?

That the Dead Sea Scrolls shed so little light on early Christianity, but were misrepresented so badly by the media and Christian community that even today, many Christians think they confirm the New Testament?

Meanwhile, the Nag Hammadi Library in Egypt contained more than 50 documents directly related to the beliefs of pre-Constantine Christians, but were written off as Gnostic and ignored. Why? Because it takes intelligence to understand them? Because they contradict many of the beliefs currently held by Christians? Because when understood properly, they turn the seemingly fairytale Bible into an easily understood book of metaphors about the inner struggle between good and evil?

Please, someone explain to me how the Gnostic belief system, which existed before Constantine's reign, and was taught by the Apostle Thomas himself, to the Indian Hindus (Thomasine Christians still exist in India today), could be considered so wrong that it's completely ignored? It seems to me, the only reason is, because it's closer to the truth than Christianity, and that worries the church...

Resurrection is being raised to life from the dead...Jesus claimed he would be the first of mankind to be resurrected. If this is true, then He could not have literally raised Lazarus from the dead, or Lazarus would have been considered the first. Upon the request to attend the funeral of a friend, Jesus asked them not to go, and said, "Let the dead bury their dead." To me, this shows that Jesus did not consider physical death important, yet he rushed to the aid of Lazarus...this makes no sense if the miracles are to be taken literally.

Also, after every healing, He said the same thing..."Your faith hath healed thee, go in peace." This implies that it was not He that performed the healing, but the belief within the person being healed. Is anyone willing to see Jesus for who He really was, or does the thought of pondering His true nature scare you?

We all know the story...

Supposedly, God sent Himself to Earth to deliver a new testament to His creation, and then sacrificed himself to himself, after praying to himself to save himself from the events that he, himself set in motion, and asking himself why he had forsaken himself.

That being said, when the plan he made for himself was carried out, and he died, when he reached Heaven's gates, did he also pass judgment on himself? If so, I can see why He allowed himself into Heaven, but I don't think that's fair.

Matthew 7:13 & 14:

"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction; and those who enter it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, and those who find it are few."

Gospel of Thomas Logion #23:

"I shall choose you, one out of a thousand and two out of ten thousand, and they shall stand as a single one."

Sounds to me like 2 out of every 10,000 people have what it takes to find the hard, narrow road that leads to the gate. If my calculation is correct, only 1.3 million people alive today will earn a spot in Heaven. Perhaps religion exists to keep us on the easy road to destruction...possibly?

The Trinity:

God impregnated Mary with himself, to give birth to himself so he could grow up as a human and give a new testament about himself...He overcame temptations and became enveloped by the divine love and truth which he himself had already possessed before he impregnated Mary with himself. He gained a massive following, and taught His disciples about himself, and taught them the proper way to pray by teaching the "Our Father" prayer, which was directed at himself, while referring to himself as the father to himself, while at the same time claiming he was far greater than himself. He was aware of his own demise, so he prayed to himself to save himself from what he himself set in motion. He was crucified, and while on the cross he asked himself why he had forsaken himself.

Why should a belief as ridiculous and illogical as the trinity be accepted as truth by anyone?

IMO, fear of death is the motivation for countless numbers of believers. I have come into contact with too many people who immediately dismiss facts for no other reason than it contradicts their beliefs, as if their beliefs (which are, in reality, someone else's beliefs they have accepted) can somehow contain more truth than the actual truth. So, if religion offered donuts and not salvation, would it be easier to see the lack of logic it takes to accept religious interpretation of Biblical scripture? FYI, I am no Atheist, please do not judge me as so.

-This is an honest question, so please answer honestly, and please don't report it. If it insults you for some reason, please have the courtesy to move onto the next question and accept what you can't change.-

I can understand questioning belief systems that seem illogical. I can understand not believing in God because of the lack of physical evidence. What I can't understand is those who take one of the few undeniable facts included in religious belief, and question it as if it is illogical.

To question the reality of free will is to prove the existence of free will. If free will did not exist, we could not choose to question it.

Also, it should be understood that free will is why God does not intervene, regardless of how many people suffer and die in this world. Free will means it is our responsibility to take care of one another, not God's. I see people ask why God would let people suffer so much, but the way I see it, there are individuals in this world wealthy enough to feed and shelter every hungry and homeless person on the face of the Earth. So, I propose we stop wondering why God doesn't intervene, and start asking why those of us with the means to fix these types of problems do not.

"What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world, but lose himself in the process?"

Is it because Evolution won't send you to Heaven? Why else would you accept myth as fact, and dismiss fact as myth, unless you're only concerned with believing in what's most convenient for you to believe?

Evolution is a scientific theory, based on the logical conclusions drawn regarding the documented, gradual changes in the biological makeup of living things. Science does not ignore evidence when creating a theory, so please understand first that the idea of Microevolution will never be acknowledged by science because it undermines the entire scientific method, and only exists because of the attempt by religion to alter the evidence in order to fit its own agenda. This is not done in interest of truth, it is done in the interest of ignorance, in order to maintain a belief system completely closed off from truth, and even the search for truth. Evolution does not disprove God's existence.

That being said (please try really hard to put your beliefs aside for a moment and think with a mind wide open), the evolutionary process could be viewed as a clear message from God, screaming into the minds of everyone on Earth that the idea of Him being the angry, jealous, insecure, wrathful, hateful, conditional loving creator that has been etched into our beliefs, is completely false.

The church teaches that God is love. I believe that with all my heart, but what I cannot accept is the notion that the God I love could be so adulterated by those in control, and that you, my brethren, allow yourselves to believe in a God so far from perfection, and so far from true love. I challenge you all to learn evolution, and understand why the God you've been worshipping could not exist.

From someone with ears to hear, please listen and understand when I say, if you're not disgusted, then you do not understand the most basic lesson of your own lord and saviour. If you do not understand the easiest message, how can you expect to understand the rest?