Hey, we can do better than just stealing...

Okay, some people don't fall into the boundaries of any specific religion, so they live their life how they feel they should, and believe what they believe. There's nothing wrong with original ideas, however unique they may or may not be.

But what really ticks me off is when someone takes aspects from certain religions, and changes them to suit their needs. Such as taking the idea of heaven from Christianity, and claiming that they believe that God created it, God reigns in it, God controls it, but yet, they'll just get in. they don't have to believe any of Jesus' works, and they don't have to follow any of the rules. They just like the idea of a nice place to go after life, no strings attached.

Well, there are strings. If you believe God made a heaven, and God runs it God's way, then you should dang well believe all the other stuff HE said about it. Such as, you wont go there unless you go through Jesus Christ. That isn't just God's theory... That how it is!

If me and my brother got out a Monopoly board, set out some pieces, and started wingin' dice around, and playing by our own made up rules, it would NOT work. Rules are there for a reason. Because that's how the game makers made it work. It doesn't work any other way.


I got angry at a comment on a blog that I will leave nameless, from a person who I forget the name of anyway:

"I see the heaven/hell thing this way:

I live my life however I want to. If I want to be a dirty sinning fornicator, then I will be. If there is a God when I die, I will get in to heaven because He supposedly forgives us of all our sins. If there is no God, then I just have the glory of saying 'fuck you, I was right' when I die."


Even if you're not Christian, you've gotta get a little PO'd at that. If there is a Christian heaven, then there's a Christian God. If there's a Christian God, then He's perfect, and never wrong. Especially when He/Jesus says that "no one comes to the Father but through Me", that means that you're going to hell without Jesus. And, if you don't believe that anyone goes to Hell, then why mention it at all? Why would the God who you claim will let anyone into Heaven even create it?

Jees.. People just don't think..

~Dave~

The Gospel of Judas?

Well, National Geographic is releasing a "new" ancient text that "contradicts" Christian belief about Judas, recorded in a 1700 year old document that has Jesus asking Judas to betray him. Check the article here.

Now I don't understand why they're making such a big controversy out of this. If the text is genuine, then the Christians of the day must have known about it, and dealt with it. In fact, the article itself shows this:

"The manuscript was mentioned around AD 180 by Bishop Irenaeus of Lyon, who called it fictitious."

Big surprise. The article also says that there were "competing views of Christianity, and this seems to have come from a Gnostic influence." Wrong. Gnosticism was not a competing view of Christianity any more than Jehovah's Witnesses are today. It was a cult that borrowed Christian terminology to build itself up.

But more, are people going to all of a sudden believe one text that gives a positive account of Judas (and completely reverses Jesus' understanding of the goodness of nature) over and above four similar, unanimous and non-contradictory witnesses? That makes no sense no matter how you splice it!

Further, I find it highly amusing that, just as at Jesus' trial itself, all these sources that "undermine" Christian claims are so self-contradictory!

On the one hand, we have Dan Brown, et al., who claim that Jesus never died, but instead ran off with Mary Magdalene. Then we have this Gnostic account that said Jesus wanted to die in order to liberate himself from the flesh he was in. And we have other people like Tom Harpur (in his book, The Pagan Christ) and Italian atheist Luigi Cascioli claiming there never really ever was a Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

With all this so-called "serious scholarship" behind each of these views (which, when you compare those who hold each view, even those three streams of thought are self-contradictory--ie, Harpur and Cascioli don't agree with each other about where the "Jesus Myth" originated) leading to such contradictory conclusions, how can they at all stand against 2000 years of unified teaching about Him?

When you're that desparate to hide from the truth, any lie, no matter how ridiculous, sure begins to sound good, I guess.

God bless.