Not sure where this discussion is heading. Thousands of years and there is still no victor in the debate. But I do hope all sides are learning and not just fighting. :)

If Jews for Jesus wants to identify as Jews, it should be taken in the full context of what complications that creates with mainstream Judaism/Jewish life and not just in the sense of "I'm a Christian and I'm okay with this because it supports my beliefs. Therefore, I agree with them that they're Jewish." It doesn't work like that. :P

Would you accept a person identifying with Christianity if they worshiped many gods and various spirits as a Christian? Or are you the type to quote to them "no other gods before me", "I am a jealous god", etc.? And are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christians to you? They have more in common with Christianity than Messianics have with Judaism, so you better consider that one carefully. ^^

Why label me atheist if i am open to the notion "god" exist? That does not mean i claim he exists... atheists don't believe any gods exist at all and am not like that... and i don't like the use of the word "believe"... how can you believe in something you are not sure? how can you belief to not believe that same thing if you are not sure? "But they are sure for themself", ok how does that prove anything for me?

This is the problem with this debate, there is no middle ground, there is lack of terminology - you either take this or that side and both don't prove anything - only assume, so why am i supposed to be labeld to any of them if i don't find their stances credible. Because "i must"? Why i must? Couse "everyone in the world was this or that", how is that a credible? Don't you think that's a bit off?

Evidence is what accumulates to proof when it is strong enough to justify a belief. The problem is that we always interpret evidence subjectively and we have no way to show that our interpretation of evidence corresponds to objective reality. At most we can be very confident that it does. However, what you might consider really good evidence for something, someone else might consider really poor evidence, and vice versa, so it is a mistake to say that you have evidence for your beliefs while someone else doesn't have evidence for their beliefs. We all have evidence for our beliefs, we just interpret it differently.

I find debates about religion very relaxing, it is just so easy. It is like argueing with someone on whether Santa Claus really does bring the presents, very amusing.

If the past is any indication,either a crucification or some sort of Spanish Inquisition.

Should I? :P

That would be unexpected. :-(

Making it too easy. XD I am actually totally sick of this thread, and that's NOT a condemnation of it, all I'm saying is that I've had enough of it so I'm gonna go elsewhere. :D

Again, you speak of ignorance.

No, their genes were good and incest was not an issue until Angels laid woman and had children and corrupted the genes. Also, our sin keeps us from the Tree of Life and since we sin, we experience death. Go read the Bible.

Pray refer to:

http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elina_Sana

I've even read first part of this book when on a visit to friends in Finland, and tried to find my own copy, but it was out of print. Came across to me as well referenced, i.e. a research, not a pamphlet. Note her awards.

Mind you: from my reading, I inferred that it was Valpo (=Finnish State Protection Police, for those who are not Finns) that was most active, with blessing or even cooperation of interior minister Horellin (right winger of "Kokoomus", or Finnish Center Right Party).

A number of these refugees (two, three?) who mounted seven in total (unless my memory fails) were even prisoners of war, so if religious persecution was not an issue, this was in violation of the Geneva convention.

What has to be said to "our" honour at least is the fact that these activities were stopped short by indignation from general population, and other politicians. But who knows how far it could have went, at worst...

Hence my comment on Supo - to which extent would you trust Räsänen, over Horelli just to throw an example, if a topic of her Christian agenda could be advanced over generic moral sentiment? Frankly, she has made me realise in adverse ways that, yep, the interior minister has quite a lot of power!

... says the guy who doesn't belive carbon dating :-P

Yup, done that. 3/10, would not read again. I won't even bother arguing with you on the basis of that, liberal interpretation is liberal :D

I'm neither for nor against dating carbon. I'm carbon neutral.
The old testament has some really fun stories. It's a shame that it ends up being so preachy.

Doesn't it feel kinda weird people get stuck in this loop?

A: There is no god!
B: Of course there is!
repeat

What is the meaning of all of this? I just don't get it.. what am i supposed to get?

Hehe

Yeah, old testament is ... Well, it's like reading books with folk legends pretty much. It's not all that well written, but eh. New testament on the other hand...