Ahh, but there's a difference between the bible and selfmade philosophies. The bible is a collection of writings that spans many hundreds of years and purports to be the inspired word of God. People have been tortured and killed for even possessing it. Horrible things have been done in its name, but those things directly contradict the message contained within.

There are older documents and there are other documents that have been the basis for religions. But nothing else has had the longevity and impact combined. In the absence of any quantitative "proof" of God, the fact that so many people have tried to stifle the gospel over the last 2,000 years and failed so miserably to stop its spread is evidence that the message in it contains real power. I hardly think that so many authors over so many centuries could have successfully pulled off a hoax of that magnitude. In the end, the only thing that proves the scripture is itself, and the impact that it has on individuals.

As far as how the Trinity and ID relate to each other, I don't know if they do, or how. I don't know of anything in either concept that precludes the other, nor that proves the other.

What you've said is exactly what most organized religions claim.
And it perpetuates a situation where they are always trying to kill each other.

People who pervert and twist their religion for some sort of benefit to themselves are the ones who are always trying to kill others.

With the support of the "moderates" who give them a legitimate platform and foot the bill. - jinx

Oh yeah, I forgot about my donation to the Lebanese Forces last month :rolleyes:

What I've said is in the bible. People who kill in the name of God are not following Christ. End of point.

Really.

NOTHING in the gospel of Christ perpetuates war among humans. Not a single word.

There's no more to be said about it.

Whenever anyone gets to the point that they have nowhere to look but at the pure doctrine itself, they get nervous and start shotgunning out the atheist talking points about the crusades, witch burning, and all that. Christ forgave. Every time, no matter what was done. That was his example. When confronted with the person of Satan himself, Christ simply resisted. In fact, his peaceful nature is the reason why the Jews didn't believe he was Messiah. They were looking for a Mohammedlike military leader.

And what I said is not said by any other religion. There are messianic figures in several. Lots of origin stories, etc. But only one offers a 1-to-1 relationship with the creator of the universe, without intermediary, without limit, without strings.

I suppose that Americans have heard of metaphors ?

While Christ was remarkably peaceable, he was no pacifist. It's clear He knew perfectly well what He was doing would make serious trouble, and it's evident He thought it worth that trouble; for instance see Luke 21:5-10 and other verses. Luke 22:36 also: "Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." (RSV) -- though here the context seems more one of armed self defense, with an aside glance at what a sword was going for in the Palestine army-surplus market. And there's Matthew 10:34: "I have not come to bring peace but a sword."

History tells us none of this was exactly metaphorical, but about as bloody a reality as anyone would care to, uh, enjoy. It works as a metaphor, and as well as history.

Give me ONE example of Jesus fighting and drawing blood .

Chucking the traders from the temple doesn't count .

The sword he speaks of is that of a divide. The division of people that follow him, and those that do not. In the end there are only two sides, two camps, just as when a sword cuts it is a clean dividing cut with a clear picture of both halves.

Judas followed him, but did not, all at the same time. Where is the clear divide there?

It does too, bloody or not, and I shall not accept arbitrary bullshit from you or anyone. The scene is hardly imaginable without at least one skinned knee. NOT the action of a pacifist. Understandable as the action of one driven by a necessity.

Bullitt, I'd say it's a mistake to insist that this is solely metaphor. I think that does violence to history -- a vandalizing of the Big Picture, as it were (metaphorically illustrating history, yes).

Interesting that the only time he went past words was to separate religion and commerce...

I didn't mean to paint it as soley a metaphor, but I think that part was the majority of his message there. That the people of this world will be greatly divided because of this one man's life and actions. We are each responsible to make our own choice of which side of the divide we are to be on.

Part of the reason that I hate "Christian" music.. rap and rock and whatever. In the end it is people making more than a living off their supposed worship of God. It is disgusting to me.