I don’t really have anything to say about the post except that I do feel jesus was intolerant, though not because of that quote, but others (Luke 19:27 for example). But that isn’t what I wanted to comment on specifically. It was this:

“To become faithful followers of Christ, we must truly become intolerant of falsehood.”

I agree that falsehood is a bad thing to spread, but I’ve got to say that you’re spreading it yourself. I think I may have seen a YouTube video of yours talking about David Aikman’s book and how it was because of atheism that the communists and Nazi regimes happened. Sorry, but this right there is one falsehood that you have spread, along with any “intelligent design” arguments (assuming you subscribe to their ideas, which I think you might). So, according to your own quote, you should not tolerate that claim.

The truth, I’ve found, can be somewhat elusive at times and there are some things we just don’t know yet and therfore, it’s OK to just say, “I don’t know.” Other times there is more than enough evidence to say, “I know the truth about [insert a topic].” You just have to find the evidence.

Just keep that in mind during your search.

Take care.

Today – in 2009 – a multi-armed god with an elephants head – ganesha – is revered and worshipped by millions.

How arrogant of you to dismiss comparisons to other ridiculous notions as unserious. You only consider zeus and thor as non serious because they have faded into history. At one time they were taken as seriously as your jesus. By what criteria can you claim Xenu to be less serious than your own particular folk-lore of creation?

I put it to you – that the reason you don’t accuse the followers of ganesha of having an imaginary friend – is that this would make you acutely aware of the glass house you are in.

That statement alone does *not* exclude others such as muhammad. Maybe you have to go through jesus AND mohammed AND joseph smith AND oyasama AND yoda ..etc etc all in a big chain. Maybe the precise order matters too and maybe you have to go thrice round the loop to be sure..

All that statement indicates is that he is claiming he is *a* critical component in ‘coming to the father’ – not that he is the only component.

Where does your claim of ‘exclusivity’ come from?

You say “Jesus made the claim that he alone was the way to the Father”
Well that is NOT a logical result of the statment: “no one comes to the Father but through me”
Perhaps you only put up half the quotation?

I’m unfamiliar with all the words attributed to this jesus character – but if your analysis is based only on the above phrase – then you sorely fail at the logic you pretend to be interested in.

Cheers,
Neuronstorm