the lesson being taught. Sometimes some plain spoken wording would have made it much more clear. Dancing around the holocaust and civil war subjects are doing a disservice to their impact.

- Teachers reciting from text books. Basically in these cases the teachers didn't know the subject well enough to explain it to others. These people should no be teaching. I knew of parents who would come in and remove students from particular teachers classes because they had older siblings who told their parents how horrible this teacher was. I had to suffer through because I couldn't convince my parents, and I think it hurt me in the subject of mathematics for quite sometime following that class. I lost a lot of interest in the subject because of this teacher.

- Stupid punishment. I had principals who would bend over backwards for sports players especially soccer and football, but would threaten me with detention and what not every time they thought I was doing something. One example stands out. Big snow the night before, they never plowed the township I lived in until right around the time school started. My vehicle wouldn't go in the snow, I had to go home and get a ride from my parents since their vehicle was heavier. Principal didn't believe me until the bus that would have been on my route showed up 20 minutes after I did. He threatened me with all kinds of stuff. And I lost another big chunk of interest in school, because why bother if they are going to punish you for nothing and let others slide for basically bullying other students.

- And I could go on and on. If you weren't a native English speaker or aware that all this above shit was common. You might think you were being singled out and only end up going because the law says you have to. And most times despite the evidence that the above does not work, it's just enforced more stringently...making it even less desirable to put up with all the BS.

Education might be considered a socialist program, but it's lost it's focus from education and put it into sports or administrative costs...or when it comes to college outrageous fees that have little to do with what you are receiving. Or....profit centered for many people involved. A capitalist way of thinking, and it's not WHY these places exist..it's against their nature to be this way. And it's going to affect the overall education of your population as costs rise and money is taken away from what should be it's only goal.

Met Henry seven or so years ago after one of his spoken word shows. Really great, easy to talk to person, despite how he is personified in his music and interviews. Thanks for the intellect.

Dayum, that's some sweeeeeet spoken word.

edit: one of my fav's by him:

Yeah, but it's a spoken word version of rap.>> ^shuac:

The classic ShatnerCadence(tm) doesn't really lend itself to rap so much but I love this whole series so...uppity-voteity.

I found this as I was all WTF am I watching-

Not sure too highly of the credibility but it makes a story-

"Man with brain injury thinks he is talking normally, except he only says tono. Unless he's counting.
It's not only Broca's Aphasia, which destroys the ability to form language into spoken words, but it must be something impaired in the way his brain assigns thoughts and internal grammar/statements/vocabulary into muscle-produced syllables.

It obviously seems like he knows he's talking about something in detail, it's just that the last stage of language production - the formation of mouthed words - is impaired. The counting thing just boggles my mind."

- http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=6724

This guy's spoken word is not bad, but despite the ideological content (that I abhor), what really gets me is that he repeatedly uses good music for emotional effect... but gives NO credit to the bands he's essentially ripping. I wonder what he'd think if he knew that the band playing in the background to this video - Godspeed You! Black Emperor - is not only composed of atheists, but has some pretty antitheistic music going...

Shakespeare is played by George Watsky, who produced this gem years ago.

@hpqp

Thank you for your suggestion. Let's get right on that.

From Wikipedia:

Sarcasm is “a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt.”

From dictionary.com:

In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in “What a fine musician you turned out to be!” or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, “You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants.” The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection ...

Looking carefully at these definitions, it would seem that claiming to believe that the purpose of life is joy in the present and then to go on and wish for harm to others is not actually sarcasm--its hypocrisy: a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.