NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm told by "moderate" Christians that the Bible isn't to be interpretted literally, that there are symbolic meanings to much of it, and that is why a lot of the scary, hateful, intollerant stuff in the Bible doesn't make it necessary for all Christians to be scary, hateful, and intollerant. Moderate Christians tell me that one can embrace other people's right to different beliefs while still believing the Bible to be the Word of God.

I am confused.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

What symbolic meaning would that have? It seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't leave much room for waffling. If God took the time to specifically make that message very clear in His inspired Word, then we probably should pay attention, shouldn't we? He left other issues very very fuzzy, important issues like homosexuality or racism, but this one He made quite clear. Especially since He prefaced it with: “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.” (Deuteronomy 13:1)

So how can you believe the Bible is the word of God if you don't obey it? How can you be a moderate Christian at all, since the Bible mandates religious extremism? Do you simply pick and choose parts to follow, based on modern morality and social systems? Do you say that the parts society now views as reprehensible should be tossed aside, even though God The Omnipotent laid them down as laws for His people? Does developing human society trump God's will?

Even if the christian god exists, that does not necessarily mean that the words of the Bible are his words, or even that he is an authority that must be obeyed in the way the churches are trying to teach folks.
And always remember that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first books of the Bible, had absolutely no clue about the Hebrew god(s) before his encounter with the Midianites.

Even if the christian god exists, that does not necessarily mean that the words of the Bible are his words, or even that he is an authority that must be obeyed in the way the churches are trying to teach folks.
And always remember that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first books of the Bible, had absolutely no clue about the Hebrew god(s) before his encounter with the Midianites.
believe me, i know...but i am asking this question to a set of people who hold a certain set of beliefs that i can't figure out; moderate Christian orientation seems a contradiction in terms, so i am trying to get some help understanding it. there are still many logical problems with Christianity in general, of course, but i take small bites so as to better chew on the issue.

I'm not a moderate christian, but I'd like to take a shot at this. I've heard people say that those laws, while clear and written in the Bible, were written for other centuries. Many will see these as laws which served in ancient Israel, but are simply innappropriate for these times, or contradicted by later parts of the Bible. (the God of the Old Testament, who killed Cain and squashed Sampson generally being regarded as fairly brutal compared to the New Testament)

No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . .

This bit, for example, is directly contradicted by a considerably more memorable part of the New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

I assume I qualify to answer this question.

To me, the Bible has some literal parts, some figurative, and some - just plain wrong. The Bible was inspired by God, yes. But it was written by human beings who often wrote in their own moral views. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think they were intentionally screwing up and writing things in there that God wouldn't have agreed with - I think that they really did believe God was telling them to write these things.

Basically, the Bible is kind of a guideline to start from. Many will say that means "picking and choosing" which parts to live by, and in a strict sense I suppose that is true. However, I have yet to meet anyone, regarless of how fundamental, that did not "pick and choose" and I know that my choices are by far less arbitrary than their's. I use a combination of prayer (asking for guidance) and meditation and even logic in determining which parts of the Bible are literal, figurative, or wrong. Do I have it all correct? Probably not by a longshot, but the goal is to constantly move towards being more correct, to question all the dogma you hear, and to follow God's urgings, rather than those of your fellows.

I'm not a moderate christian, but I'd like to take a shot at this. I've heard people say that those laws, while clear and written in the Bible, were written for other centuries. Many will see these as laws which served in ancient Israel, but are simply innappropriate for these times, or contradicted by later parts of the Bible. (the God of the Old Testament, who killed Cain and squashed Sampson generally being regarded as fairly brutal compared to the New Testament)



This bit, for example, is directly contradicted by a considerably more memorable part of the New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

So does that mean that God once endorsed these behaviors but changed His mind? I find that a little flimsy, to be honest; who would worship a God who EVER condoned stoning your child to death?

I'm not a moderate christian, but I'd like to take a shot at this. I've heard people say that those laws, while clear and written in the Bible, were written for other centuries. Many will see these as laws which served in ancient Israel, but are simply innappropriate for these times, or contradicted by later parts of the Bible. (the God of the Old Testament, who killed Cain and squashed Sampson generally being regarded as fairly brutal compared to the New Testament)
This bit, for example, is directly contradicted by a considerably more memorable part of the New Testament: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".Oh, did it ever occur to you why they call it the "New" Testament? And who killed Cain?

Bottle, certain verses or stories in the Bible that just sound too strange to be true could be God telling parables or stories, much like Jesus did when he was alive, to get a message across.

Abel killed Cain in a field.

I assume I qualify to answer this question.

To me, the Bible has some literal parts, some figurative, and some - just plain wrong. The Bible was inspired by God, yes. But it was written by human beings who often wrote in their own moral views. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think they were intentionally screwing up and writing things in there that God wouldn't have agreed with - I think that they really did believe God was telling them to write these things.

Basically, the Bible is kind of a guideline to start from. Many will say that means "picking and choosing" which parts to live by, and in a strict sense I suppose that is true. However, I have yet to meet anyone, regarless of how fundamental, that did not "pick and choose" and I know that my choices are by far less arbitrary than their's. I use a combination of prayer (asking for guidance) and meditation and even logic in determining which parts of the Bible are literal, figurative, or wrong. Do I have it all correct? Probably not by a longshot, but the goal is to constantly move towards being more correct, to question all the dogma you hear, and to follow God's urgings, rather than those of your fellows.

wow, i am really surprised to hear that coming from somebody who i have seen to hold practical and scientific ideas on other threads.

yes, that does sound like picking and choosing. if you're only going to follow the bits you want then why believe in the Bible? does this mean you also believe in the religious texts of other religions, because you may like some of what they say? why believe the virgin birth or any of that, if the Bible is only an imperfect source? how do you know which bits are critical to follow and which are editorialization? do you just use your personal moral code to choose? if the Bible is imperfect and flawed by human involvement then how can you trust any of it? why try?

Bottle, certain verses or stories in the Bible that just sound too strange to be true could be God telling parables or stories, much like Jesus did when he was alive, to get a message across.
so what story is God telling with the "parable" that i posted? what could be the moral of that "story"? and why would God choose such a confusing way to communicate, knowing (as he must) the way that humans would interpret it? wouldn't he know that issuing things that sound like directives to kill would be interpretted by the faithful as commands? does he WANT people to misinterpret His laws? or does He expect humans to judge His word and decide for themselves what He really meant?

[QUOTE=Bottle]"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

[QUOTE]


True, this sounds very harsh, although in those days, religion was everything. One of the Ten Commandments is "Do not worship any other gods besides me" (Exodus 20:3), so God took it very personally when the Israelis worshiped other Gods. if you look in the New Testiment though, a much more loving God comes out. Remember, the Bible was written by many different people and therefore, so may have been on the more religious extreme and interpreted the word differently or added their own spin on to it.

Abel killed Cain in a field.And what does that have to do with Israel?

"So does that mean that God once endorsed these behaviors but changed His mind? I find that a little flimsy, to be honest; who would worship a God who EVER condoned stoning your child to death? "

I don't know if I am a moderate Christian, but I do not take everything in the bible as God's pure word. It is God's word as man understood it at that time.

God doesn't change his mind. God is constant. Your post was an example of man's interpretation of God's message to love God above all else, before Jesus Christ came to tell us the truth. Man's understanding became more clear with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Although, sometimes I have doubts about how clearly Paul/Saul understood.
To me the Bible is also a story about human nature. You will find all kinds of characters and human failings in there. Even people that were trying to be Holy failed a lot of the time. I look around and think that not much has changed. We do have Christ's message given to us by his diciples but I believe even they saw through a mirror darkly at times.

You see, God is powerful, but he's also insecure.--Homer Simpson

You see, God is powerful, but he's also insecure.--Homer Simpson


And you critisize me for quoting "The Simpsons" against Communism. LOL.

If God took the time to specifically make that message very clear in His inspired Word, then we probably should pay attention, shouldn't we? He left other issues very very fuzzy, important issues like homosexuality or racism, but this one He made quite clear. Especially since He prefaced it with: “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.” (Deuteronomy 13:1)

So how can you believe the Bible is the word of God if you don't obey it? How can you be a moderate Christian at all, since the Bible mandates religious extremism? Do you simply pick and choose parts to follow, based on modern morality and social systems? Do you say that the parts society now views as reprehensible should be tossed aside, even though God The Omnipotent laid them down as laws for His people? Does developing human society trump God's will?

Ehr, the bible was written, edited, cut and collaged by church, not by God. It was altered almost every century. Many many many many ancient religious works were burnt, destroyed or hidden, after the Edict of Milan in 313 under the Roman Emperor Constaninus, because they didn't match with the unified, new Christian belief. Those hidden books ar also called apocrypha.

So let the "Christians" say the bible is the word of God. Facts show that lots of those "words of God" didn't match with each other and church had to eliminate and collage something that better suited their needs. The bible is the word of church and was designed to get as many easy to control followers as possible. In medieval days Church constantly tried not only to rule "sacerdotium" (the spiritual reign) but also "regnum" (the worldy reign) and was constantly at war with the worldy leaders. So I wouldn't put too much faith in something that had the same purpuse as that little red booky Mao used to control and endoctrine the chinese people.

"So does that mean that God once endorsed these behaviors but changed His mind? I find that a little flimsy, to be honest; who would worship a God who EVER condoned stoning your child to death? "

I don't know if I am a moderate Christian, but I do not take everything in the bible as God's pure word. It is God's word as man understood it at that time.

God doesn't change his mind. God is constant. Your post was an example of man's interpretation of God's message to love God above all else, before Jesus Christ came to tell us the truth. Man's understanding became more clear with the teachings of Christ in the New Testament. Although, sometimes I have doubts about how clearly Paul/Saul understood.
To me the Bible is also a story about human nature. You will find all kinds of characters and human failings in there. Even people that were trying to be Holy failed a lot of the time. I look around and think that not much has changed. We do have Christ's message given to us by his diciples but I believe even they saw through a mirror darkly at times.Have you ever thought about the fact, that the Bible is only a very very small selection of ancient texts? And that there is tons and tons of more material, decribing the nature of Yah and his dealings with humankind? And have you ever searched for texts that depict this particular god in completely different circumstances from what the Bible transports to us today?

I'm an agnostic, and the way I see it, most of the Bible is symbolic, some parts are literal (and good), and some parts are literal but just way too strict.

I think the story of the Garden of Eden is actually symbolic. The snake represents curiosity, the Tree of Knowledge represents knowledge, and Eden represents innocence.

The moral I'd get from it is that with the gaining of knowledge comes the loss of innocence, none of that mumbo-jumbo that says 'we are all sinners cause of Eve's sin'

Also (this really is irrelevant but interesting nonetheless), there was a part in Slaughterhouse-Five in which an alien had interpreted the Bible and declared that its message really was not to kill someboy (IE Jesus) with really powerful connections (God).

I wouldn't say that I'm a "moderate Christian," perhaps the term is "fundamental"....I don't know. While I don't believe all of the Bible should be taken literally, I believe the majority of it should be. You have to just interpret the Bible in context. Example: Genesis was written like a history book for the first people on Earth...there's not going to be much allegory in there.. Far less compared to the book of Psalms, which is basically a book of poems.

I have to admit that I am NOT a biblical scholar...but a thing that I find helpful when trying to figure out what it says is the study of dispensationalism. It basically is the study of how God changes the way he deals with people throughout the Bible. SOmeone mentioned earlier that the God of the OT is not at all like the God of the NT. God's not going to deal with people the same way in one time period as he does with people in another. All sorts of circumstances, traditions, people, customs, etc. change. SO you can't just take a Hebrew law out of LEviticus and apply it to your life today... God handles us differently than them.

I don't know if this helps any...my thoughts are just going wild inside my head and I don't know if it made any sense.

Hope it helps

wow, i am really surprised to hear that coming from somebody who i have seen to hold practical and scientific ideas on other threads.

I'm not sure whether to take that as an insult or a compliment, so I'll just ignore it.

yes, that does sound like picking and choosing. if you're only going to follow the bits you want then why believe in the Bible?

I feel that the Bible holds quite a bit of truth.

does this mean you also believe in the religious texts of other religions, because you may like some of what they say?

Actually, to a point, yes. I don't believe that any specific religion has it "all right" or "all wrong." Every relgion, I believe, has the right idea about some aspects of God.

why believe the virgin birth or any of that, if the Bible is only an imperfect source? how do you know which bits are critical to follow and which are editorialization? do you just use your personal moral code to choose? if the Bible is imperfect and flawed by human involvement then how can you trust any of it? why try?

You are not going to understand this because you are an atheist yourself. I have tried to explain it all to my boyfriend as well and he respects my beliefs, but does not understand my viewpoint. But I will try to explain it, since you asked.

I believe in God. I have felt God working in my life and I have felt the presence of God. I know that there is no scientific proof for the existence (or non existence) of God, so while I am happy to share my beliefs with others if they wish to hear them, I do not try to force them on others. Now, because I have felt God working in my life, I know that I can pray for guidance and receive it. There is no guarantee that I will correctly interpret said guidance, but the important thing is to try. It is this guidance that I use to determine truth from Truth and literal from metaphorical. This will not seem logical to you if you have not felt that guidance in your life.

As for the virgin birth, I am as yet undecided on whether or not it was necessary, or an embellishment, or even a metaphor. It is extraneous to the point, one way or another. The point is that God came, advocated loving your neighboor, and then made what the humans around him would see as the ultimate loving sacrifice. My view on the atonement is very different from what would be considered "traditional" (in fact, the Catholic Church has deemed it heretical), so I won't go into that here.

Roccan, "Ehr, the bible was written, edited, cut and collaged by church, not by God."


Yes I know. That is one of the reasons that I feel the way I do. I spent some time trying to research what was included and what was left out. I never fully got to the bottom of it. I did find that most of it was for the power of the Catholic Church. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christ's message does shine through.

Though also not a moderate Christian (mostly because if God does exist, I disagree with his methods) I've had this one thrown past me in conversation a few times. The most prominent answer I've been given is this: The Old Testament is a set of writings on how the people of Israel perceived their God, while the New Testament is a set of writings on how the early Christians perceived their God and their teacher.

As a result, Christians tend to accept that the Old Testament, rather than a set of commands that must be rigorously upheld, is background to the important stuff that's still to come. In order to fully understand Jesus, you need the sense of context that the OT supposedly provides on the society in which he lived and taught, which is the only reason it's in the Christian bible at all.

I appreciate the unusual practice of using these passages to display numerous contradictory views on the nature of ethics and God, but I think it's safe to say that Deuteronomy is quite possibly the most ridiculous set of guidelines to morality short of total anarchy. A few experienced Christians may well agree. I suppose we can easily explain this by pointing out the obvious. Somewhere down the line, someone messed up. God himself, scribes, translators, censors, whatever; it's not really that important as long as the fallibility of the piece is understood.

Abel killed Cain in a field.

You've got that backwards/

Example: Genesis was written like a history book for the first people on Earth...there's not going to be much allegory in there..

How many history books tell the same tale twice, in completely different orders? I think it is safe to say that Genesis *is* allegorical.

Oh, did it ever occur to you why they call it the "New" Testament? And who killed Cain?
"The god who killed Cain and squashed Sampson" is a Blackadder quote. (Blackadder goes Forth, Episode 2, Corporal Punishment)

You've got that backwards/


I know, I'm still just waking up, it was Cain killing Abel in the field with his barehands.

I'm an agnostic, and the way I see it, most of the Bible is symbolic, some parts are literal (and good), and some parts are literal but just way too strict.

I think the story of the Garden of Eden is actually symbolic. The snake represents curiosity, the Tree of Knowledge represents knowledge, and Eden represents innocence.

The moral I'd get from it is that with the gaining of knowledge comes the loss of innocence, none of that mumbo-jumbo that says 'we are all sinners cause of Eve's sin'

Also (this really is irrelevant but interesting nonetheless), there was a part in Slaughterhouse-Five in which an alien had interpreted the Bible and declared that its message really was not to kill someboy (IE Jesus) with really powerful connections (God).Eden and the Garden within it are geographical locations right on this planet and are by no means symbolic. What is symbolic is the Yahweh/Adam/Eve story that the Hebrew Bible builds around that.

IMO the bible is just a book of a collection of religiouse stories written over the ages to basically teach people "good" values and to show them how to behave. not that god wrote it or edited it in any way.. i am not religiouse but in that respect it is good to belive in the bible,as the points it makes in the stories are very good, "don't tell a big lie", "be honest", "respect others" etc. good morals

but there are different ways of interpreting it which may resault in odd sects like the mormans and fanatical groups being created.. correct me if i'm wrong but isnt the KKK one?

I don't know if I am a moderate Christian, but I do not take everything in the bible as God's pure word. It is God's word as man understood it at that time.
Exactly! And yes, it woudl be up to you to choose which bits to follow, because (if you believe this sort of thing), you'll know that God gave you the sense to know right from wrong beyond even his own rules.

I would consider myself to be a moderate Christian. For the original question: I often look at the old testament laws (and some of Paul's writings) as directed to a specific group of people, the OT being for the nation of Israel. Therefor, many of the laws are much more harsh than they would be for today because God knew that Israel would have alot of trouble with things like idol worship (and they still did even with the laws). It was vital to God for Israel to remain faithful and intact so he could bring Christ into the world.

After Jesus came we were given a new set of laws, built on love. A Christian should listen to Jesus first and read the OT if they want something to read in a hotel.

Ankher, I have gone on many spiritual journey's looking for answers and commonality between religions. I studied the Kabbalah for 6 months with an interesting Rabbi from Israel who believed that Isreal was going to need American Christians to save it. This was in 1998. When I look back at how our American Christians sided with Israel after 9/11, it almost bowls me over! I found some interesting answers and comparrisons. I also immersed myself in comparisons with Zen Buddism. I have read and studied Maryann Williamson's books which resemble Christian Science (which is not Scientology). I studied CS for years. As you can tell I am more interested in spirituality than religion. I feel most religions corrupt rather than reveal God's nature.


If you can recommend particular interesting texts, I will try to check them out. I will try to check back with this thread later.

What the heck is "Christian Science" ?

What the heck is "Christian Science" ?
Belief that you don't need medicine, just prayer to get better I think.

There was a case recently in Florida [I think], where two parents were charged with negligence because they didn't take their daughter to hospital and shee died.

A whole pile of questions. I will try and work my way through them. By way of introduction, since I haven't been around in a long, long time (used to be the United Socialist States of Zeke, back in the day), I am most decidely not a moderate Christian, I am a liberal Christian. Many, in fact, would consider me to be sufficiently liberal as to be almost outside of the faith. Nonetheless, the denomination I attend and work in is the second largest religious community in Canada, so I am not alone. I have formal theological training in the form of a Masters degree. Which is NOT to say that what I say in always right, or, for that matter, will agree with what some people have been taught growing up. It IS to say, however, that I'm not talking out of my ass.

The Bible was not dictated by God, it was written by human beings who were inspired by their experience of God. As human beings, they were imperfect, and their own prejudices and egos affected their writing, although many, if not most writers made an effort to limit that. All parts of the Bible were products to some degree of their time and place in history, and need to be understood in that context.


yes, that does sound like picking and choosing. if you're only going to follow the bits you want then why believe in the Bible?

Firstly, belief/faith is not a matter of logic, and if you are trying to make it one, then this will not be a rewarding conversation for you. Certainly logic and reason have a place, but ultimately belief is belief, not logic.

does this mean you also believe in the religious texts of other religions, because you may like some of what they say?

I don't believe that Christian and Jewish writers (don't forget, well more than half the scriptures are Jewish, and almost all the NT writers were) are the only ones who have access to truth about life and creation. I may not agree with other models and images of God, but that doesn't mean that other religious texts can't have something to say about life. I suppose that means I don't "believe" in them, I just like what they have to say.

(I realise these questions were meant for someone else, so they may have a different answer. Belief is personal.)

why believe the virgin birth or any of that, if the Bible is only an imperfect source?

I don't believe the virgin birth actually happened. To begin with, the word isn't virgin in the original, it's (very) young girl. Virgin is a translation error that took on extreme meaning in the early church, and so has been maintained. Young enough that she should have been a virgin, sure. But there is a separate word meaning virgin, and it is not used.

how do you know which bits are critical to follow and which are editorialization? do you just use your personal moral code to choose?

These two are related, essentially, and a continuation of the virgin question. To understand scripture, we need to understand two things: firstly, what was the social context in which the scripture was written, and; secondly, what is the context of the scripture as a whole. It is inevitable that we will attach our personal biases. So do fundamentalists, they are just less truthful about it.* What we can try and do, is to approach the scriptures from the most neutral position we can muster, and to read it in the above two contexts. Furthermore, the Christian faith has always insisted that we worship in community, and there is a reason for that. The more we interact with others, the less our own biases have a chance to take root. The other people around us will call us on it (or, they should!).


if the Bible is imperfect and flawed by human involvement then how can you trust any of it?

I trust it because it has held meaning for so many people, and because it hold meaning for me. Trust is no more logical than belief, really. But the witness of human history is worth listening to, as is my own experience.


why try?

I try because I believe that the practice of my faith requires understanding. God gave us a brain to use, and besides, some parts of scripture are blantantly not to be taken literally. ** Once the door is open to question, it is irresponsible not to look at the whole of scripture. It's not like I'm alone in this - theologians have been working at it intensively for at least a century, and will likely be for at least the next century to come. I believe I can and should contribute in whatever way I can to that process. Scripture (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+22:37&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) tell us to love not only with heart and soul, but with mind. Trying to understand the scriptures in their proper context is an essential element of faith.


* homosexuality is a non issue in most of the scripture. It is not mentioned once by Jesus, and only skimmed over in two other places (references to Sodom and Gomorrah are NOT about homosexuality). Why make such a big deal about it?
** an example. The scripture this past Sunday tells us that we have to hate our family, and life itself, to follow Christ. From Luke (http://divinity.lib.vanderbilt.edu/lectionary/cpentecost/cProper18.htm#luke) Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally, and not thinking individual could argue otherwise.

@Likeminded Souls : Can you read Greek and biblical Hebrew? And Hieroglyphics? And Babylonian cuneiform? And Akkadian? And Sumerian?

@Likeminded Souls : Can you read Greek and biblical Hebrew? And Hieroglyphics? And Babylonian cuneiform? And Akkadian? And Sumerian?

Yes, yes, I wish I could, I wish I could, no, no.

Yes, yes, I wish I could, I wish I could, no, no.Then do you read translations of the last three? Because that literature is indispensable for the understanding of the history of El and Yah and any biblical tradition concerning those gods, that have later been merged into one.

Then do you read translations of the last three? Because that literature is indispensable for the understanding of the history of El and Yah and any biblical tradition concerning those gods, that have later been merged into one.

I have read some of it, and am aware of the the possible/likely links. I am more concerned, however, with how God was perceived by the Jewish people, and later by the Christian people. Should I read more of the ancient history? Sure, likely. But it's a lower priority that, frankly, I haven't had time for since leaving academia.

I don't know if I should call myself a moderate Christian or not because I usually tend to be very conservative. I didn't read the last page of posts but I believe I can answer bottle's question, however it would help if I knew how much of the Bible you have read. First off it says in the Bible that God is a jealous God:

Exodus 20: 4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

When God wrote the Law (the first five books of the Bible) He demanded that the Israelites worship him. If they refused to worship him and keep his commandments he would curse them. If they worshiped Him he would bless them. Joshua is a good example of the Israelites being blessed. Judges is also a good example of the Israelites being cursed. There are many example of times when God would use the Israelites to kill people who worshipped idols:

Joshua 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods.

Abraham's father worshipped idols. If you go back to the first verses god punishes the sins of the father by punishing the children of the next generation. Now this might seem cruel at first but if you think about it most people emulate habits, and mannerisms from their parents. Later on in Kings and near the end of the Old Testament we see the nation of Israel turn away from God and worship idols.

Lastly I wanted to address the comments about whether the Bible is the Word of God. There are millions of pages of evidence about whether the bible is real or not, which I don't have space to get into... ( I would suggest looking for a book called "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mc Dowell) I also wanted to address two misconceptions I saw
1.) God isn't "fuzzy" or "gray" on any issue. God sees homosexuality as detestable (Leviticus 20:13) and (Ephesians 2:11-13) talks about racism. (however it is slightly confusing if you don't understand the figures of speech)
2.) There are over 25,000 original copies of the Bible that are identical to each other, for comparison there are about 10 copies of Plato's work from the same time period. Questions, Comments, Complaints? Send me a telegram.

I've got serious problems with a lot of the people calling themselves Christians. First of all there are the visible characteristics of a true Christian which are largely absent in Northern European and American 'Christian' circles.

1. Physical modesty is absent. Particularly this is so with women, but it's also so with men.
the other aspect of physical modesty is 'custody of the eyes' No one should stare shamelessly at other people as they do in the Northern European culture.
2. The fact that interest is clearly prohibeted not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.

Remember the story of the Money Changers in the Temple? Those money changers Jesus whipped and ran out of the Temple were dealing in interest, that is how they made their money and Jesus personally and directly punished them with his own two hands. It is the single instance of him using direct action of a violent nature I can think of, yet Christians of today deal in interest, the economic system of the entire Western world is based on interest. This was certainly not always so.
Dealing in interest or any other form of unearned money is forbidden in the Old Testament and the New Testament in the most uncertain terms!

Another thing that disturbs me about certain fundamentalists is they presume to speak for God, they say things like 'God told me' this or that. That is blasphemy. None of us can know or understand God's will! Certainly none of us should presume to know it when it is possible the Devil is tricking one!

The original teachings of Jesus, the basis for Christianity were given in Aramaic. In my personal opinion anyone seriously studying the Bible ought to learn Aramaic, and learn it well. Especially if they treasure what is in the New Testament.
If a person wants to learn about the Old Testament, they should learn Hebrew and learn about Halakha law and Jewish history. Some things in the Bible will make more sense once you know these things.

Some of the Bible is law, some is history, some is allegory, and some of it is literal, but a person who does not study it knowing the cultural context it comes from is doomed to misunderstand it to one degree or another.

At the very LEAST acknowlege that the Bible was written, revealed, edited, whatever, in VERY different times from our own times,in very different political circumstances from modern circumstances, and in an unimaginably different cultural context.

Another thing, I get really SICK to death of people who use the Bible for their stupid political agendas. If these people who are doing that understand it or not, this is total disrespect of a document they claim to love.

Too few Christians are ready to acknowlege the Eastern roots of Christianity, they are too threatened by anything non-Western.
This fear and hostility to anything non-Western is a part of why there is still anti-Semitism, and a part of Western difficulties with the Middle East generally.

(small voice) go agnosticism!

I have read some of it, and am aware of the the possible/likely links. I am more concerned, however, with how God was perceived by the Jewish people, and later by the Christian people. Should I read more of the ancient history? Sure, likely. But it's a lower priority that, frankly, I haven't had time for since leaving academia.No, this actually should have the highest priority, because it completely changes the perspective from which the whole Bible has to be read and interpreted. And it clearly shows that the perception of Yah and El has changed considerably from the origins in Mesopotamia and the highlands of western Iran down to the Hebrew traditions that have been brought to the Levant in their migrations. And it is also clear that many concepts concerning the nature of the respective gods have been changed in later times to fit the monotheistic set-up of Judaism. And one can impossibly make any intelligent statement on all that follows (including Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed) without taking this into account.

I'm told by "moderate" Christians that the Bible isn't to be interpretted literally, that there are symbolic meanings to much of it, and that is why a lot of the scary, hateful, intollerant stuff in the Bible doesn't make it necessary for all Christians to be scary, hateful, and intollerant. Moderate Christians tell me that one can embrace other people's right to different beliefs while still believing the Bible to be the Word of God.

I am confused.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

What symbolic meaning would that have? It seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't leave much room for waffling. If God took the time to specifically make that message very clear in His inspired Word, then we probably should pay attention, shouldn't we? He left other issues very very fuzzy, important issues like homosexuality or racism, but this one He made quite clear. Especially since He prefaced it with: “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.” (Deuteronomy 13:1)

So how can you believe the Bible is the word of God if you don't obey it? How can you be a moderate Christian at all, since the Bible mandates religious extremism? Do you simply pick and choose parts to follow, based on modern morality and social systems? Do you say that the parts society now views as reprehensible should be tossed aside, even though God The Omnipotent laid them down as laws for His people? Does developing human society trump God's will?
I really love these...

Deuteronomy , is in the old testament.
As Christians we are freed bychrist from the Old Laws of Moses.
Which is why we can--eat pork,cut our side burns, eat shell fish, divorce(divorce doesnt really count because biblically it has always been allowed, I dont what the deal with the Catholics was about that)
Christ, the root of Christianity is the release from that bondage of the old way.
Tolerence is the Christian way, which is why I dont understand all these christians who only hang out with Christians, and "good" people, to paraphrase "Jesus loves the Damned".
So while many stories in the Bible are good, and set good examples(I take the Bible as literally as I can) The entire concept of Christ removes the burden from us of 90% of the restrictions contained there in.
Faith in Him and Good works, that about covers it.
What would Jesus say about you first passage?
Mark 6:11(Christ) And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them." Walk away you say?

Your second passage is a quite simply a lie
Deuteronomy 13:1"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder"
Actually what you said I is not in Chapter 13 at all, funny how every time someone puts up one these threads they always place a ficticious verse.
Whats funnythough is whe nI google your phrase i do find it, not the Bible though, I find the same incorrect quote in a very poor novel By Author Sam Harris(The End of Faith) who offers the same arguement as you almost verbatum, how strange, rather how predictable that you couldnt even invent a decent arguement so you had to commit plagiarism on an immediately fouled Agruemnt that it self was based off of falsified facts.
If had at least credited the original author you wouldnt have looked nearly as stupid quoting a pretend verse.
Now maybe if read it for real instead of copying someone elses mistake you would know that:
13:18
"When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God. "
Do you want to take this arguement over for you?
Or have you found a different author to steal from?
Pathetic.

wow, i am really surprised to hear that coming from somebody who i have seen to hold practical and scientific ideas on other threads.

I could not help but point out what came to mind when I saw this remark.

Why is it that automatically there is this reaction of shock when you see someone who can maintain both faith and science without feeling a contradiction between the two?

This was actually pretty normal until the 19th century, when a divide really started to show up--and even after this divide, there are many rational people who maintain an acceptance of both. Johannes Kepler comes to mind as an example from the past. He was an astronomer who was a proponent of the heliocentric theory who also held a faith strong enough that it nearly led him to become a clergyman ( http://space.about.com/cs/astronomerbios/a/keplerbio.htm ), which I always find...er...INTERESTING when people suggest that all who were religious opposed the heliocentric model! René Déscartes is another one--while well known for his religiously-oriented philosophical systems (the famous "Cogito, ergo sum" quote is only the jumping-off point for the system he worked on), he's notable for something else, too: for being one of the pioneers of calculus along with Isaac Newton and others. To skip quite a bit forward, I believe that Albert Einstein, while I'm not sure that he followed a particular religion, did express belief that the universe was designed by an intelligence (I realize there is debate about Einstein's beliefs). These were not stupid men at all, and they are well recognized for their accomplishments by people of all beliefs. I have heard of other scientists who continue to feel this way but cannot give names because when I saw the interviews, I failed to copy the names down.

These people aren't anomalies. People who have religious faith are not automatically inferior in intelligence or any other quality. It IS possible to misuse religion to hold back advancements--but for every "inquisitor", it's my feeling that there's a "Kepler" who can accept both equally and continue to behave in a rational manner. I have tried, at least in my own life, to model my own thought after people like Kepler and Déscartes who are able to deal with both science and faith and perhaps even find that each strengthens the other. The way I see it, science has a legitimate place in teaching us how to understand the physical mechanisms by which the universe operates. What science cannot do is tell us anything about values, meaning, and purpose behind what it observes, and it's my personal thought that when people do try to convert science into the basis of a philosophical/moral system, it ends up becoming just as strangling a dogma (and I am using that word intentionally) as what you find on the ultra-conservative right.

Which gets back to the post I quoted at the very top of this: it seems a very sad commentary that faith is now construed by many as lack of intelligence, which is certainly what this expression of shock conveys.

Christian Science Official site(creepy)
http://www.carm.org/christian_science/csdoctrine.htm

Deuteronomy , is in the old testament.
As Christians we are freed bychrist from the Old Laws of Moses. [...]
Christ, the root of Christianity is the release from that bondage of the old way.No, you are NOT. And no, he is NOT. Jesus in fact, has come to re-enforce the original laws given to the Jews (exclusively) by Moses.
And since Jesus is only a marginal figure in all of this and only a partial manifestation of Yah anyways, the "old way" would still be the vaild one. BUT then there remains of course the problem of pinpointing, who the god of Moses really is at all, which is the crucial question one has to solve before going on with the rest of the Bible.

Christian Science Official site(creepy)
http://www.carm.org/christian_science/csdoctrine.htm

My God that is creepy. Please do not assume all Christians think that way. I still go to a doctor!

No, you are NOT. And no, he is NOT. Jesus in fact, has come to re-enforce the original laws given to the Jews (exclusively) by Moses.
And since Jesus is only a marginal figure in all of this and only a partial manifestation of Yah anyways, the "old way" would still be the vaild one. BUT then there remains of course the proplem of pinpointing, who the god of Moses really is, overall.
What another Atheist, you cant be a Christian, at least not one who knows scripture, but come one and cross swords with me. I dare you.
I enjoy putting fundamentalists in their place when they dont even know the first thing about theology.
Galatians 4:4-6
"4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
Obviously you choose to remain un-redeemed.
Please retort.

My God that is creepy. Please do not assume all Christians think that way. I still go to a doctor!
I am a Christian, and I thoght it was creepy, notice they have created their own "New" Campanion for the Bible.

Ankher, i have to feed my kids, tag me with your response.

I am a Christian, and I thoght it was creepy, notice they have created their own "New" Campanion for the Bible.

The very fact at the bottom of that page that they say "Mary Baker Eddy is highly regarded as a revelator of God's word, almost equal to Jesus." scares me just a little. I don't think God or Jesus would agree with that.

I wouldn't say that I'm a "moderate Christian," perhaps the term is "fundamental"....I don't know. While I don't believe all of the Bible should be taken literally, I believe the majority of it should be. You have to just interpret the Bible in context. Example: Genesis was written like a history book for the first people on Earth...there's not going to be much allegory in there.. Far less compared to the book of Psalms, which is basically a book of poems.

I have to admit that I am NOT a biblical scholar...but a thing that I find helpful when trying to figure out what it says is the study of dispensationalism. It basically is the study of how God changes the way he deals with people throughout the Bible. SOmeone mentioned earlier that the God of the OT is not at all like the God of the NT. God's not going to deal with people the same way in one time period as he does with people in another. All sorts of circumstances, traditions, people, customs, etc. change. SO you can't just take a Hebrew law out of LEviticus and apply it to your life today... God handles us differently than them.

I don't know if this helps any...my thoughts are just going wild inside my head and I don't know if it made any sense.

Hope it helps

then he can change his opinion on gay people also, this is what gay people have said all along. HE loves everyone and has had to change to deal with different people. This makes it seem that the only thing that really matters is that you believe in Yahway and Jesus.......seriously

Ankher, i have to feed my kids, tag me with your response.In fact, I do not regard the letters of Paul to be of any value.

Why is it that automatically there is this reaction of shock when you see someone who can maintain both faith and science without feeling a contradiction between the two?
...
Which gets back to the post I quoted at the very top of this: it seems a very sad commentary that faith is now construed by many as lack of intelligence, which is certainly what this expression of shock conveys.

I'm an analyst by nature, and I find that rather than a demonstration of a lack of intelligence, Faith is something that I simply can't grasp. It's incredibly difficult to be both questioning and accepting. Anything that seems beyond the normal is hard to simply take for granted; we've got to find out what's going on to put our minds at ease and to redefine what we accept as normal. At the same time, though, whenever a scientist reaches a conclusion, s/he stands by it with a more compelling understanding of their result than those who simply hope or believe. Or so we like to think, anyway.

to me the Bible is just a novel, it's just a book written by somebody, rewritten by several and became, suprisingly, a very famous thing. Religion is something people need to hang on to, when times get a little bit sad of bad, it's kind of a support, when you've got the feeling that nobody else supports you in the way you would like it or maybé they can't support you enough and you need more to hold on to.

I also believe, but I believe in Nature, Mother Earth, actually. This force is in my opinion the only one you can feel, through the wind, the warmth of the sun, the cold ice and winters, ... you can see her in the bees, the flowers, ... I mean, Natures all around you.

I don't think that there's a wrong religion, everyone has to believe in something. What that thing is, doesn't matter, as long as you feel save and good with your religion, as long as you don't feel suppressed of depressed, as long as you love your religion, it's a real religion to you. So one really believe the things written in the Bible and feels totaly good about it, so mote it be, as long as it doesn't hurt someone or something and you're in perfect harmony with yourself and others it's a beautiful thing in my opinion.

Greets Seluna

A whole pile of questions. I will try and work my way through them. By way of introduction, since I haven't been around in a long, long time (used to be the United Socialist States of Zeke, back in the day), I am most decidely not a moderate Christian, I am a liberal Christian. Many, in fact, would consider me to be sufficiently liberal as to be almost outside of the faith. Nonetheless, the denomination I attend and work in is the second largest religious community in Canada, so I am not alone. I have formal theological training in the form of a Masters degree. Which is NOT to say that what I say in always right, or, for that matter, will agree with what some people have been taught growing up. It IS to say, however, that I'm not talking out of my ass.

The Bible was not dictated by God, it was written by human beings who were inspired by their experience of God. As human beings, they were imperfect, and their own prejudices and egos affected their writing, although many, if not most writers made an effort to limit that. All parts of the Bible were products to some degree of their time and place in history, and need to be understood in that context.



Firstly, belief/faith is not a matter of logic, and if you are trying to make it one, then this will not be a rewarding conversation for you. Certainly logic and reason have a place, but ultimately belief is belief, not logic.



I don't believe that Christian and Jewish writers (don't forget, well more than half the scriptures are Jewish, and almost all the NT writers were) are the only ones who have access to truth about life and creation. I may not agree with other models and images of God, but that doesn't mean that other religious texts can't have something to say about life. I suppose that means I don't "believe" in them, I just like what they have to say.

(I realise these questions were meant for someone else, so they may have a different answer. Belief is personal.)



I don't believe the virgin birth actually happened. To begin with, the word isn't virgin in the original, it's (very) young girl. Virgin is a translation error that took on extreme meaning in the early church, and so has been maintained. Young enough that she should have been a virgin, sure. But there is a separate word meaning virgin, and it is not used.



These two are related, essentially, and a continuation of the virgin question. To understand scripture, we need to understand two things: firstly, what was the social context in which the scripture was written, and; secondly, what is the context of the scripture as a whole. It is inevitable that we will attach our personal biases. So do fundamentalists, they are just less truthful about it.* What we can try and do, is to approach the scriptures from the most neutral position we can muster, and to read it in the above two contexts. Furthermore, the Christian faith has always insisted that we worship in community, and there is a reason for that. The more we interact with others, the less our own biases have a chance to take root. The other people around us will call us on it (or, they should!).



I trust it because it has held meaning for so many people, and because it hold meaning for me. Trust is no more logical than belief, really. But the witness of human history is worth listening to, as is my own experience.



I try because I believe that the practice of my faith requires understanding. God gave us a brain to use, and besides, some parts of scripture are blantantly not to be taken literally. ** Once the door is open to question, it is irresponsible not to look at the whole of scripture. It's not like I'm alone in this - theologians have been working at it intensively for at least a century, and will likely be for at least the next century to come. I believe I can and should contribute in whatever way I can to that process. Scripture (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=MATT+22:37&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) tell us to love not only with heart and soul, but with mind. Trying to understand the scriptures in their proper context is an essential element of faith.


* homosexuality is a non issue in most of the scripture. It is not mentioned once by Jesus, and only skimmed over in two other places (references to Sodom and Gomorrah are NOT about homosexuality). Why make such a big deal about it?
** an example. The scripture this past Sunday tells us that we have to hate our family, and life itself, to follow Christ. From Luke (http://divinity.lib.vanderbilt.edu/lectionary/cpentecost/cProper18.htm#luke) Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally, and not thinking individual could argue otherwise.

where did you study? I have often agreed with you but have found no place were a lesbian can study theology. Do you have any ideas besides the internet and the library. Why hasn't anyone taken on writing a new bible with the proper translation?

I don't know if I should call myself a moderate Christian or not because I usually tend to be very conservative. I didn't read the last page of posts but I believe I can answer bottle's question, however it would help if I knew how much of the Bible you have read. First off it says in the Bible that God is a jealous God:

Exodus 20: 4-6
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

When God wrote the Law (the first five books of the Bible) He demanded that the Israelites worship him. If they refused to worship him and keep his commandments he would curse them. If they worshiped Him he would bless them. Joshua is a good example of the Israelites being blessed. Judges is also a good example of the Israelites being cursed. There are many example of times when God would use the Israelites to kill people who worshipped idols:

Joshua 24:2 Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods.

Abraham's father worshipped idols. If you go back to the first verses god punishes the sins of the father by punishing the children of the next generation. Now this might seem cruel at first but if you think about it most people emulate habits, and mannerisms from their parents. Later on in Kings and near the end of the Old Testament we see the nation of Israel turn away from God and worship idols.

Lastly I wanted to address the comments about whether the Bible is the Word of God. There are millions of pages of evidence about whether the bible is real or not, which I don't have space to get into... ( I would suggest looking for a book called "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mc Dowell) I also wanted to address two misconceptions I saw
1.) God isn't "fuzzy" or "gray" on any issue. God sees homosexuality as detestable (Leviticus 20:13) and (Ephesians 2:11-13) talks about racism. (however it is slightly confusing if you don't understand the figures of speech)
2.) There are over 25,000 original copies of the Bible that are identical to each other, for comparison there are about 10 copies of Plato's work from the same time period. Questions, Comments, Complaints? Send me a telegram.


leviticus doesn't count after the new testament so why are you quoting it. If you do believe in quoting that then you better start making war on your neigbors and killing raped women because the bible does state this in the old testament.

First off it says in the Bible that God is a jealous God:


Not really sure what you are trying to get at here. In any case, you are reflecting an ancient understanding of the relationship with God that many Jews would not even repeat today, let alone Christians.

When God wrote the Law (the first five books of the Bible)

God did not write the law. People did. I realise that what you say is the accepted truth in fundamental circles everywhere, and I don't for a moment think I will change your mind in this limited medium, but just so others are fully aware that every mainstream church has to some degree acknowledged that people did the writing, not God. Yes, every one. Even Roman Catholics.

Lastly I wanted to address the comments about whether the Bible is the Word of God. There are millions of pages of evidence about whether the bible is real or not, which I don't have space to get into... ( I would suggest looking for a book called "Evidence that demands a verdict" by Josh Mc Dowell)

I never said it wasn't real. Real is a dumb word. I wouldn't even say that it is without truth. It is not, however, unquestioningly true all the time. Asserting that would be colossally ignorant.

I also wanted to address two misconceptions I saw
1.) God isn't "fuzzy" or "gray" on any issue. God sees homosexuality as detestable (Leviticus 20:13) and (Ephesians 2:11-13) talks about racism. (however it is slightly confusing if you don't understand the figures of speech)
2.) There are over 25,000 original copies of the Bible that are identical to each other, for comparison there are about 10 copies of Plato's work from the same time period. Questions, Comments, Complaints? Send me a telegram.

OK, point 2 is simply a lie. There are no "original" copies of the Bible, especially since the various parts of it were writtin over roughly 2500 years of the earth's history. Plus, you have to realise that even today there are three different idead of what the "official" Bible should contain. Sorry, don't know who told you that, but there is no truth in it whatsoever.

On point one, I understand that, coming from an belief that God wrote the Bible, it would seem that way to you. It does not seem that way to me, however.

Why hasn't anyone taken on writing a new bible with the proper translation?

Try the Oxford New Revised Standard Version. It has been translated directly to English from the oldest texts now known. In addition, those parts that are in dispute among religious scholars are footnoted and discussed.

correct me if i'm wrong but isnt the KKK one?

Though KKK members may call themselves Christians, I do not believe they are recognised as a Christian sect.

where did you study? I have often agreed with you but have found no place were a lesbian can study theology. Do you have any ideas besides the internet and the library. Why hasn't anyone taken on writing a new bible with the proper translation?

I studied at two places, Queen's Theological College in Kingston, and Vancouver School of Theology. The United Church of Canada runs several other schools across the country, and since we would ordain you, we would be more than pleased to have you as a student. You would find, in fact, many other homosexuals of both genders. As for places to study where you would be welcome, if you are American, there are quite a few options. Fire me a TG and I'll look some of them up for you, if you'd like. Chicago comes to mind. Not so sure about Europe, but I assume there would be options there. I might be able to find some info on them, too. I actually don't recommend the internet for any kind of study, as there is next to no quality control, unless you stick to academic sites (and even then, sometimes...). There are several new transaltions of the Bible, of various degrees of satisfaction. For technical accuracy, I recommend the New Revised Standard Version. For a more lyrical translation, try The Message. In any case, though, you are going to see all the same verses. You need a good commentary to help, as a bare minimum, if you are trying to study. That's why we preachers have to go to school for so long. :) Abingdon Press makes a good one volume commentary that will get you started, and it's not too brutally expensive.

Though KKK members may call themselves Christians, I do not believe they are recognised as a Christian sect.


they use verses in the bible to perpetuate their hate, violence and intolerance so they may not be part of your definition of what a christian should be but they are definetly a christian sect.

In fact, I do not regard the letters of Paul to be of any value.

I wouldn't put it that strongly, but large grains of salt are certainly needed. And I would put it that way when discussing Paul's views of sex and relationships.

I'm an analyst by nature, and I find that rather than a demonstration of a lack of intelligence, Faith is something that I simply can't grasp. It's incredibly difficult to be both questioning and accepting. Anything that seems beyond the normal is hard to simply take for granted; we've got to find out what's going on to put our minds at ease and to redefine what we accept as normal. At the same time, though, whenever a scientist reaches a conclusion, s/he stands by it with a more compelling understanding of their result than those who simply hope or believe. Or so we like to think, anyway.

There is a point where accepting nothing becomes paralytic. What I mean is, ultimately everything that we discover scientifically is subject to doubt. Theories change over time--even some strong ones. Some are even discarded. Understanding changes. You can even look at a simple question like, "What is best for us to eat to stay healthy?" and you'll see constant fluctuation. I don't just mean the latest fad diets, but even the familiar old "food pyramid" you remember from school seems to constantly be needing revision in some way or another. The same goes on with many other aspects of life. Eventually, if you added it together, on what basis could you make any decision in your life, if all is subject to fluctuation, or imperfections in our knowledge? If absolute knowledge is what's demanded, it leads to absolute paralysis, because somewhere along the line, the intellect ultimately fails. Ultimately we must all have some certain degree of faith as a way of breaking the deadlock.

Science tells nothing about what the MEANING of something is, or how we ought to behave towards it. Science can describe the inner workings of the atom, but it gives us nothing about the ethical way in which to deal with it, for instance. It can tell us nothing about why we should value our lives or those of others. And what can it possibly tell us about these things when it is in a state of constant flux, when what I ask about (meaning, purpose, value) is a constant no matter how it is we're describing the universe at the time? For me, science is an attempt to describe physical process--no more, but at the same time, no less. I do not demean it, but I feel there are a great many times when it's misused in the same way that extreme religion can be, and it is well on its way to becoming a dogma in its own right.

I wouldn't put it that strongly, but large grains of salt are certainly needed. And I would put it that way when discussing Paul's views of sex and relationships.

Paul seems very much a child of his times in that regard, and that's the way I look at it.

However, out of curiosity, where do you think his writings ARE useful?

(If you feel this derails the thread, feel free to TG me instead.)

Paul seems very much a child of his times in that regard, and that's the way I look at it.

However, out of curiosity, where do you think his writings ARE useful?

(If you feel this derails the thread, feel free to TG me instead.)

This wasn't directed at me, but I do know that Romans holds a good deal of the evidence for the theory of atonement I believe in, so that would be useful.

Paul seems very much a child of his times in that regard, and that's the way I look at it.

However, out of curiosity, where do you think his writings ARE useful?

(If you feel this derails the thread, feel free to TG me instead.)

Not my thread. The authour can decided if this is a derailment :).

Paul has some very powerful personal testimony in his writing. He is the first Christian theologian, and while his attempts were often raw, and more often intended to address a specific situation rather than make a global statement, they are still valuable in lots of ways. His assertion of radical equality (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+3:28&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) continues to be a statement that would shock many, as an example.

they use verses in the bible to perpetuate their hate, violence and intolerance so they may not be part of your definition of what a christian should be but they are definetly a christian sect.

Even the devil can quote scripture, you know.

What I meant is the INDIVIDUALS may call themselves Christians, but the group itself is NOT a sect.

That would be like me saying that because all mothers are women, that all women have children.

It can not be reasonably said that the Bible is the word of God. It doesn't even pretend to be. It is the word of men in the name of God. It's written in the third person, for pete's sake. Why this argument has been going on for decades (or more) is an utter mystery. It's like two sides in disagreement about how wet water is.

One very constructive way to look at the Bible is to read it and decide for yourself what seems right or wrong. It may be that the self-contradiction and questionable verses are tools for learning one's own conscience rather than buying one pre-packaged.

I think that it is very, very important not to quote verses out of context. Everyone can quote Leviticus regarding homosexuality, but how many defy Leviticus by eating shrimp and molluscs? And any hack anti-Christian can point and laugh at twenty ridiculous verses while glazing over reams of good advice.

I would rather clarify who Yah is, before I even think about his alleged son. After all you are supposed to believe in god and not in one of his manifestations.

The reason I asked this question about Paul's writings was, although Paul's ideas about sexuality and gender roles are extremely antiquated, I have even found suggestions in his writing that back up some of my rather liberal viewpoints on salvation and who gets it. It seems not to be as clearcut as a lot of fundamentalists would like it to be! Is this, along with the statement of radical equality, what you were getting at, Dempublicents?

(Got to go now. I'll catch you later. If Bottle decides this is off topic, while I'm out, anyone who wants to continue the discussion of Paul can TG me.)

It can not be reasonably said that the Bible is the word of God. It doesn't even pretend to be. It is the word of men in the name of God. It's written in the third person, for pete's sake. Why this argument has been going on for decades (or more) is an utter mystery. It's like two sides in disagreement about how wet water is.

One very constructive way to look at the Bible is to read it and decide for yourself what seems right or wrong. It may be that the self-contradiction and questionable verses are tools for learning one's own conscience rather than buying one pre-packaged.

I think that it is very, very important not to quote verses out of context. Everyone can quote Leviticus regarding homosexuality, but how many defy Leviticus by eating shrimp and molluscs? And any hack anti-Christian can point and laugh at twenty ridiculous verses while glazing over reams of good advice.That does not actually work. You cannot make a decision on wether a text has any value if you do not compare it to other writings from the same period and region. But that's exactly the way many (modern) Christians try to approach the Bible. They knowingly ignore tha fact, that all the texts in the Bible have been redacted more than once to be consistent with the current situation of the respective time and political environment. E.g. all those extensive law texts have been added to the original narrative of the Torah much later.

And as for my refusal of Paul: it is not what he has to say, it is who he is, that lets me severely doubt his credibility.

The reason I asked this question about Paul's writings was, although Paul's ideas about sexuality and gender roles are extremely antiquated, I have even found suggestions in his writing that back up some of my rather liberal viewpoints on salvation and who gets it. It seems not to be as clearcut as a lot of fundamentalists would like it to be! Is this, along with the statement of radical equality, what you were getting at, Dempublicents?

Sort of. I tend to hold more to the Abelardian (Christ died to demonstrate God's love so that we would no longer follow God in fear, but would turn to God in love) view of atonement than the Aneslmian view (the traditional one - Christ died cuz we're all sinners and we deserve to die). Abelard was deemed a heretic in his time by the Catholic Church, but I have read his rationale for this view and I agree with it. Some of it comes from quotes in Romans.

I'm told by "moderate" Christians that the Bible isn't to be interpretted literally, that there are symbolic meanings to much of it, and that is why a lot of the scary, hateful, intollerant stuff in the Bible doesn't make it necessary for all Christians to be scary, hateful, and intollerant. Moderate Christians tell me that one can embrace other people's right to different beliefs while still believing the Bible to be the Word of God.

I am confused.

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . ." (Deuteronomy 13:7–11)

What symbolic meaning would that have? It seems pretty clear to me, and doesn't leave much room for waffling. If God took the time to specifically make that message very clear in His inspired Word, then we probably should pay attention, shouldn't we? He left other issues very very fuzzy, important issues like homosexuality or racism, but this one He made quite clear. Especially since He prefaced it with: “Whatever I am now commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away.” (Deuteronomy 13:1)

So how can you believe the Bible is the word of God if you don't obey it? How can you be a moderate Christian at all, since the Bible mandates religious extremism? Do you simply pick and choose parts to follow, based on modern morality and social systems? Do you say that the parts society now views as reprehensible should be tossed aside, even though God The Omnipotent laid them down as laws for His people? Does developing human society trump God's will?
because the Bible's just a series of stories, not quotes

because the Bible's just a series of stories, not quotesIt is a selection of histories, not just narratives. But you all seem to avoid the most important question af all: who is this god? You keep discussing all the minor issues but you never get to the core. Are there other sources telling of the gods of the Bible? And the answer is a definite yes. But since those sources draw a picture completely different from the post-Moses perspective as expressed in the Bible you decide to ignore them. And even more, you decide to remain in the Victorian-age views of the Bible that could not really find any matches between the biblical accounts and the historic records of Egypt and Mesopotamia (mainly because they were looking in the wrong time frame). But that has in fact changed. At least from the advent of Joseph's (the vizier of Egypt) family in Egypt right down to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem the historic consistency has been achieved. And even the generations between Noah (Utnapishtim) and Abraham can now be dated to the precision of a century or two. The texts of Genesis hold so much more information than is currently recognized by "ordinary" Christians who still mainly believe what their respective communities tell them, instead of starting to use the internet and gather as much (real) knowledge as they possibly can. And even the mists about Eden, the Garden, and its inhabitants have cleared up to an extent that lets us see, how many things need to be re-interpreted. And finally there is so much information about El and Yah that relativize the heavily redacted biblical picture considerably.

Abel killed Cain in a field.
Cain Killed Abel.

Cain Killed Abel. :mad: we already had that one

God did not write the law. People did. I realise that what you say is the accepted truth in fundamental circles everywhere, and I don't for a moment think I will change your mind in this limited medium, but just so others are fully aware that every mainstream church has to some degree acknowledged that people did the writing, not God. Yes, every one. Even Roman Catholics.


I would like to clarify what I meant when I say that God wrote the Bible.
What I mean is that God spoke to the human authors of the Bible telling them what to write, but allowing them to use figures of speech, and other literary devices. So if you want to be technical then yes, humans wrote the Bible.

I never said it wasn't real. Real is a dumb word. I wouldn't even say that it is without truth. It is not, however, unquestioningly true all the time. Asserting that would be colossally ignorant.

I totally disagree. The Bible is full of truth and without error (assuming that you are referring to a Christian translation of the Bible not Catholic, Mormon, or Jehovah Witness) Asserting that the Bible is with error is colossally ignorant. In fact I would challenge you to find a single error. (then telegram it to me)

leviticus doesn't count after the new testament so why are you quoting it. If you do believe in quoting that then you better start making war on your neigbors and killing raped women because the bible does state this in the old testament.
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
...I'm thinking Leviticus still counts...yeah Leviticus still counts. I imagine that you think that it doesn't count because when Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets that ended the sacrifices because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Lastly I don't know where it says that I should kill raped women or make war on my neighbors. Next time please include a reference so that myself and others know where you are coming from.

I apologize for the odd HTML included in my last post when I figure out how to fix it I will.

Alright, I see you are all braindead. :rolleyes:

It is a selection of histories, not just narratives. But you all seem to avoid the most important question af all: who is this god?

God is anything you want him to be. I'm currently trying to discover the relationship between monothiesm and polytheism. My monotheistic friends and I have pretty much agreed that "our God" is just the combination of all the other gods. I know a Wiccan who thinks of God as the sum of humanity - greater than the sum of its parts. I know a computer engineer who doesn't believe in God beyond an abstract "will of the universe", after all, the universe has order. Personally, I no longer care. It doesn't matter what he is, and as a scientist, I find it a bit silly to precisely define something one has no conception of. The Bible was written for a relatively specific group of people, much of it, especially in the old testament, is no longer relevent to human life.

my belief is that God is God, no other gods and his Son Jesus Christ died for our sins an dth eonly way to Heaven is through him and accepting his as your savior.

However you said moderate christians believe in some of the Bible or whatever like that. I believe in the Bible ,100% of it.

I would like to clarify what I meant when I say that God wrote the Bible.
What I mean is that God spoke to the human authors of the Bible telling them what to write, but allowing them to use figures of speech, and other literary devices. So if you want to be technical then yes, humans wrote the Bible.

And I disagree. The authours wrote what they had experienced about God, and what they thought they saw of God operating in their lives, and in the world around them. Sometimes what they wrote was, no doubt, pleasing to God. Othertimes, no doubt, God would be right furious with them.

I never said it wasn't real. Real is a dumb word. I wouldn't even say that it is without truth. It is not, however, unquestioningly true all the time. Asserting that would be colossally ignorant.


I totally disagree. The Bible is full of truth and without error (assuming that you are referring to a Christian translation of the Bible not Catholic, Mormon, or Jehovah Witness) Asserting that the Bible is with error is colossally ignorant. In fact I would challenge you to find a single error. (then telegram it to me)

You know, saying that Catholics aren't Christian has to be one of the most hysterically funny things I've read all day. Were it not for the fact that it is also one of the most distressingly bigoted. I choose to assume you didn't mean that the way you wrote it. Care to re-phrase?
As for errors, do you mean factual ones? If so, we can talk about the Biblical belief that the sky is a solid dome (above a flat earth...) with small holes poked in it for the starlight to shine through. Or that the woman is simply a fertile field for the man to plant a baby in, and contibutes nothing to the child.
As for theological/moral errors, how about the encouragement to smash the heads of our enemie's babies against the rocks? Want more?

God is anything you want him to be. I'm currently trying to discover the relationship between monothiesm and polytheism. My monotheistic friends and I have pretty much agreed that "our God" is just the combination of all the other gods. I know a Wiccan who thinks of God as the sum of humanity - greater than the sum of its parts. I know a computer engineer who doesn't believe in God beyond an abstract "will of the universe", after all, the universe has order. Personally, I no longer care. It doesn't matter what he is, and as a scientist, I find it a bit silly to precisely define something one has no conception of. The Bible was written for a relatively specific group of people, much of it, especially in the old testament, is no longer relevent to human life.So you decide to purposely misunderstnad me? The question is, where the image portayed by this god comes from and who the people were to worship him before the Christians and before the Jews and before the Hebrews. And as long as one cannot answer this, any discussion about the nature of god and the implications for humankind are pointless.

Alright, I see you are all braindead. :rolleyes:

Or away from our computers momentarily...

I don't believe I will ever truly understand the nature of God until I get the chance to ask Her directly. The religious history that shaped the beliefs of the early Jewish communities (and, therefore, the Christian communities that evolved from them) is highly important, and I don't give it enough attention, granted. But it is not nearly as directly relevant as how those early Jews reshaped the beliefs to suit them, and subsequently how the beliefs were once again reshaped by early Christians. Is it a failing on the part of my education both past and ongoing? Sure. But I don't think it is nearly as all encompassing as you do. The understanding of God that has meaning for me is the one that was shaped and designed by the Jewish and Christian cultures, not the earlier version that they leaned on for inspiration.

Alright, I see you are all braindead. :rolleyes:

Ahem.

People are not obliged to agree with you if you have not presented enough evidence to convince them. Remarks like this tend to weaken, not strengthen, your case.

Even if the christian god exists, that does not necessarily mean that the words of the Bible are his words, or even that he is an authority that must be obeyed in the way the churches are trying to teach folks.
And always remember that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first books of the Bible, had absolutely no clue about the Hebrew god(s) before his encounter with the Midianites.
That's alway's been my belief. Furthermore, as a Protestant (Presbyterian), I have freedom to interpret the Bible however I want. I know, it's been brought up so many times, but it's absolutely true.

Ahem.
People are not obliged to agree with you if you have not presented enough evidence to convince them. Remarks like this tend to weaken, not strengthen, your case.Since all of you have avoided to reply on anything I have posted or even asked for evidence, I must conclude that you prefer to retain your position of Christian ignorance that is known so well. And picking unessential passages from my posts and replying to them in a superficial manner is not what I would call an honest discussion.
What about this post ? Can you answer who your god is ?It [the Bible] is a selection of histories, not just narratives. But you all seem to avoid the most important question af all: who is this god? You keep discussing all the minor issues but you never get to the core. Are there other sources telling of the gods of the Bible? And the answer is a definite yes. But since those sources draw a picture completely different from the post-Moses perspective as expressed in the Bible you decide to ignore them. And even more, you decide to remain in the Victorian-age views of the Bible that could not really find any matches between the biblical accounts and the historic records of Egypt and Mesopotamia (mainly because they were looking in the wrong time frame). But that has in fact changed. At least from the advent of Joseph's (the vizier of Egypt) family in Egypt right down to the destruction of the second temple of Jerusalem the historic consistency has been achieved. And even the generations between Noah (Utnapishtim) and Abraham can now be dated to the precision of a century or two. The texts of Genesis hold so much more information than is currently recognized by "ordinary" Christians who still mainly believe what their respective communities tell them, instead of starting to use the internet and gather as much (real) knowledge as they possibly can. And even the mists about Eden, the Garden, and its inhabitants have cleared up to an extent that lets us see, how many things need to be re-interpreted. And finally there is so much information about El and Yah that relativize the heavily redacted biblical picture considerably.

Ankher: It's obvious that you believe God to be something somewhat different from others on this thread. That's fine. Even among believers in the same faith, there is a great deal of disagreement on the nature of God. I am sure that there are more and less fundamentalist leanings in every religion. People are not obliged to adhere to your personal definition, nor are they obliged to study comparative religions in order to express what they believe. It's logical to assume that Christians will be answering from a Christian viewpoint. Other views may not be understood, or may have been discarded as irrelevant to their lives.

There are many ways to come to a personal understanding about God. One is from studying the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran or other texts as if each is a literal truth. One is through meditation. One involves studying the historical context. One is to study many religions to see the commonalities and the differences. One is to read the sacred texts of one's religion with an understanding that the thinking man always reads between the lines rather than accepts anything blindly as the truth. Some follow only one path; others follow multiple lines of discovery. However, to demand that everyone choose to explore their religion in one way, defined by one person, is doomed to failure.

What you seem to be asking is a lot -- basically, that everyone on this thread accept your definition of what their God is, and that they drop everything to go off and study the equivalent of a degree in theology just to be able to discuss this with you. If in fact you do want a debate of that intensity, this is probably the wrong forum for it -- a site which discusses comparative religion would be much more likely to generate the responses you are looking for.

An observation: the more remarks one makes about the ignorance and level of intelligence of his opponents in debate, the less likely people are to hear one's message and to consider one's points. Conversely, when one assumes that his opponents in debate are intelligent and listens to their reasoning, one generally will be listened to with respect.

Just a friendly bit of advice.

Carry on.

For the record, I do know who my God is... and my understanding of Him may not agree with yours, or with a member of another sect -- or even a member of my own.

You know, saying that Catholics aren't Christian has to be one of the most hysterically funny things I've read all day. Were it not for the fact that it is also one of the most distressingly bigoted. I choose to assume you didn't mean that the way you wrote it. Care to re-phrase?
As for errors, do you mean factual ones? If so, we can talk about the Biblical belief that the sky is a solid dome (above a flat earth...) with small holes poked in it for the starlight to shine through. Or that the woman is simply a fertile field for the man to plant a baby in, and contibutes nothing to the child.
As for theological/moral errors, how about the encouragement to smash the heads of our enemie's babies against the rocks? Want more?
First off I see that our definition of Christian differs. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they accept Jesus' death on the cross as a way to bridge the gap of sin. Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians. How you manage to see this as bias or amusing I have no idea. Lastly I have no idea of where you got the idea that the earth is flat, that woman contribute nothing to children or where it says to smash babies heads against rocks. It is obvious to me that you know nothing about the Bible. When I say error I mean contradictions that the Bible makes with itself. Next time you want to claim that the Bible says something find a reference.

Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians.

This is news to me; The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are basically the centerpiece of Catholicism.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
...I'm thinking Leviticus still counts...yeah Leviticus still counts. I imagine that you think that it doesn't count because when Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets that ended the sacrifices because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice. Lastly I don't know where it says that I should kill raped women or make war on my neighbors. Next time please include a reference so that myself and others know where you are coming from.

The whole idea of the Levitical laws was to purify the populous. That is their function, and if one is pure, if one has been saved, they've been fulfilled. Anyway, does this mean shellfish and pork are still abominations?

First off I see that our definition of Christian differs. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they accept Jesus' death on the cross as a way to bridge the gap of sin. Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians. How you manage to see this as bias or amusing I have no idea. Lastly I have no idea of where you got the idea that the earth is flat, that woman contribute nothing to children or where it says to smash babies heads against rocks. It is obvious to me that you know nothing about the Bible. When I say error I mean contradictions that the Bible makes with itself. Next time you want to claim that the Bible says something find a reference.
What!? Jesus = God? No, Jesus is the Son of God. "Jesus Christ" means something, I can't entirely remember, but something LIKE The Son of God. Anyway, I'm not entirely certain about this, so what do you have to say about this?

This is news to me; The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit are basically the centerpiece of Catholicism.
Correct, but Catholicism is full of traditions that distract it from fundamental teachings of Christianianity. For example there is good no biblical basis for the Pope, praying to Mary, mass, worship of Saints and angels, celibacy of nuns and priests, fasting on fridays and during Lent, kissing the pope's foot, worshipping of images and relics, use of "holy water" prayer beads, the inquistion, sale of indulgences, transubstantiation, bible forbidden to laypeople, doctrine of purgatory, the apocryphal books, immaculate conception of Mary, services conducted in Latin...
You get the idea. However some Catholics are Christians, but not all Catholics are Christians. If you are still interested look around and see if you can find the Catholic Covenant thread. A nation called Innocentious started it a couple months ago.

First off I see that our definition of Christian differs. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they accept Jesus' death on the cross as a way to bridge the gap of sin. Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians. How you manage to see this as bias or amusing I have no idea. Lastly I have no idea of where you got the idea that the earth is flat, that woman contribute nothing to children or where it says to smash babies heads against rocks. It is obvious to me that you know nothing about the Bible. When I say error I mean contradictions that the Bible makes with itself. Next time you want to claim that the Bible says something find a reference.

You accused all Catholics of not being Christian, not some. Official Catholic doctrine (which, you appear to not know, is one of two original doctrine of Christianity, and the other ain't Protestantism) acknowledges Jesus as God. You are wrong here. Please move on.
Psalm 137, final verse. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+137&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) Happy is the one who dashes the heads of Babylonians infants against rocks, for they are the enemy. I've given you the whole psalm, so you can see it context and understand that I am not misquoting.
Contradictions within the Bible itself? How about the endless verses encouraging slavery, as opposed to Paul's "in Christ there is neither slave nor free" (I linked it further up this thread.) Or even that verse compared to the two (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EPH+6:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) places (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL+3:22&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) that Paul tells slaves to obey their masters, and the place (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL+4:1&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) that masters are instructed how to treat their slaves. What happened to there being no slaves?
How about the story (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=john+8%3A1-11&x=0&y=0) of Jesus protecting the adulterer from being stoned? He is contradicting the law (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+20:10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) of the scriptures.
Look, there is no denying that the Christian and Jewish scriptures are a source of inspiration to many, many people, and that they contain some deep truths about humanity, and about the divine. But that doesn't make every individual verse beyond question.

The whole idea of the Levitical laws was to purify the populous. That is their function, and if one is pure, if one has been saved, they've been fulfilled. Anyway, does this mean shellfish and pork are still abominations?

Not at all. The function of the Law was a demonstration of obedience. Adhering to the Law today still pleases God. After Christ however, the dietary laws ,as well as the sacrificial system were no longer needed and have been abandoned by Christians. The main reason that the dietary restrictions were included was to protect the nation from diseases. shellfish and pigs are very dirty animals

What!? Jesus = God? No, Jesus is the Son of God. "Jesus Christ" means something, I can't entirely remember, but something LIKE The Son of God. Anyway, I'm not entirely certain about this, so what do you have to say about this?

Confusing I know... Some times I have trouble understanding it on my own. There is one God (God). God works in many different ways. the Bible uses different names to distinguish what God is doing at the time.

Akter: It's obvious that you believe God to be something somewhat different from others on this thread. That's fine. Even among believers in the same faith, there is a great deal of disagreement on the nature of God. I am sure that there are more and less fundamentalist leanings in every religion. People are not obliged to adhere to your personal definition, nor are they obliged to study comparative religions in order to express what they believe. It's logical to assume that Christians will be answering from a Christian viewpoint. Other views may not be understood, or may have been discarded as irrelevant to their lives.

There are many ways to come to a personal understanding about God. One is from studying the Bible, the Torah, the Qu'ran or other texts as if each is a literal truth. One is through meditation. One involves studying the historical context. One is to study many religions to see the commonalities and the differences. One is to read the sacred texts of one's religion with an understanding that the thinking man always reads between the lines rather than accepts anything blindly as the truth. Some follow only one path; others follow multiple lines of discovery. However, to demand that everyone choose to explore their religion in one way, defined by one person, is doomed to failure.

What you seem to be asking is a lot -- basically, that everyone on this thread accept your definition of what their God is, and that they drop everything to go off and study the equivalent of a degree in theology just to be able to discuss this with you. If in fact you do want a debate of that intensity, this is probably the wrong forum for it -- a site which discusses comparative religion would be much more likely to generate the responses you are looking for.

An observation: the more remarks one makes about the ignorance and level of intelligence of his opponents in debate, the less likely people are to hear one's message and to consider one's points. Conversely, when one assumes that his opponents in debate are intelligent and listens to their reasoning, one generally will be listened to with respect.

Just a friendly bit of advice.

Carry on.

For the record, I do know who my God is... and my understanding of Him may not agree with yours, or with a member of another sect -- or even a member of my own.You just don't WANT to understand it, do you? In the search of the REAL historical origins of this god the FAITH of someone has no relevance whatsoever, and it is completely irrelevat what impact BELIEFS have on anybody's lives. The search for information about this god has no connection to one's personal opinion. And you cannot really know anything about this god just by reading the Bible. After all Yah was not invented by the Bible's authors. The worship of this deity goes back much further than the few sentences of Genesis tell. And the Hebrews only took that deity over from other peoples in their original homeland.

You know who your god is? Then tell me the difference between Elohim and Yahweh!

And for the historical set-up: tell me where the place of descent was of Noah's Ark.

Or what was the name of the pharaoh when Moses was raised in Egypt?

Or what was the name of the pharaoh when Joseph became vizier of Egypt?

I am pretty confident that you have no answer to any of these questions.

You just don't WANT to understand it, do you? In the search of the REAL historical origins of this god the FAITH of someone has no relevance whatsoever, and it is completely irrelevat what impact BELIEFS have on anybody's lives. The search for information about this god has no connection to one's personal opinion. And you cannot really know anything about this god just by reading the Bible. After all Yah was not invented by the Bible's authors. The worship of this deity goes back much further than the few sentences of Genesis tell. And the Hebrews only took that deity over from other peoples in their original homeland.

You know who your god is? Then tell me the difference between Elohim and Yahweh!

And for the historical set-up: tell me where the place of descent was of Noah's Ark.

No, you don't want to understand that YOUR idea of what MY God is has absolutely no relevance to my life, and you are being rather aggressive and bordering on insulting about it.

Mount Ararat is where the Ark is commonly believed to have come to rest.

No, you don't want to understand that YOUR idea of what MY God is has absolutely no relevance to my life, and you are being rather aggressive and bordering on insulting about it.
Mount Ararat is where the Ark is commonly believed to have come to rest.Do you know where Mount Ararat is? And do you know that that very mountain was named after the biblical account by such (already pretty Christian) people as Vincent de Beauvais, William of Rubrack, and the famous Marco Polo? So you see, "commonly believed" is not sufficient. And that's exactly my point about nearly all modern followers of the Yahweh-cult, they brag about how deep their faith is but they seem forget that a belief cannot contradict reality, and I am not even talking about theological implications. And this deliberate ignorance combined with a very demanding religiousness as expressed very often in this forum is just inacceptable and unworthy of any enlighted human being.

You accused all Catholics of not being Christian, not some. Official Catholic doctrine (which, you appear to not know, is one of two original doctrines of Christianity, and the other ain't Protestantism) acknowledges Jesus as God. You are wrong here. Please move on.
Psalm 137, final verse. (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=PS+137&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) Happy is the one who dashes the heads of Babylonians infants against rocks, for they are the enemy. I've given you the whole psalm, so you can see it in context and understand that I am not misquoting.
Contradictions within the Bible itself? How about the endless verses encouraging slavery, as opposed to Paul's "in Christ there is neither slave nor free" (I linked it further up this thread.) Or even that verse compared to the two (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EPH+6:5&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) places (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL+3:22&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) that Paul tells slaves to obey their masters, and the place (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=COL+4:1&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) that masters are instructed how to treat their slaves. What happened to there being no slaves?
How about the story (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=john+8%3A1-11&x=0&y=0) of Jesus protecting the adulterer from being stoned? He is contradicting the law (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LEV+20:10&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) of the scriptures.
Look, there is no denying that the Christian and Jewish scriptures are a source of inspiration to many, many people, and that they contain some deep truths about humanity, and about the divine. But that doesn't make every individual verse beyond question.

The way I read it the verse wasn't encouraging us to kill the Babylonians, it was saying that the people who repaid Babylon for their crimes against the Jews would be happy and kill their infants by smashing them against rocks
Psalm 137:8-9
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Not surprisingly you failed to include the book of Philemon in your links, the links that you did have said that you were to treat slaves fairly (Colossians 4:1) Since having a slave is unfair in itself, I would go as far to say that the Bible says not to have slaves. However the Bible does say to treat your master with respect.
Lastly Jesus was able to forgive the womans sin because Jesus is God.

The way I read it the verse wasn't encouraging us to kill the Babylonians, it was saying that the people who repaid Babylon for their crimes against the Jews would be happy and kill their infants by smashing them against rocks
Psalm 137:8-9
O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Not surprisingly you failed to include the book of Philemon in your links, the links that you did have said that you were to treat slaves fairly (Colossians 4:1) Since having a slave is unfair in itself, I would go as far to say that the Bible says not to have slaves. However the Bible does say to treat your master with respect.
Lastly Jesus was able to forgive the womans sin because Jesus is God.
Who said that Jesus was god and when?

@Likeminded Souls: Catholicism is not one of the two original Christian doctrines. First of all the distinction should be made between the followers of Jesus' disciples and family on the one hand and the followers of Paul on the other hand. From there you can distinguish the denominations developing out of the latter group: those leading up to the Eastern Churches and Catholicism.

Eden and the Garden within it are geographical locations right on this planet and are by no means symbolic. What is symbolic is the Yahweh/Adam/Eve story that the Hebrew Bible builds around that.

Really? Could you post a map link showing where it is? Because me, and quite a lot of other people have been looking for it for a while now...

First off I see that our definition of Christian differs. A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they accept Jesus' death on the cross as a way to bridge the gap of sin. Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians. How you manage to see this as bias or amusing I have no idea. Lastly I have no idea of where you got the idea that the earth is flat, that woman contribute nothing to children or where it says to smash babies heads against rocks. It is obvious to me that you know nothing about the Bible. When I say error I mean contradictions that the Bible makes with itself. Next time you want to claim that the Bible says something find a reference.
References to the four corners of the world, or the edge of the world, are from a time of a flat-earth philosophy. Job 38:13 says "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment."

A seal, by the way, is a flat stamp used as a signature.

Really? Could you post a map link showing where it is? Because me, and quite a lot of other people have been looking for it for a while now...Alright, I will prepare a map and an explanation.
This might take a day or so. In the meantime: where would you expect it to be? And why?

where did you study? I have often agreed with you but have found no place were a lesbian can study theology. Do you have any ideas besides the internet and the library. Why hasn't anyone taken on writing a new bible with the proper translation?

If I could get someone to pay me for it, I'd give up the day job (night-job, actually) and do it.

It would be a big job, if you wanted to do a real complete version - which was annotated, showing roots of phrasing and etymology of vocabulary, and, of course, you would want to build in a comprehensive concordance that included sources other than Henry, Gill, Coffman, etc. and that explored earlier pre-judaic evolution of the text....

Ahhh, my dream job.

But, unfortunately, it wouldn't pay my bills.... :(

Do you know where Mount Ararat is?

It's in Turkey.

Even if the christian god exists, that does not necessarily mean that the words of the Bible are his words, or even that he is an authority that must be obeyed in the way the churches are trying to teach folks.
And always remember that Moses, who allegedly wrote the first books of the Bible, had absolutely no clue about the Hebrew god(s) before his encounter with the Midianites.

Except that the Midianites do not follow the Hebrew God. And neither did the Egyptian who raised him. So he must have stumbled onto it somehow if you missed the burning bush part of the story.

Anyhoo. What you fail to realize is that we are no longer followers of the Old Law (that which is found in the Old Testament). We follow the New Law (that which is in the New Testament. This is why we no longer use animal sacrifices, or follow the "eye for an eye" rule. However, the New Law says many of the same things.

Romans 1:26-27 clearly states : "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Homosexuality is still considered a sin, and there are many other practoces that christians have begun to allow within their own people. However, the "moderate christians" you speak of are the ones like me, who follow the example of Jesus Christ. I love a sinner, regardless of their sin. I am a sinner, and so are you. A homosexual is a sinner. A Muslim is a sinner. All humans are, by nature, sinners. We naturally have the desire to have sex with almost every beautiful woman we meet. We naturally have the desire to want to punch a person in the face when they call us names. Some people naturally have the desire to lay with a person of the same gender. Therefore, I see Muslims, homosexuals, and Christians as all being sinners. I, however, as a moderate christian, love them anyways, and even though I disagree with them, I can still allow them to have their beliefs. I _will_ try to bring them to God. I _will_ _not_ force them to do anything. I will not point my finger at them, or invoke hellfire and brimstone. Why? Because Jesus did none of these things. He showed the utmost love and kindness to the worst of sinners. He brought them to him by treating them better than others did, and by overlooking their problems and seeing them as a human being who needed love and friendship. As a christian, I strive to be like Jesus, and do do my level best to act in his image.

The fundamentalist arguement (to me at least) makes the least sense in this passage:



Revelation 7:4-8
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.


Have fun arguing about this one- are only 144,000 people going to heaven, or is this just another instance of 12, a biblical number, since 12 x 12 is 144, and the number is 144,000?

Except that the Midianites do not follow the Hebrew God. And neither did the Egyptian who raised him. So he must have stumbled onto it somehow if you missed the burning bush part of the story.

Anyhoo. What you fail to realize is that we are no longer followers of the Old Law (that which is found in the Old Testament). We follow the New Law (that which is in the Old Testament. This is why we no longer use animal sacrifices, or follow the "eye for an eye" rule. However, the New Law says many of the same things.

Romans 1:26-27 clearly states : "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Homosexuality is still considered a sin, and there are many other practoces that christians have begun to allow within their own people. However, the "moderate christians" you speak of are the ones like me, who follow the example of Jesus Christ. I love a sinner, regardless of their sin. I am a sinner, and so are you. A homosexual is a sinner. A Muslim is a sinner. All humans are, by nature, sinners. We naturally have the desire to have sex with almost every beautiful woman we meet. We naturally have the desire to want to punch a person in the face when they call us names. Some people naturally have the desire to lay with a person of the same gender. Therefore, I see Muslims, homosexuals, and Christians as all being sinners. I, however, as a moderate christian, love them anyways, and even though I disagree with them, I can still allow them to have their beliefs. I _will_ try to bring them to God. I _will_ _not_ force them to do anything. I will not point my finger at them, or invoke hellfire and brimstone. Why? Because Jesus did none of these things. He showed the utmost love and kindness to the worst of sinners. He brought them to him by treating them better than others did, and by overlooking their problems and seeing them as a human being who needed love and friendship. As a christian, I strive to be like Jesus, and do do my level best to act in his image.The Midianites do not follow the Hebrew god? Tell me something: who prepares the sacrifices to Yahweh on the Israelites' way from the Sea of Reeds to the Sinai?

Correct, but Catholicism is full of traditions that distract it from fundamental teachings of Christianianity. For example there is good no biblical basis for the Pope, praying to Mary, mass, worship of Saints and angels, celibacy of nuns and priests, fasting on fridays and during Lent, kissing the pope's foot, worshipping of images and relics, use of "holy water" prayer beads, the inquistion, sale of indulgences, transubstantiation, bible forbidden to laypeople, doctrine of purgatory, the apocryphal books, immaculate conception of Mary, services conducted in Latin...
You get the idea. However some Catholics are Christians, but not all Catholics are Christians. If you are still interested look around and see if you can find the Catholic Covenant thread. A nation called Innocentious started it a couple months ago.

Some of the things you list there are quite outdated and no longer universally in use, such as services being conducted in Latin (I have always heard them in English), Bible forbidden to Laypeople (I have my Grandparents' bible... and everyone in my family has at least one per household if not one per person...).

As for the biblical basis for the Pope, that is tied into Jesus' saying that Peter was the rock upon which the Church should be built (a pun, since I believe in Greek petra means rock) -- that Peter should carry on as religious leader, in other words.

Similarly, the celibacy of priests and nuns were taken from the Gospel of Paul... 1 Corinthians 7

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

What he meant there, in my understanding, was that one should devote his or her life totally to Christ's teaching. However, he recognized that not all were called to the same degree -- (and if everyone were, Christianity would have died out pretty fast.) So, he said in his opinion people should remain celibate and symbolically marry Christ, but that people were human and that rather than be tormented with lust they should marry.

However you said moderate christians believe in some of the Bible or whatever like that. I believe in the Bible ,100% of it.

All absolutely literally?

So you decide to purposely misunderstnad me? The question is, where the image portayed by this god comes from and who the people were to worship him before the Christians and before the Jews and before the Hebrews. And as long as one cannot answer this, any discussion about the nature of god and the implications for humankind are pointless.

Geeze, I'm not trying to purposely misunderstand you. The God I happen to worship, the good-old-fashoned big-white-beard-and-flowing-robes God is just an image. It's my brain giving the unthinkable a bit of form. Everyone on Earth has an image of God, provided they belive in him.

As for the second part of your fairly insulting response, I do think I know where that God and the people who worship him come from. Of course, I'm only 22 and there's a lot I don't know. But my research of pre-history and mythology have come to certain conclusions. Disagree with these all you like, they're the conclusions I've come to. I appologize for the lack of references. I don't reseach theology on the internet - I read books. Personal preference.

1. A monotheistic God has been worshiped my man since our earliest days. Prehistoric man believed in an all-creator, and "something" after death. They didn't know what happened after death, and God was just where the world came from. Pretty simple stuff, really. But there is a strong chance that the belief was there from the very beginning.
2. Athiests have existed for exactly as long as religion - even if you disagree with statement 1. There have always been spiritual humans, and non-spiritual humans. It's NATURAL. It's not the work of the devil, or proof that God doesn't exist. It's just one more distinction in human society.
3. As time went by, religion, rites, and rituals grew around the very basic beliefs of prehistoric man. God split into multiple gods, then came back together for some. Phallic symbols and lunan cycles were used to describe the world in general, but these are merely rituals - not belief. I honestly do believe God is unchanging - only man's created image of him changes.

This is where the image comes from, and where worshippers came from before the Jewish faith. I fail to see why discussion is "pointless". That's why most of us are here to begin with, apart from the posters who just want to tick people off or troll.

Geeze, I'm not trying to purposely misunderstand you. The God I happen to worship, the good-old-fashoned big-white-beard-and-flowing-robes God is just an image. It's my brain giving the unthinkable a bit of form. Everyone on Earth has an image of God, provided they belive in him.

As for the second part of your fairly insulting response, I do think I know where that God and the people who worship him come from. Of course, I'm only 22 and there's a lot I don't know. But my research of pre-history and mythology have come to certain conclusions. Disagree with these all you like, they're the conclusions I've come to. I appologize for the lack of references. I don't reseach theology on the internet - I read books. Personal preference.

1. A monotheistic God has been worshiped my man since our earliest days. Prehistoric man believed in an all-creator, and "something" after death. They didn't know what happened after death, and God was just where the world came from. Pretty simple stuff, really. But there is a strong chance that the belief was there from the very beginning.
2. Athiests have existed for exactly as long as religion - even if you disagree with statement 1. There have always been spiritual humans, and non-spiritual humans. It's NATURAL. It's not the work of the devil, or proof that God doesn't exist. It's just one more distinction in human society.
3. As time went by, religion, rites, and rituals grew around the very basic beliefs of prehistoric man. God split into multiple gods, then came back together for some. Phallic symbols and lunan cycles were used to describe the world in general, but these are merely rituals - not belief. I honestly do believe God is unchanging - only man's created image of him changes.

This is where the image comes from, and where worshippers came from before the Jewish faith. I fail to see why discussion is "pointless". That's why most of us are here to begin with, apart from the posters who just want to tick people off or troll.The "natural" approach to the world has always been polytheistic, seeing the different forces of nature at work. Even for the Hebrews and their predecessors there was no monotheistic view of the world. You should take a closer look at the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheon and you will find Yah as well as El therein, and you must not forget that the Hebrews have originated in Mesopotamia and not somewhere in the Levant.

The "natural" approach to the world has always been polytheistic, seeing the different forces of nature at work. Even for the Hebrews and their predecessors there was no monotheistic view of the world. You should take a closer look at the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheon and you will find Yah as well as El therein, and you must not forget that the Hebrews have originated in Mesopotamia and not somewhere in the Levant.

I'm referring to even farther back than that. I know that part of history was polytheistic.

The "natural" approach to the world has always been polytheistic, seeing the different forces of nature at work. Even for the Hebrews and their predecessors there was no monotheistic view of the world. You should take a closer look at the Sumerian and Akkadian pantheon and you will find Yah as well as El therein, and you must not forget that the Hebrews have originated in Mesopotamia and not somewhere in the Levant.


Mithras.

Roccan, "Ehr, the bible was written, edited, cut and collaged by church, not by God."


Yes I know. That is one of the reasons that I feel the way I do. I spent some time trying to research what was included and what was left out. I never fully got to the bottom of it. I did find that most of it was for the power of the Catholic Church. However, we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christ's message does shine through.

I always feel like I should point the following out. Christ doesn't have the sole claim on everything that is good, sweet, beautiful... The people who have written religious works were the same sort of people you could find writing religious works for other religions. They express "the christian message" only there it is "the buddhist message", "allah's or mohammed's message", ... Just pointing this out. It really bugs me when people talk about good and call it "Christian".

The only one true faith is that of the Christians. So much so that the Christiandom Nations have been attacked from the outset. By spear or evil words. The attack on America hasn't just come from the likes of Al Qaida, but the attacks have come from within, not to mention the anti-God Soviets who treatened America during the Cold War. Isn't it Ironic, the war has already been won. Our Messiah Yahsha has beaten Satan, he has lost.

All other Religions are false, made up, corrupt. Sad fact it may be, but it is true. Also the whole "Judeo-Christian" faith is complete crap, Christianity didn't spawn from Judaism, the Jews have never been the Israelites as told in the Bible. They follow Jewism which isn't the same faith as Abraham and the Prophets followed.

The only one true faith is that of the Christians. So much so that the Christiandom Nations have been attacked from the outset. Whether by spear or evil words. The attack on America hasn't just come from the likes of Al Qaida, but the attacks have come from within, not to mention the anti-God Soviets who treatened America during the Cold War.

All other Religions are false, made up, corrupt. Sad fact it may be, but it is true. Also the whole "Judeo-Christian" faith is complete crap, Christianity didn't spawn from Judaism, the Jews have never been the Israelites as told in the Bible. They follow Jewism which isn't the same faith as Abraham and the Prophets followed.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Its like....you really believe that....THAT WAS HILARIOUS!!!

The only one true faith is that of the Christians. So much so that the Christiandom Nations have been attacked from the outset. Whether by spear or evil words. The attack on America hasn't just come from the likes of Al Qaida, but the attacks have come from within, not to mention the anti-God Soviets who treatened America during the Cold War.

All other Religions are false, made up, corrupt. Sad fact it may be, but it is true. Also the whole "Judeo-Christian" faith is complete crap, Christianity didn't spawn from Judaism, the Jews have never been the Israelites as told in the Bible. They follow Jewism which isn't the same faith as Abraham and the Prophets followed.

That's harsh, man. What good do you actually expect this to accomplish? You're just disrespecting everyone else, and you're making Christianity look pig-headed.

I always feel like I should point the following out. Christ doesn't have the sole claim on everything that is good, sweet, beautiful... The people who have written religious works were the same sort of people you could find writing religious works for other religions. They express "the christian message" only there it is "the buddhist message", "allah's or mohammed's message", ... Just pointing this out. It really bugs me when people talk about good and call it "Christian".

I think he may have meant "Without Sin" - Mohammed did sin, and Allah, and Budda are nothing more than Idols.

I think he may have meant "Without Sin" - Mohammed did sin, and Allah, and Budda are nothing more than Idols.

Allah is not an Idol. That's coming from a Catholic.

That's harsh, man. What good do you actually expect this to accomplish? You're just disrespecting everyone else, and you're making Christianity look pig-headed.

To be Christian means you must follow the laws set down, be Baptized and Believe. However that doesn't mean the old laws are "forgotten", do not ally with the enemy. And while I may have offended others, to them I say sorry but what I believe is that of my post. Fact is, we were told not to side with those who didn't believe in YHWH. That doesn't mean I disrespect them.

Allah is not an Idol. That's coming from a Catholic.

Thou shalt have NO other Gods before me - Exodus 20:3

To be Christian means you must follow the laws set down, be Baptized and Believe. However that doesn't mean the old laws are "forgotten", do not ally with the enemy. And while I may have offended others, to them I say sorry but what I believe is that of my post. Fact is, we were told not to side with those who didn't believe in YHWH. That doesn't mean I disrespect them.

But in your zeal to do what's right, you're actually managing to turn even more people away from Christ. YHWH is one name of God. There are so many... and followers of God's other aspects are good people. I know many. I'm Irish, so I believe in faeries as well. They call God "Unity". In my relatively brief education of Islam, I have not once seen any significant difference between Allah and YHWH. Vikings believed in Odin "The Allfather". How could Odin possibly be anything but a warrior's image of Spiritual goodness? What's important? Honor and glory (in that order). That's what Odin stands for. The "devil" is Loki. But Loki is responsible for everything in the universe existing. Just like Satan.

I ask you, as a fellow Christian (or at least a Christian-like Catholic), consider this simple set of statements:

God is timeless.
The various cultures of the world view him differently.
All cultures can be part of the True Faith.

Can those three things all happen at the same time? I have confidence they do. My only point is not to be too quick to condemn others.

Thou shalt have NO other Gods before me - Exodus 20:3

I most certainly don't have any other Gods before him. And I believe that I serve him well.

But in your zeal to do what's right, you're actually managing to turn even more people away from Christ. YHWH is one name of God. There are so many... and followers of God's other aspects are good people. I know many. I'm Irish, so I believe in faeries as well. They call God "Unity". In my relatively brief education of Islam, I have not once seen any significant difference between Allah and YHWH. Vikings believed in Odin "The Allfather". How could Odin possibly be anything but a warrior's image of Spiritual goodness? What's important? Honor and glory (in that order). That's what Odin stands for. The "devil" is Loki. But Loki is responsible for everything in the universe existing. Just like Satan.

I ask you, as a fellow Christian (or at least a Christian-like Catholic), consider this simple set of statements:

God is timeless.
The various cultures of the world view him differently.
All cultures can be part of the True Faith.

Can those three things all happen at the same time? I have confidence they do. My only point is not to be too quick to condemn others.

Then why did he have our ancestors march into Canann and order them to kill every man, women, and child? Why did YHWH release the plague on the Egyptians? Because our ancestors were in bondage to them, the Egyptians just like the Cannites etc worshipped Idols.

Then why did he have our ancestors march into Canann and order them to kill every man, women, and child? Why did YHWH release the plague on the Egyptians? Because our ancestors were in bondage to them, the Egyptians just like the Cannites etc worshipped Idols.

The Egyptians were corrupt, selfish, and arrogant. You're correct to a point: I don't know why God chose those Egyptian slaves to bring about the new message. I'm still learning. Congrats, you got me there.

However, you haven't told me why Islam is a false religion. I'd really like to discuss that.

The Egyptians were corrupt, selfish, and arrogant. You're correct to a point: I don't know why God chose those Egyptian slaves to bring about the new message. I'm still learning. Congrats, you got me there.

However, you haven't told me why Islam is a false religion. I'd really like to discuss that.

Well Islam is false because it isn't the same religion as the Israelites (YHWH's chosen people)

They became moden day Christians, the reason Islam is false is because they don't accept Yahsha as the Messiah. Which is why YHWH's religion is the only true one.

Well Islam is false because it isn't the same religion as the Israelites (YHWH's chosen people)

They became moden day Christians, the reason Islam is false is because they don't accept Yahsha as the Messiah. Which is why YHWH's religion is the only true one.

Ok. Thanks. I think I'm done for a while. I'm pretty sure the two of us aren't going to find much common ground here, so I'm just going to be the first to agree to disagree. For me, it's all about the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were heritics and half-breeds. If you so much as touched one, you were ritually "unclean". There was no people the Jews hated more. But Christ said that those people are the ones that make it into heaven. Just to conclude our string of posts, I simply believe all human beings are right in their beliefs. Jewish Mystics (Kabbolists?) say it best: "All life comes from God. To God all life will return."

Ok. Thanks. I think I'm done for a while. I'm pretty sure the two of us aren't going to find much common ground here, so I'm just going to be the first to agree to disagree. For me, it's all about the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were heritics and half-breeds. If you so much as touched one, you were ritually "unclean". There was no people the Jews hated more. But Christ said that those people are the ones that make it into heaven. Just to conclude our string of posts, I simply believe all human beings are right in their beliefs. Jewish Mystics (Kabbolists?) say it best: "All life comes from God. To God all life will return."

Sorry to correct you, but you should have said "Israelite" instead of Jews, unlike most people would have you believe, the 2 terms are NOT interchangeable. They are not the same people. Yahsha came to the Israelites, but didn't turn away the Non-Israelites, look at the Greek Women whom he saved her son.

The only one true faith is that of the Christians. So much so that the Christiandom Nations have been attacked from the outset. By spear or evil words. The attack on America hasn't just come from the likes of Al Qaida, but the attacks have come from within, not to mention the anti-God Soviets who treatened America during the Cold War. Isn't it Ironic, the war has already been won. Our Messiah Yahsha has beaten Satan, he has lost.

All other Religions are false, made up, corrupt. Sad fact it may be, but it is true. Also the whole "Judeo-Christian" faith is complete crap, Christianity didn't spawn from Judaism, the Jews have never been the Israelites as told in the Bible. They follow Jewism which isn't the same faith as Abraham and the Prophets followed.

Damn, do you burn history books as a hobby? Judaism was the first monotheistic religion on the Arabic peninsula (except for one pharaonic religion that consisted of the worship of only that pharao, all other gods were banned then, hasn't got anything to do with the later, real monotheistic religions (or maybe it does, but one hasn't made links yet)).

Jesus was born a Jew, you weiner, its in your bible. He even had his dick sircumsized (this was normal in that area and time). Christianity wasn't invented by Jesus, but after his dead (sorry reserection and flight to heaven) by his followers. In the 6th century Islam spawned from Christianity, Judaism and ancient Arabic polytheism.

What are you, an American zealot? (no offence to other Americans, but my feeling tells me many of the fundamentalist Christians with internet connection are living in the south of the USA).

What!? Jesus = God? No, Jesus is the Son of God. "Jesus Christ" means something, I can't entirely remember, but something LIKE The Son of God. Anyway, I'm not entirely certain about this, so what do you have to say about this?
God is The Father, The Son AND The Holy Spirit
I think is symbolizes the Creator (father), Future (son) & Love (holy spirit)

Sorry to correct you, but you should have said "Israelite" instead of Jews, unlike most people would have you believe, the 2 terms are NOT interchangeable. They are not the same people. Yahsha came to the Israelites, but didn't turn away the Non-Israelites, look at the Greek Women whom he saved her son.Actually at the time of Jesus there were no Israelites in the Levant any more. The northern territoy (former Israel) instead was occupied by Samarians, who, inspite of their service to Yahweh, were not regarded as "real" Jews by the (more than corrupt) Jerusalem Temple authorities.
And since Yahweh's support was transferred from Israel (Saul/Labayu) to Yehud (David/Dadua) long before, the question of Israel is pointless anyways.

BTW have you ever read the works of Josephus Flavius who took the scriptures of the Jerusalem Temple into his keeping when the Temple was destroyed, and who had access to all the scriptures of the remaining resources in Alexandria (the by far greatest Jewish community of the era) ?

What!? Jesus = God? No, Jesus is the Son of God. "Jesus Christ" means something, I can't entirely remember, but something LIKE The Son of God. Anyway, I'm not entirely certain about this, so what do you have to say about this?

Wonderfull. You started a discussion that was solved with the Council of Nicaea under Emperor Constantinus the Great in 325. They discussed the following problem. Are God, Jesus and the Holy spirit one and the same? OR are God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit alike but not the same? OK it seems a bit of a stupid discussion, but they really made that distinction. Is Jesus the same as God or is he created by God as his image.

In the second century a variation on Christianity developed, Manicheism (I hope I'm using the good terms here, I'm not English). Those manicheists believed that Jesus was one of the forms of God. God came to the world in the form of Jesus. So God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same entity. But that created a new problem. If Jesus and God are the same, then Jesus wasn't human, he was God, he couldn't suffer and die at the cross. This led to mass discussions because the symbol of crucifiction (Jesus suffering and dieing for his people) lost its power.

In the fourth century a priest named Arius found the sollution. Followers of his were called Arianists, followers of Arianism (almost every Germanic tribe was converted to this form of Christianity). Arianism told that Jesus was created to the image of God, but not the same as God. So Jesus wasn't completely divine, he could suffer and die at the cross for his people. But many were opposed to this belief, because it made Jesus inferior to God.

Eventually Arianism was declared pagan and church chose the trinity being equal as the right belief (this was in 325 in Nicaea). So they had to reconvert al the Germanic tribes to :D. Anyhow, according to church Jesus = God.

It struck me as odd too when I first heard (on an american soap or something) Jesus being worshipped as he were God. Jesus was born from Mary. Mary is his mother. God is his father. But God is Jesus, so he was doing it with his mother? Strange... :p (just bugging, but all the previous is true :) )

To be Christian means you must follow the laws set down, be Baptized and Believe. However that doesn't mean the old laws are "forgotten", do not ally with the enemy. And while I may have offended others, to them I say sorry but what I believe is that of my post. Fact is, we were told not to side with those who didn't believe in YHWH. That doesn't mean I disrespect them.

So you don't disrespect people who don't have exactly the same beliefs as hou have, but you are calling them your enemy. You are as shortsighted as an Islam suicide bomber.

Wonderfull. You started a discussion that was solved with the Council of Nicaea under Emperor Constantinus the Great in 325. They discussed the following problem. Are God, Jesus and the Holy spirit one and the same? OR are God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit alike but not the same? OK it seems a bit of a stupid discussion, but they really made that distinction. Is Jesus the same as God or is he created by God as his image.

In the second century a variation on Christianity developed, Manicheism (I hope I'm using the good terms here, I'm not English). Those manicheists believed that Jesus was one of the forms of God. God came to the world in the form of Jesus. So God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one and the same entity. But that created a new problem. If Jesus and God are the same, then Jesus wasn't human, he was God, he couldn't suffer and die at the cross. This led to mass discussions because the symbol of crucifiction (Jesus suffering and dieing for his people) lost its power.

In the fourth century a priest named Arius found the sollution. Followers of his were called Arianists, followers of Arianism (almost every Germanic tribe was converted to this form of Christianity). Arianism told that Jesus was created to the image of God, but not the same as God. So Jesus wasn't completely divine, he could suffer and die at the cross for his people. But many were opposed to this belief, because it made Jesus inferior to God.

Eventually Arianism was declared pagan and church chose the trinity being equal as the right belief (this was in 325 in Nicaea). So they had to reconvert al the Germanic tribes to :D. Anyhow, according to church Jesus = God.

It struck me as odd too when I first heard (on an american soap or something) Jesus being worshipped as he were God. Jesus was born from Mary. Mary is his mother. God is his father. But God is Jesus, so he was doing it with his mother? Strange... :p (just bugging, but all the previous is true :) )But there is yet another solution to this problem. Maybe Jesus was just a manifestation of god, just like all the well-known Egyptian deities are only manifestations of a sole divine force ? (that is btw also the reason why there are in ancient Egypt so many gods and even just facets of gods that do not have clearly assigned "responsibilities" like gods of other regions, and that's why there was never a problem recognizing the king as a true living god)

Vikings believed in Odin "The Allfather". How could Odin possibly be anything but a warrior's image of Spiritual goodness? What's important? Honor and glory (in that order). That's what Odin stands for. The "devil" is Loki. But Loki is responsible for everything in the universe existing. Just like Satan.


I almost agree with your views, but the Northern Germanic pantheon was far more complex than you're stating it. Your view seems a bit influenced by later Christian views. In order to make converting the Vikings easier, Church made Odin God and Loki satan. Loki was a bit more than just pure evil at first, he was more chaos, the source of life, something like that. But like in every religion things evolve, less gray, more black and white: good or bad, not sometimes good or sometimes bad.

Some very nice Viking art was found where Jesus was pictured as Odin with his famous spear.

But there is yet another solution to this problem. Maybe Jesus was just a manifestation of god, just like all the well-known Egyptian deities are only manifestations of a sole divine force ? (that is btw also the reason why there are in ancient Egypt so many gods and even just facets of gods that do not have clearly assigned "responsibilities" like gods of other regions, and that's why there was never a problem recognizing the king as a true living god)

Well ehm I'm not English but with Jesus being a form of God I meant Jesus being a manifestation of God. Still means God = Jesus. Manicheism in his pure form. ;) :D

Well ehm I'm not English but with Jesus being a form of God I meant Jesus being a manifestation of God. Still means God = Jesus. Manicheism in his pure form. ;) :DStill there is the Egyptian concept, which I believe is clearly what has been implemented for the dogma of trinity in the Christian religions. The point is: the problem cannot really be solved in another way. If Jesus was immortal (regardless if he knew it or not) his sacrifice would have been pointless.

All absolutely literally?

That's called Fundamentalism. The Bible was written by God through humans. For instance:
We all know the story of the fish and the bread, feeding thousands of people and filling several baskets. This story is written in two of the gospels- one says 3,000 people and the other says 5,000.
Fundamentalists believe it happened twice- once with 3,000 and once with 5,000.
Nonfundamentalists (for lack of a better term) believe it happened once, and the discrepency is blamed on human estimation.

It struck me as odd too when I first heard (on an american soap or something) Jesus being worshipped as he were God. Jesus was born from Mary. Mary is his mother. God is his father. But God is Jesus, so he was doing it with his mother? Strange... :p (just bugging, but all the previous is true :) )
I don't know what religion it is from (some African I think), but in their belief the earth was created when the God had married his right hand and made love to it.... YUK :p

God made promises with the people of Isreal but each time they ended up breaking the promise. Such as the 10 commandments. God each time has had to change things so we could get closer to him. So God has been constant and always striving to reach us. But it is us that make it difficult for him to get to us. The last thing God did for us was send his son to die on the cross for us. God knew full well what he was doing. So did Jesus, so when he died on the cross it was to pretty much to have an end all to the promises. So that way we'd have a more perminant way to get to God. Instead of having to do all the things you have to do in the old testiment. Jesus started everything over and said "this is the way you should live, Some of the ideas of the old testiment are fine but you people are taking them to the extreme. Your being hipocritical about them"
Thats just what I think, I think that if your going to believe something believe 100% of it. Other wise whats the point? It's kind of like building a bridge half way across the river. You've got to build it the rest of the way befor you can walk across it. Other wise your gonna just fall in and get wet.
Put that into the context of this argument.
If you don't believe in your faith mainly Christaintiy 100% of the way. Your just going to fall and get bogged down. You won't be able to see clearly. Because the water/world will have clouded your vision and the current will have pushed you under.
Yeah thats my 2cents =\

Erinin, You could have tried a LITTLE BIT harder to be fair.

Your link is not the official site for Christian Science (creepy)
http://www.carm.org/christian_science/csdoctrine.htm
Yours is a site that ATTACKS Christian Science.

Here is the official site for anyone who may be interested. http://www.tfccs.com/index.jhtml;jsessionid=EFOO15QJ1NSUTKGL4L2SFEQ

..., and Budda are nothing more than Idols.

umm, Siddhartha Gotama, Buddha, was just a man, not an idol. Any person claiming to be a buddhist, who "prays" to Buddha, is NOT a Buddhist.

A buddhist is a person who has accepted the 4 noble truths, and adhere's to the 8 fold path, which requires no belief in any God. Hence the reason that a Christian, Jew or Muslim (and several are) can also be a Buddhist without breaking their oaths to the Deity of their choice.

for a good discussion on this, try Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat
Hanh.

The only one true faith is that of the Christians. So much so that the Christiandom Nations have been attacked from the outset. By spear or evil words. The attack on America hasn't just come from the likes of Al Qaida, but the attacks have come from within, not to mention the anti-God Soviets who treatened America during the Cold War. Isn't it Ironic, the war has already been won. Our Messiah Yahsha has beaten Satan, he has lost.

Yes, Christianity is well and pleasant *coughCrusadescough*
Attacks by Al Qaeda are not originally founded by religious beliefs. bin Laden disliked the policies being used throughout the Middle East by outside countries but once christians started proclaiming an attack on their beliefs and began religiously motivated movements against him he declared jihad.

All other Religions are false, made up, corrupt. Sad fact it may be, but it is true.

Christianity was made up from other religions as well. The cross has been around WELL before Christianity's existance, as far back as the Stone Age. It was first attributed to the making of fire (by rubbing two sticks together) and ancient man felt a need to remember this act. Also, many religions before Christianity have had "Saviors", men rising from the dead to overcome evil, and doing "miracles". Hell, most of Psalms was copied WORD FOR WORD from ancient Egyptian (I think it was Egyptian) texts! On top of that, were actually almost 240 different books that were being considered when man was putting together the Bible. Man decided which ones were "Holy" and threw out the rest. How exactly does that make the Bible the word of God?

I don't know what religion it is from (some African I think), but in their belief the earth was created when the God had married his right hand and made love to it.... YUK :p

:D I "marry" my right hand regularly :D

The last thing God did for us was send his son to die on the cross for us. God knew full well what he was doing. So did Jesus, so when he died on the cross it was to pretty much to have an end all to the promises.

Ehr...You are american yes? God = Jesus. So God sent his son...himself (God = Jesus) to die at the cross...but God can't suffer pain, he isn't human, he can't bleed and he sure as hell can't die (I mean in the eyes of a believer he can't die, Nietzsche on the other hand has a way to kill God :D). So to pose to you the question that has bothered Christianity since the dawn of time. Is God = Jesus or is Jesus the son of God. If Jesus is divine or God...than he didn't suffer at the cross and the "sacrifice for the people" thing lost its meaning. :D This is a theological discussion worthy of very scholared clergymen, so I wouldn't be to much upset. Oh the bible is filled with contradictory statements. How I like it. You can pick one verse to neutralise the other. You can defend even the greatest dictators actions if you choose the good verses. So easy to manipulate your folowers. The bible is bliss... ;) It makes me think of the Muslim interpretation of Jihaad. Either it is an inner strugle to constantly keep the balance between the faith in Allah and yourself or it is (according to West hating fundamentalists) a war against everyone that isn't Muslim and doesn't want to convert to the Islam. Yes yes, abuse of religious writings it is a mundial thing.

Sorry if I sounded a bit patronizing, but I'm in a very cynical mood.

Still there is the Egyptian concept, which I believe is clearly what has been implemented for the dogma of trinity in the Christian religions. The point is: the problem cannot really be solved in another way. If Jesus was immortal (regardless if he knew it or not) his sacrifice would have been pointless.

I totally agree with your way of thinking. But I don't believe in the bible as being a true story. I do think you can find in it the basics and the contradictions of every religion. For instance "love thy neighbour" (or something), "kill the heathen pigs", "thy shall not kill" :D I don't need a bible to be a good person. I wouldn't hurt a fly.

Hell, most of Psalms was copied WORD FOR WORD from ancient Egyptian (I think it was Egyptian) texts! On top of that, were actually almost 240 different books that were being considered when man was putting together the Bible. Man decided which ones were "Holy" and threw out the rest. How exactly does that make the Bible the word of God?

If you mean that one copied and translated pre-christian Egyptian religious works I think you're mistaking. The Old Testement is a selection from the Tora or some of the other Jewish scrolls. Maybe a Jewish person on this forum could give more info on the subject. But it is true that almost every book in the bible was translated. Some of the followers of Jesus wrote in ancient Greek, others in ancient Hebrew, some in Latin. With the Islamic conquerings, many of the ancient religious documents came to be in the hands of the Arabs. They weren't being destroyed but were translated from Greek and Latin to Arabic by the very developed Arabic scholars. When Spain was conquered by the Arabs, the West, that still was recovering from the massive impact of the Germanic invasion after the fall of the Western Roman empire, wanted to retrieve as much ancient knowledge as possible by trading writings with the much more scholared Arabs. One used arabic Jews to translate the Arabic writings to Hebrew and western Jews to eventually translate the Hebrew translations to the sacred language, Latin. All those translations caused quite a few mistakes, wrongly interpreted or translated sentences were common in those newly retrieved documents. For example one speaks of a certain hermit that lived for so many years eating but grasshoppers in the dessert while grasshoppers was a wrong translation for some sort of eadable bean that grows on certain trees around the Mediteranian. :p Sigh... I never knew this knowledge would come in handy :D

It is true, the bible was made from a selection from hundreds of documents. The apocrypha (rejected writings) were destroyed or hidden by Church. Many people wrote the life of Jesus but we only have a few evangelists in the Bible.

If you mean that one copied and translated pre-christian Egyptian religious works I think you're mistaking. The Old Testement is a selection from the Tora or some of the other Jewish scrolls. Maybe a Jewish person on this forum could give more info on the subject. But it is true that almost every book in the bible was translated. Some of the followers of Jesus wrote in ancient Greek, others in ancient Hebrew, some in Latin. With the Islamic conquerings, many of the ancient religious documents came to be in the hands of the Arabs. They weren't being destroyed but were translated from Greek and Latin to Arabic by the very developed Arabic scholars. When Spain was conquered by the Arabs, the West, that still was recovering from the massive impact of the Germanic invasion after the fall of the Western Roman empire, wanted to retrieve as much ancient knowledge as possible by trading writings with the much more scholared Arabs. One used arabic Jews to translate the Arabic writings to Hebrew and western Jews to eventually translate the Hebrew translations to the sacred language, Latin. All those translations caused quite a few mistakes, wrongly interpreted or translated sentences were common in those newly retrieved documents. For example one speaks of a certain hermit that lived for so many years eating but grasshoppers in the dessert while grasshoppers was a wrong translation for some sort of eadable bean that grows on certain trees around the Mediteranian. :p Sigh... I never knew this knowledge would come in handy :D

It is true, the bible was made from a selection from hundreds of documents. The apocrypha (rejected writings) were destroyed or hidden by Church. Many people wrote the life of Jesus but we only have a few evangelists in the Bible.
1. The Psalm referred to here has in fact very close similarities to one of the praises to the sun by Akhenaten. I will look up which one that is.
2. You must not forget that - although the Hebrew texts narrating the ancient history of the Jews and their progenitors have already been around for some 700 years - the texts now contained in the Bible (OT that is) were only assembled into one collection during the Ptolemaic period of Egypt. There in Alexandria, where the by far largest Jewish community of ancient times lived, most of the texts were heavily redacted before they were taken up into the collection. It must clearly be statet that alterations of the texts have not only been made due to mistakes, but also out of purpose to streamline the monotheistic concept, that had in no way always been consistent throughout Jewish/Israelite/Hebrew history.

Some Catholics do not accept Jesus as God, an therefore are not Christians. How you manage to see this as bias or amusing I have no idea.

You obviously know nothing about Catholocism, as claiming that Jesus is not God is heresy and an offense punishable by excommunication.

where it says to smash babies heads against rocks. It is obvious to me that you know nothing about the Bible.

This is most likely in the OT. In Exodus and Leviticus it also says that you can sell your daughter into slavery, that if you kill a neighboor's slave you must give him a cow, that if you kill your own slave that is ok as long as he survives at least one day and that you should be stoned to death for wearing clothing made of two different cloths. It also states that if a woman is raped within the borders of a town, she shall be put to death with her rapist. It also states that a woman is ceremonially unclean for twice the amount of time if she has a girl child instead of a boy.

When I say error I mean contradictions that the Bible makes with itself. Next time you want to claim that the Bible says something find a reference.

All you need for this is to read Genesis all the way through. There are two separate Creation stories in which things happen in two separate orders. Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:2 (I think) is the "priestly" creation story (the "7 days" story). Genesis 2 begins the Adam and Eve story, in which things are created in an entirely different order and instead of all humankind being made at once, only one man and one woman are made.

The Gospels have different time periods for Jesus' birth.

In the OT, God tells the Jews to commit genocide when they fight to take over the land. They are, in fact, punished for not killing all the women and children. In the NT, God says "love thy enemy" and tells stories meant to invoke respect for other cultures.

There are hundreds of contradictions in the Bible, and this is why you must take much of it with a grain of salt.

If you mean that one copied and translated pre-christian Egyptian religious works I think you're mistaking.

You think wrong. (http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html)

It is true, the bible was made from a selection from hundreds of documents. The apocrypha (rejected writings) were destroyed or hidden by Church. Many people wrote the life of Jesus but we only have a few evangelists in the Bible.

Exactly why the Bible shouldn't be considered true or even be used as a religious doctrine. If man was the final declarer of what is or is not holy than how can anyone believe that such words are straight from God?

Actually at the time of Jesus there were no Israelites in the Levant any more. The northern territoy (former Israel) instead was occupied by Samarians, who, inspite of their service to Yahweh, were not regarded as "real" Jews by the (more than corrupt) Jerusalem Temple authorities.
And since Yahweh's support was transferred from Israel (Saul/Labayu) to Yehud (David/Dadua) long before, the question of Israel is pointless anyways.

BTW have you ever read the works of Josephus Flavius who took the scriptures of the Jerusalem Temple into his keeping when the Temple was destroyed, and who had access to all the scriptures of the remaining resources in Alexandria (the by far greatest Jewish community of the era) ?

YHWH never abandoned the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel, he made a covernant with them and he doesn't go back on it. During the time of the Messiah the 10 Northern tribes had been captured, because they lost faith in YHWH. Hence Yahsha told the Apostles to seek out and find the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL!

And also, the Jews are not from Yehud, they are not of Yacob/Israel. And during David's time, there was no House of Yehuda, it was all one house, after his death it split. The term Jew first came about in scripture around 600 years after his death in 2nd Kings.

And no I haven't heard of that guy, but what does it matter? Yahsha was not their messiah because he didn't come unto them. The true Israelites, of the 12 tribes knew who the messiah was and followed him. While some may have been led astray because the JEWISH Priest were not following the laws, how can the blind led the blind?

Yes, Christianity is well and pleasant *coughCrusadescough*
Attacks by Al Qaeda are not originally founded by religious beliefs. bin Laden disliked the policies being used throughout the Middle East by outside countries but once christians started proclaiming an attack on their beliefs and began religiously motivated movements against him he declared jihad.



Christianity was made up from other religions as well. The cross has been around WELL before Christianity's existance, as far back as the Stone Age. It was first attributed to the making of fire (by rubbing two sticks together) and ancient man felt a need to remember this act. Also, many religions before Christianity have had "Saviors", men rising from the dead to overcome evil, and doing "miracles". Hell, most of Psalms was copied WORD FOR WORD from ancient Egyptian (I think it was Egyptian) texts! On top of that, were actually almost 240 different books that were being considered when man was putting together the Bible. Man decided which ones were "Holy" and threw out the rest. How exactly does that make the Bible the word of God?

Do you even had any clue of why the Crusades were started? I'll tell you, the Arab armies were attacking Greece, a ally of the Christian Europe. The Greek leader pleaded to the Pope to help, and the Pope sent the Crusades to defend Greece. They continued south to push the Arab armies as far south as possible.

And big deal, the fact that the cross was before Christian times doesn't mean crap. Heck the ROMANS were the ones who carried it out, on behalf of the Jew Priests.

Actually at the time of Jesus there were no Israelites in the Levant any more. The northern territoy (former Israel) instead was occupied by Samarians, who, inspite of their service to Yahweh, were not regarded as "real" Jews by the (more than corrupt) Jerusalem Temple authorities.
And since Yahweh's support was transferred from Israel (Saul/Labayu) to Yehud (David/Dadua) long before, the question of Israel is pointless anyways.

BTW have you ever read the works of Josephus Flavius who took the scriptures of the Jerusalem Temple into his keeping when the Temple was destroyed, and who had access to all the scriptures of the remaining resources in Alexandria (the by far greatest Jewish community of the era) ?

The Term "Real Jew" is a term based on a people not talked about in the Bible. The Bible speaks of the Hebrews, who were known as Israelites. They became the people in America, Great Britain and have fulfilled many of the prophacies. The Anglo-Israelites. The Jews haven't fulfilled the prophacies set down, nor do they follow the word of the Messiah Yahsha. They also didn't follow the word of YHWH, because they are not his people.

If Jesus is divine or God...than he didn't suffer at the cross and the "sacrifice for the people" thing lost its meaning.

Of course, the Abelardian theory of the atonement helps with this "problem," as his view does not involve Christ being a sacrifice to God to make up for people's sins.

Also the whole "Judeo-Christian" faith is complete crap, Christianity didn't spawn from Judaism, the Jews have never been the Israelites as told in the Bible. They follow Jewism which isn't the same faith as Abraham and the Prophets followed.

How then do you account for this:

http://www.christianchallenge.org/ask/TorahOldTestament.html

The Old Testament and The Torah are IDENTICAL. Therefore, your thesis that Christianity did not spawn from Judaism is flawed.

How then do you account for this:

http://www.christianchallenge.org/ask/TorahOldTestament.html

The Old Testament and The Torah are IDENTICAL. Therefore, your thesis that Christianity did not spawn from Judaism is flawed.

This is my last post before I go to bed. However let me say that there is no such religion called "Judaism" - there is Jew-ism, where the Jews took the religion of the Hebrew Israelites and added parts and replaced important words with other words. The biggest ones would be replace Israel for the term Jew, which is highly flawed considering the Jews are not from any of the sons of Yacob/Israel. The Torah laws must be observed by Christians, however to say Christianity spawned from Judaism is false. The Israelites (12 Tribes) became Christian, apart from those still lost, which we will find. The Jews are not from any of the 12 tribes, hence they are not of the Hebreism religion. Hebrewism is the father of Christianity, not Judaism.

Moderate christians are not all christians who have decided to ignore the uncomfortable parts of the Bible. As a christian, I despise those of the flock who insist on acting so superior, always pointing fingers and having people hung or run out of town. I am a moderate christian, not because I accept people's faults, but because I am able to love them anyway. I will always be there for them, and hopefully I may one day be able to bring them to decist in their way of life. I am not better than the homosexual, the muslim, or the mass-murderer. All sin is sin in the eyes of God. There are no lines or distinctions, except possibly in the case of blasphemy, which is referred to as the "unforgiveable sin." Even in this case, it is not my right to condemn someone else. So yes, I am a moderate christian, because I follow the example of the lord and savior. Yes, I will do my best to bring a person to God, because if I have an opportunity to do this, and I am too afraid to come to them, then their lost soul weighs heavily on mine. So, I will not tell a homosexual that they are bad and evil or some other such thing, because I do not go up to any other sinner and act in such a manner. Always, "love thy neighbor as thyself." If all of us could act this way, we would see a far better world, and one with much less resentment towards christians. It pains me to see people make accusations against christians, but I cannot blame them, since the "hellfire and brimstone" sermonizers who do no good for our faith have successfully ostracized so many. This is why so many people hate christians. In former years, we did much that was deserving of such hatred. I try to catch and correct such behavior in myself, and so I hope that I am a better person for doing so. You can still love a sinner, even without approving of what they are doing. This is the true image of Jesus.

God sent his son...himself (God = Jesus) to die at the cross...but God can't suffer pain, he isn't human, he can't bleed and he sure as hell can't die (I mean in the eyes of a believer he can't die, Nietzsche on the other hand has a way to kill God :D). So to pose to you the question that has bothered Christianity since the dawn of time. Is God = Jesus or is Jesus the son of God. If Jesus is divine or God...than he didn't suffer at the cross and the "sacrifice for the people" thing lost its meaning.


The way I have always understood it, Jesus was God incarnate. If we break down incarnate, we will find the root "carne" -- meat, or flesh. (Chili con carne?) In order for humans to better understand the teachings (without the fear of the unknowable interfering), and for God to understand (in a flawed human way) about pain, suffering and death, a portion of God's essence was given a body of flesh to experience all of these things.

If we believe that a portion of God's essence was given flesh in order to experience the pain and suffering of the crucifixion, then the sacrifice loses none of its meaning.

You think wrong. (http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html)

Forgive my biases, but I see no bibliography to support this person's opinion. I also tend to take private websites with a pillar of salt, finding that universities generally seem more reputable.

This is my last post before I go to bed. However let me say that there is no such religion called "Judaism" - there is Jew-ism, where the Jews took the religion of the Hebrew Israelites and added parts and replaced important words with other words. The biggest ones would be replace Israel for the term Jew, which is highly flawed considering the Jews are not from any of the sons of Yacob/Israel. The Torah laws must be observed by Christians, however to say Christianity spawned from Judaism is false. The Israelites (12 Tribes) became Christian, apart from those still lost, which we will find. The Jews are not from any of the 12 tribes, hence they are not of the Hebreism religion. Hebrewism is the father of Christianity, not Judaism.

Semantics, semantics.

And Christians must follow the Torah laws, eh? When was the last time you stoned someone? Or took a slave? Or sold your daughter as a slave? What are your clothes made out of? Would you kill a woman who was raped in your city, since the Torah says you must?

suggestion (http://history-book.net/maps/edin1.gif)

Another thing that disturbs me about certain fundamentalists is they presume to speak for God, they say things like 'God told me' this or that. That is blasphemy. None of us can know or understand God's will! Certainly none of us should presume to know it when it is possible the Devil is tricking one!

This actually ties in nicely to a question I would like to ask moderate Christians.

Full disclosure -- I was raised Catholic. The best way I've heard to define the cosmology I now believe would be "Extremely Free-Form Unitarian Universalism" (I'm one of those annoying "cafeteria religion" people that considers all the worlds' religions to be equally valid perspectives on the truth, and as such pick and choose from whatever traditions speak to me most at the time). So I am not speaking of Christianity in this case, but the actions of Christians -- or, more accurately, the failure to act.

Like many others of you, I am sure, I am dismayed at the actions of those like Pat Robertson, who claimed that 9/11 happened because God was punishing the U.S. for being ungodly, or "Rev." Fred Phelps, the self-described minister who picketed Matthew Shepard's funeral and even TODAY at times attempts to publically chastise him (even though he has been dead for some years now). Or Jack Chick, who publishes and distributes mini comic books designed to witness for the Gospel that are so inaccurate about the beliefs and practices of other faiths -- and, in some cases, about Christianity itself -- you want to laugh, until you realize the size of his following.

The thing is, there are a lot of people that think THEY are an accurate depiction of Christianity. THEY are the reason Christians are getting a bad rap. I have spoken with enough Christians to know that this is far from the case.

However, what baffles me is that when one of these men speaks, there is near total silence from the more moderate Christian community. Seriously -- if a crazy person attempted to break into another forum, and then represented themselves as a "real NationStates player" and then proceeded to say that, as a NationStates player, this meant that they must therefore pan-fry babies, we would have HORDES of posters following them over to the other forum, telling them to shut up, and then explaining to the other forum that "Okay, that guy? Is crazy. NationStates ain't about pan-frying babies, y'all."

But the Christian community is mostly silent when one of these so-called Christians speaks. The SECULAR community has lots to say, but usually it's the secular community calling the "fundy" mad while the "fundy" insists he's a true Christian.

Wouldn't it help if there were a statement from even ONE inter-denominational leader or panelist or SOMETHING that said, "Okay, see, Christianity just ain't like that, everyone." I can't think why not.

I have asked other Christians this same question, and on a few occasions I've been told, "oh, but my paster DID say something. He said it to all of us in church during his sermon. I'm not understanding why, in this case, literally preaching to the choir is deemed sufficient.

I'm quite serious about this question, actually. I do know that there are a lot of Christian denominations, but there MUST be some kind of general, interdenominational spokesboard that could say something -- or that moderate Christians could PRESSURE to say something in these instances.

So why don't we see this happening?

to address this "interdenominational speaking board" idea....

there is no such thing. there can't be, either, unless it's on a fairly low-level (such as a union of Southern Baptists, or some such). You've got the three main branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.. and lots of sub-branches within Protestantism, plus a little disagreement within Catholics and Orthodox.

Officially, the Pope and Orthodox Patriarch have not reconciled their differences from the Great Schism. To this day, followers of the "wrong" one are officially heretics.

Protestants are another story altogether. There is a ton of disagreement there.

The only thing they all believe? Jesus was more worth listening to than anyone else hanging out in the Middle East at the time. Other than that, the ideas start varying immensely, as you well know. The differences in doctrine and such leave enough room for racism, hatred, and a good deal of anti-everyone-else-ism in.

Well Islam is false because it isn't the same religion as the Israelites (YHWH's chosen people)

They became moden day Christians, the reason Islam is false is because they don't accept Yahsha as the Messiah. Which is why YHWH's religion is the only true one.

So, by your logic... since 'Messiah' had specific requirements, and Jesus didn't meet them, then Christianity is false, too.

Add to this the fact that the Hebrews (who wrote the prophecies that foretold the coming of "Messiah") didn't believe Jesus was "Messiah" - so, on two counts you have established your 'christian religion' as a falsehood.

Thirdly - Islam IS the same religion as that of the Hebrews - they, just like those of the 'nation of Israel' do not believe that Jesus was "Messiah". They do, however, accept the old Hebrew texts as an important part of their canon. Islam, in fact, holds more true to the 'god' of Israel than Christianity, because it hasn't tried to superimpose a 'demigod' aspect over the 'one true god'.

Finally - if you had read any Mithraic texts - you'd clearly see that half of the Gospels, and all of the Revelation is directly inspired my parallel Mithraic texts. Similarly, if you had researched early Buddhism, you'd have found most of the "teachings of Christ" 600 years earlier. Finally - if you had bothered reading Babylonian texts, you'd have found Hammurabi's Code of Laws (which directly inspired Mosaic Law) - and if you had looked in Egyptian literature, you'd have found the texts of Amen-em-ope, which contain most of the text of Proverbs a millenium before the 'Israelites' were 'inspired'.

And that's not even getting started on the theft of Genesis from Sumer...

But, feel happy to continue in your blinkered view. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

*Half-decent question*
I don't know. I usually say things like that, but I don't cover the entire message board. I think that if you look hard enough, you'd find some Moderate Christians who'd say "we don't do that." I routinely say that, because there are a lot of people who hate Christians for what they do. I've seen people who complain about how Christians are completely authoritarian when it comes to religion. It's not actually true. I, personally, consider religion a matter that is to be interpreted freely and do not try to force beliefs on other people or label major events as punishment from God.

Ah well.

Then why did he have our ancestors march into Canann and order them to kill every man, women, and child? Why did YHWH release the plague on the Egyptians? Because our ancestors were in bondage to them, the Egyptians just like the Cannites etc worshipped Idols.

Actually, if you had read the bible, you'd see that god supposedly instructed the Hebrews to invade Canaan because they were the descendents of 'bad' tribes, and God had ordained that their land should go to his "chosen" people.

What we call "Manifest Destiny", in our modern parlance. It's another way of saying "rape and murder the people who already live there, because we want their land... oh, and god said so".

Looking at Egypt, considering the nature of the plagues... it seems most likely that the 'plagues' were loosed on Egypt simply because it was on the Nile... Egyptian history commonly records the 'plagues' that the bible attributes to god... they happened all the time.

You are probably looking at Egypt in terms of idols - but it doesn't say that in the bible.... it says the reason that the Hebrews were to eb set free was, once again, just because they were god's 'chosen' people.

The Term "Real Jew" is a term based on a people not talked about in the Bible. The Bible speaks of the Hebrews, who were known as Israelites. They became the people in America, Great Britain and have fulfilled many of the prophacies. The Anglo-Israelites. The Jews haven't fulfilled the prophacies set down, nor do they follow the word of the Messiah Yahsha. They also didn't follow the word of YHWH, because they are not his people.


The people called 'Israelites' in the bible did not become the people in America or Great Britain.

The population of Great Britain is primarily Angles (hence the name of England), Brtions, Saxons, Celts, Picts... etc. Primarily North European, with some 'natives' of indeterminate origin (but still western european) and an influx of Greeks (from which 'immigration' come the stories of faeries).

Later, this population was expanded by the addition of more europeans, in the form of the Franks, etc.

About 600 years ago, there was also a migration of 'jews', but these 'jews' are almost entirely Khazars from Eastern Europe, who 'converted' to Judaism. Since 'Israel' was 'in the blood', these are not 'really' jews, accroding to biblical law, neither are they israelites, or even Hebrews. They are converted 'heathens'.

Similarly with the population of the US, except that the immigration pattern flowed from Holland, France and England - all of which share the Northern Europe heritage.

And only one 'cult' ever believed that Jesus WAS Messiah - and that cult (which spawned modern christianity) wasn't even of the tribe of israel.

But a good argument - other than the facts, the logic, the reasoning and the understanding...

This is my last post before I go to bed. However let me say that there is no such religion called "Judaism" - there is Jew-ism, where the Jews took the religion of the Hebrew Israelites and added parts and replaced important words with other words. The biggest ones would be replace Israel for the term Jew, which is highly flawed considering the Jews are not from any of the sons of Yacob/Israel. The Torah laws must be observed by Christians, however to say Christianity spawned from Judaism is false. The Israelites (12 Tribes) became Christian, apart from those still lost, which we will find. The Jews are not from any of the 12 tribes, hence they are not of the Hebreism religion. Hebrewism is the father of Christianity, not Judaism.

And I don't suppose you have an ounce of evidence for any of it?

I think you are confusing yourself over what a 'jew' is. True - most of the current 'jews' in the west are actually Khazars, but that conversion took place hundreds of years after the canonisation of the bible.

Also - Torah law no longer applies to Christians, if you believe that Jesus was 'Messiah' - since his blood sacrifice 'buys' freedom from the Old Covenant.

I think you need to re-examine your concepts of 'Jew-ism', Judaism and Christianity.

suggestion (http://history-book.net/maps/edin1.gif)

Well, with a picture that scale, it is hard to see exactly where you are suggesting.

According to Genesis, Eden has to be on the convegence point of four rivers - and it is hard to see if that is the case, in that map.

Secondly - in Genesis, it also says, "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food...", which is certainly not the case in any area I can think of in REAL geography.

Thirdly - in Genesis, it says, "and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life"... if you are arguing that Eden (as described in the bible) is a real place, how is it no-one has noticed the angelic guy with the flaming swords?

Of course - if your point is JUST that Eden is another name for a geographical area - and that the Genesis story is JUST a story, then I am happy to accept your model.

I believe current theory is something along the lines of the crossing of the Tigris and the Euphrates. (?)

You think wrong. (http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html)

Your link only proves a superficial similarity between one chapter of Psalms and a poem. Your statement that most of Psalms is based an Egyptian text is totally baseless, at least if it is judged by the link you provided. Quit spouting, and provide this evidence that you think Christianity lacks.

So, by your logic... since 'Messiah' had specific requirements, and Jesus didn't meet them, then Christianity is false, too.

Add to this the fact that the Hebrews (who wrote the prophecies that foretold the coming of "Messiah") didn't believe Jesus was "Messiah" - so, on two counts you have established your 'christian religion' as a falsehood.

Thirdly - Islam IS the same religion as that of the Hebrews - they, just like those of the 'nation of Israel' do not believe that Jesus was "Messiah". They do, however, accept the old Hebrew texts as an important part of their canon. Islam, in fact, holds more true to the 'god' of Israel than Christianity, because it hasn't tried to superimpose a 'demigod' aspect over the 'one true god'.

Finally - if you had read any Mithraic texts - you'd clearly see that half of the Gospels, and all of the Revelation is directly inspired my parallel Mithraic texts. Similarly, if you had researched early Buddhism, you'd have found most of the "teachings of Christ" 600 years earlier. Finally - if you had bothered reading Babylonian texts, you'd have found Hammurabi's Code of Laws (which directly inspired Mosaic Law) - and if you had looked in Egyptian literature, you'd have found the texts of Amen-em-ope, which contain most of the text of Proverbs a millenium before the 'Israelites' were 'inspired'.

And that's not even getting started on the theft of Genesis from Sumer...

But, feel happy to continue in your blinkered view. There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Do you want to know why the Jews don't accept Yahsha ha'Meshiyakh? Because he didn't come to them, he knew they wouldn't accept him. The High Priest who had been corrupted by these Edomite Jews ignored the Messiah because they knew that if the true Israelites found out, they would also be found out, to be liars, and cheats. When they were backed up against the wall in John 19:15 and had to make a decision, these "so-called Jews" asserted: "We have no king but Caesar." If they had been true Israelites, they would have accepted Him as Nathaniel did in John 1:47-49.

Very few Israelites were in the Holy land (Yudea since the 10 North Tribes of House of Israel had already been taken away) -

Yahsha saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Bhehold an ISRAELITE indeed, in whom is no guile! - John 1:47

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the SON of YHWH; thou ar the KING OF ISRAEL - John 1:49

Yahsah fulfilled all the prohacies set, however the Jews went throug their "Torah" and changed half of them. They fear him because he knows who they are NOT! The prophecy about rebuilding the Temple was fulfilled, because in Yahsha was the temple, since the Temple was the place to sacrafice lambs unto YHWH, he was the lamb of YHWH. His death upon the cross bought the end to the war of Good vs Evil, we won, but the war will still be fought till the end days.

Semantics, semantics.

And Christians must follow the Torah laws, eh? When was the last time you stoned someone? Or took a slave? Or sold your daughter as a slave? What are your clothes made out of? Would you kill a woman who was raped in your city, since the Torah says you must?

Ok, let me just say that, Torah is taught by Messiah - John 12:50

Obviously due to the changing world, many of the laws can't fully be carried out, which is a sin, however since Yashah Messiah died on the cross for the sins of his children 'oh Israel we can't ask forgiveness.

Ok, let me just say that, Torah is taught by Messiah - John 12:50

Obviously due to the changing world, many of the laws can't fully be carried out, which is a sin, however since Yashah Messiah died on the cross for the sins of his children 'oh Israel we can't ask forgiveness.

So you believe that God condones slavery, the denigration of women, genocide, stoning of a woman who was raped just because she happened to get raped inside the city limits, selling of your daughter into slavery, etc.?

If that God is truly God, then I would rather be in hell than worship it. The last thing I want is to be stuck in the presence of that asshole for all eternity.

So you believe that God condones slavery, the denigration of women, genocide, stoning of a woman who was raped just because she happened to get raped inside the city limits, selling of your daughter into slavery, etc.?

If that God is truly God, then I would rather be in hell than worship it. The last thing I want is to be stuck in the presence of that asshole for all eternity.

YHWH never condoned slavery, you want to know why the Israelites of the northern house were taken into captivity? One reason was because they had slaves. YHWH made them slaves to show them what it was like. There were however servents which like the current ones could leave if they wanted to. He also never condoned the denigration of women, look at Sarah, she was treated well by YHWH, and don't start on Genocide. When my ancestors marched into Canannan and took the land, YHWH promised them because they had no home, we back then as today are a persecuted people, even if no one notices it.

YHWH never condoned slavery, you want to know why the Israelites of the northern house were taken into captivity? One reason was because they had slaves.

And yet if you believe the laws of Torah, YHWH specifically said it was just fine and dandy to own slaves. Isn't that weird? YHWH was only mad if Israelite *men* were made into slaves -that was bad. And if any Israelite women were sold into slavery, the term was only supposed to be seven years. But the slavery laws were, according to anyone who follow Levitical law, set down by YHWH.

He also never condoned the denigration of women, look at Sarah, she was treated well by YHWH,

We are talking specifically about the law in the Torah here. These laws state that a woman raped within a town shall be put to death with her rapist because she should have been saved unless she wanted it. These laws state that a woman who has a female child is unclean for twice as long as if she has a male child. These laws state that a woman may be sold into slavery, for a period of not more than seven years - but that the man who buys her can marry her during that period of time in order to keep her. That all sounds pretty much like the denigration of women to me.

and don't start on Genocide. When my ancestors marched into Canannan and took the land, YHWH promised them because they had no home, we back then as today are a persecuted people, even if no one notices it.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent evilness of any god that punishes people for not slaughtering "every man, woman, and child." Persecution does not give anyone free rain to go around killing every single man, woman, and child of a particular group. Taking the land promised to them and murdering innocents are two very different things.

I think the story of the Garden of Eden is actually symbolic. The snake represents curiosity, the Tree of Knowledge represents knowledge, and Eden represents innocence.

The moral I'd get from it is that with the gaining of knowledge comes the loss of innocence, none of that mumbo-jumbo that says 'we are all sinners cause of Eve's sin'


That's a rather pleasent interpretation of it. Lets have another look at it.

We have the woman tempting the man into doing something wrong - not the man's fault, but the woman's. We have the snake causing the betrayal. We have the woman with the "forbidden fruit". Add in that up till recent times, menstruation was considered by the church to be punishment of women for the sins of Eve. Chuck in some sexual connotations, stir gently, and what do you have?

Read some early Christion theologians opinions about how women were the root of all sexual misconduct, and how men were all innocent, but simply entrapped by feminine wiles. Women are supposed to cover up fully because if not, then it would be their fault if men attacked them.

I think that your interpretation of the message is much nicer than mine...

(no offence to other Americans, but my feeling tells me many of the fundamentalist Christians with internet connection are living in the south of the USA).

And some of us moderates are also living in the South. I'd never move north again. Those winters you have up there KILL me. ;-)

God is The Father, The Son AND The Holy Spirit
I think is symbolizes the Creator (father), Future (son) & Love (holy spirit)

Nice. I like that one. Another fairly common analysis I'm fond of is
Creator (beyond man), Savior (perfect man), Spirit (man's connection to the supernatural)

And yet if you believe the laws of Torah, YHWH specifically said it was just fine and dandy to own slaves. Isn't that weird? YHWH was only mad if Israelite *men* were made into slaves -that was bad. And if any Israelite women were sold into slavery, the term was only supposed to be seven years. But the slavery laws were, according to anyone who follow Levitical law, set down by YHWH.

Of course, hence he just left the Israelite women in Egypt. Oh wait, they were also taken out of the land to Israel.

We are talking specifically about the law in the Torah here. These laws state that a woman raped within a town shall be put to death with her rapist because she should have been saved unless she wanted it. These laws state that a woman who has a female child is unclean for twice as long as if she has a male child. These laws state that a woman may be sold into slavery, for a period of not more than seven years - but that the man who buys her can marry her during that period of time in order to keep her. That all sounds pretty much like the denigration of women to me.

Can you please point this law out, I am tired and can't find it right now.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the inherent evilness of any god that punishes people for not slaughtering "every man, woman, and child." Persecution does not give anyone free rain to go around killing every single man, woman, and child of a particular group. Taking the land promised to them and murdering innocents are two very different things.

The Cannites worshipped a pagan God, but this wasn't the only reason YHWH had the Israelites remove them from the lands entire, he said to kick them out, kill anyone who didn't leave because they would come back to haunt them. Which they did. If all the Cannites left of their own will then no one would have died, but they stayed.

That's a rather pleasent interpretation of it. Lets have another look at it.

We have the woman tempting the man into doing something wrong - not the man's fault, but the woman's. We have the snake causing the betrayal. We have the woman with the "forbidden fruit". Add in that up till recent times, menstruation was considered by the church to be punishment of women for the sins of Eve. Chuck in some sexual connotations, stir gently, and what do you have?

Read some early Christion theologians opinions about how women were the root of all sexual misconduct, and how men were all innocent, but simply entrapped by feminine wiles. Women are supposed to cover up fully because if not, then it would be their fault if men attacked them.

I think that your interpretation of the message is much nicer than mine...

Heh, I certainly never agreed with this idea...think of it this way. Yes, the woman may have sinned first, but Adam was stupid enough to buy it. That says something pretty damning about the way some men can be! ;-)

Plus, even though I am not Catholic, I DO think it's quite interesting that Mary, a woman, was considered so favored in the eyes of God. It even seems, when you look at it the right way, that this even redeems the status of women. At least, I view it that way...not sure how many others do.

I'm not a 'moderate' Christian - that is a contradiction in terms.
However:
The Law was given to the Jews. Not to Christians. Gentile Christians are only obliged to follow those parts of the Law listed in Acts 15. And further warned *not* to attempt to follow the rest of the Law - something that is repeated throughout the NT, and focused on in Romans.
For gentiles the rest of the OT is a reference work, nothing more - or would be if people would *read* the Bible rather than quoting a handful of passages that support their prejudices.

If you have problems with what is in the OT, talk to the Jews about it. Given that they don't go around stoning people or otherwise being annoying, I think you can be sure that there are good explanations for the verses that are troubling you.

That said, I will go into bat in defence of slavery in the OT. The requirement to free a slave after 7 years meant that Israel was buying foreign slaves, releasing them, and buying replacements. This would have bought the freedom of countless suffering individuals: a generous move in a world were slavery was the norm.

God Bless!

I'm not a 'moderate' Christian - that is a contradiction in terms.

A 'moderate' Christian is not a contradiction. Many Christians are zealots, preachers, and fundamentalists. Not all Christians fall into this category.

It's like feminism. The most extreme feminists, while a small portion of feminists in general, are often the loudest. Would you say that a 'moderate' feminist is a contraction in terms?

Well, with a picture that scale, it is hard to see exactly where you are suggesting.
According to Genesis, Eden has to be on the convegence point of four rivers - and it is hard to see if that is the case, in that map.
Secondly - in Genesis, it also says, "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food...", which is certainly not the case in any area I can think of in REAL geography.
Thirdly - in Genesis, it says, "and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life"... if you are arguing that Eden (as described in the bible) is a real place, how is it no-one has noticed the angelic guy with the flaming swords?
Of course - if your point is JUST that Eden is another name for a geographical area - and that the Genesis story is JUST a story, then I am happy to accept your model.
I believe current theory is something along the lines of the crossing of the Tigris and the Euphrates. (?)My identification of the garden's location ist the Adji Chay valley east of Lake Urmia (the red stripe on the map), the location of modern Tabriz.
1. edin is a Sumerian word meaning either "open space" or "highland", especially the region around the great lakes.
2. Genesis informs us that the garden is in the east of the region named Eden here.
3. The four rivers are the Perath (gr. Euphrates, arab. Firat), the Hiddekel (gr. Tigris, sum. Idiglat), the Gihon (Aras, still called Gaihun until the 8th century AD), and the Pishon (Uizhun).
4. The mountain ridges north of the valley of Tabriz are still called the mountains of Cush.
5. The land through which the Uizhun flows is well-known for its wealth in minerals and also was in ancient timest the only place outside Afgahnistan where lapis lazuli could be found (cf. the Egyptian demand for this stone)
6. The region has been considerably warmer and wetter 6000 years ago and was covered with abundant vegetation (a real earthly paradise)
7. The region around the great lakes has more than once been the origin of emmigration waves, e.g. the original homeland of the Greeks before their migration to the Aegean was the Taurus and the origins of the Aryans who later invaded the Indus valley was the Zagros. And also the Sumerians' and later the Elamites' origins are in the Zagros. And it must be noted that the Sumerian cultural and trading links to the mountains remained for a long time, the mountain peoples and the Sumerians, they even shared the same languages and beliefs (cf. Enmerkar and his dealings with Aratta).
8. In this region (the Zagros) pottery and metal working were invented (at differnet times of course, but the area seems to have been perfect for the cultural and technical development of humans).
9. It is in this region that the transition from the hunter/gatherer culture to a sedentary lifestyle of farmers took place fort he first time (also cf. Cain and Abel).
10. Many Sumerian cities bear eponyms of legendary kings whose names can be found in some of the biblical characters.
11. The word paradise (from Greek) means a garden that is enclosed by walls, in this case the walls are mountain ridges. In ancient times the river Adji Chay in the Tabriz valley bore the name Meidan which also means walled garden or enclosed court
12. The biblical account of the flood and the story of Utnapishtim come undoubtedly from one common source.
There are actually many more hints that make it clear that the region that was later used as the archetype for the biblical account of Eden was the highland around the great lakes of the Zagros mountains, and also the subsequent history of Sumer and the biblical account fit together pretty well when you leave out the theological views that have been interwoven to it.
BTW also the history of the Israelites in Egypt is no longer just a tale that does not really fit to the historical data. In fact it does, as soon as one has removed some of the major errors that were made in the beginning of Egyptology some 200 years ago and that have never been addressed until recently.

This (http://history-book.net/maps/meso01.jpg) (674kb) is the region where all that we call western culture has originated from.

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit. It was brought upon people to enforce law. notice how even though theres a seperation between church in state we still apply the bible to everyday society? yea.... your all being brainwashed by the government... i just thought id let you know.

Religion in general is a bunch of bullshit. It was brought upon people to enforce law. notice how even though theres a seperation between church in state we still apply the bible to everyday society? yea.... your all being brainwashed by the government... i just thought id let you know.

THANKS!

If you mean that one copied and translated pre-christian Egyptian religious works I think you're mistaking.

You think wrong. (http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html)

My mistake. You're right. I just read the post of Ankher

("1. The Psalm referred to here has in fact very close similarities to one of the praises to the sun by Akhenaten. I will look up which one that is.")

I mentioned that monotheistic religion somewhere but I couldn't come up with that Pharao's name. I hadn't found any proof of the bible copying this doctrine either, but it is very likely that almost every religion in that area took thingies from each other. Cultures tend to influence each other






It is true, the bible was made from a selection from hundreds of documents. The apocrypha (rejected writings) were destroyed or hidden by Church. Many people wrote the life of Jesus but we only have a few evangelists in the Bible.


Exactly why the Bible shouldn't be considered true or even be used as a religious doctrine. If man was the final declarer of what is or is not holy than how can anyone believe that such words are straight from God?

I follow you completely in that one.

Heh, I certainly never agreed with this idea...think of it this way. Yes, the woman may have sinned first, but Adam was stupid enough to buy it. That says something pretty damning about the way some men can be! ;-)

Plus, even though I am not Catholic, I DO think it's quite interesting that Mary, a woman, was considered so favored in the eyes of God. It even seems, when you look at it the right way, that this even redeems the status of women. At least, I view it that way...not sure how many others do.

Depending on what Bible you read, it seems that Adam was there with Eve while she was tempted and when she took the fruit. So really he is as much to blame as Eve, no less, no more.

The way I have always understood it, Jesus was God incarnate. If we break down incarnate, we will find the root "carne" -- meat, or flesh. (Chili con carne?) In order for humans to better understand the teachings (without the fear of the unknowable interfering), and for God to understand (in a flawed human way) about pain, suffering and death, a portion of God's essence was given a body of flesh to experience all of these things.

If we believe that a portion of God's essence was given flesh in order to experience the pain and suffering of the crucifixion, then the sacrifice loses none of its meaning.

Yes of course, that was the sollution Arius gave in the 4th century bC and then they decided not to follow his Arianism and his followers were percecuted. One decided in 325 that God was completely equal to Jesus. Maybe this was revoked later on in Medieval times. I don't know, I only know the history of the Church till about 1400 and not in a very detailed manner. I think only a theologist could figger this one out :D

My mistake. You're right. I just read the post of Ankher
("1. The Psalm referred to here has in fact very close similarities to one of the praises to the sun by Akhenaten. I will look up which one that is.")
I mentioned that monotheistic religion somewhere but I couldn't come up with that Pharao's name. I hadn't found any proof of the bible copying this doctrine either, but it is very likely that almost every religion in that area took thingies from each other. Cultures tend to influence each otherAhem. No.
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was contemporary with Saul and David (the dealings of Akhenaten with the two is closely monitored in the Amarna-tablets, i.e. this pharaoh's court's correspondence with rulers and chieftains in the Levant) and the religion of the Israelite tribes had already been around for quite some time. And Akhenaten's Aton has not even small similarities with the Hebrew concept of god.

Exactly why the Bible shouldn't be considered true or even be used as a religious doctrine. If man was the final declarer of what is or is not holy than how can anyone believe that such words are straight from God?
Because man is not exclusive of God?

Because man is not exclusive of God?

Nono God is exclusive of man, we own him man. He does everything we say. We just have to write it in a bible and he did it. :D ("then God invented light")

Saint Peter to his mommy: "look mommy, I'm making God do things!" :p

This passage they deleted from the bible in the council of Nicaea back in 325:

"And Jesus whispered upon the people: I'd flip the bird if that bloody carpenter didn't do such a damn fine job nailing my hands at this fucking cross"

They thought it to be not suitable for the King of Heaven.

to address this "interdenominational speaking board" idea....

there is no such thing. there can't be, either, unless it's on a fairly low-level (such as a union of Southern Baptists, or some such). You've got the three main branches of Christianity: Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.. and lots of sub-branches within Protestantism, plus a little disagreement within Catholics and Orthodox.

Officially, the Pope and Orthodox Patriarch have not reconciled their differences from the Great Schism. To this day, followers of the "wrong" one are officially heretics.

Protestants are another story altogether. There is a ton of disagreement there.

The only thing they all believe? Jesus was more worth listening to than anyone else hanging out in the Middle East at the time. Other than that, the ideas start varying immensely, as you well know. The differences in doctrine and such leave enough room for racism, hatred, and a good deal of anti-everyone-else-ism in.

Well, then, ANY leader of ANY denomination saying ANYTHING. Seriously.

The Pope rarely says anything. The head of the Southern Baptists says nothing. The head of the Methodists says nothing. Look, even if it's just one guy representing one lone denomination who spoke up ON THE PUBLIC RECORD and said "Fred Phelps is wack, folks," that would make a HUGE difference. But it doesn't happen. All of these debates ALWAYS end up being between the secular community and the extreme fundamentalists, and if the moderate Christian community keeps to itself, the secular community won't think they're any different than the fundamentalists.

Worse, they'll think they agree. Isn't ANY moderate Christian afraid of that perception existing? Of ANY denomination?

I do know individual Christians speak individually with individuals about this sort of thing. But it seems the problem is just too huge -- Fred Phelps isn't working by himself on a message board, he's got a whole damn movement behind him.

That said, I will go into bat in defence of slavery in the OT. The requirement to free a slave after 7 years meant that Israel was buying foreign slaves, releasing them, and buying replacements. This would have bought the freedom of countless suffering individuals: a generous move in a world were slavery was the norm.

God Bless!

Actually, the requirement for only 7 years applied only to Israelite slaves. Foreign slaves could be kept in slavery for their entire lives. So, no, it had nothing to do with buying and freeing foreign slaves. On top of that, even with an Israelite slave, if he got married or had a child while he was a slave, you could keep them and force him to remain in slavery forever if he wanted to stay with them.

Of course, hence he just left the Israelite women in Egypt. Oh wait, they were also taken out of the land to Israel.

Well, in the OT, women belonged to the men if they were married to them. So, what is your point here?

Can you please point this law out, I am tired and can't find it right now.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Leviticus 12:2-5
...if a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days...but if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks...

There are two - mull over them for a bit.

The Cannites worshipped a pagan God, but this wasn't the only reason YHWH had the Israelites remove them from the lands entire, he said to kick them out, kill anyone who didn't leave because they would come back to haunt them. Which they did. If all the Cannites left of their own will then no one would have died, but they stayed.

Look, I don't care what excuse you have for it. Genocide is wrong no matter why you do it. And if you wish to believe that your YHWH condones it, then you are worshipping and evil god very different from the one I know.

The Cannites worshipped a pagan God, but this wasn't the only reason YHWH had the Israelites remove them from the lands entire, he said to kick them out, kill anyone who didn't leave because they would come back to haunt them. Which they did. If all the Cannites left of their own will then no one would have died, but they stayed.Since when is El a pagan god? You seem to forget that El and Yah are the selfsame god for the Israelites.
And a god demanding genocide is not suitable to be an authority for any human. And even a god who has preferences for one people or another is inacceptable as a leading figure.

Yahsah fulfilled all the prohacies set, however the Jews went throug their "Torah" and changed half of them. They fear him because he knows who they are NOT! The prophecy about rebuilding the Temple was fulfilled, because in Yahsha was the temple, since the Temple was the place to sacrafice lambs unto YHWH, he was the lamb of YHWH. His death upon the cross bought the end to the war of Good vs Evil, we won, but the war will still be fought till the end days.

There are extant Torah remaining that show pretty much uniform text from BEFORE Jesus and AFTER Jesus - therefore, they did NOT change the text to excise the possibility of Jesus as Messiah... if they HAD changed the texts to remove those 'Messiah' links, the versions of the Torah from 900 BC would differ far more than they do from the Torah of the Post-Jesus era.

The Prophecy about rebuilding the temple wasn't fulfilled - since the references are to a very specific physical location. You are commiting the classical biblical crime of assuming that the bits you don't like are metaphor, and the bits you do like are true.

Also - if the Lamb analogy is correct, the CROSS would have been the Temple, since it was the altar on which god required the blood sacrifice. You are mixing your metaphors.

If the war for good and evil had been 'won', what need for evil OR good, now?

You might as well renounce religion, if that is your earnest belief.

The Cannites worshipped a pagan God, but this wasn't the only reason YHWH had the Israelites remove them from the lands entire, he said to kick them out, kill anyone who didn't leave because they would come back to haunt them. Which they did. If all the Cannites left of their own will then no one would have died, but they stayed.

That wasn't the reason at all. In Joshua it clearly states that they were entering Canaan because it was a "land that floweth with milk and honey" - in other words, it was good farming land. At this point, Canaan had agriculture, irrigation and 'modern' farming - the followers of Joshua were, on the other hand, with no means of support except hunting and gathering. In effect, they were akin to the nomads in Sudan, raiding the settled folks for the food they have grown.

And, again, if you read Joshua - they are not told to let the Canaanites leave - look, for example, at the supposed seige of Jericho. The army sneaks-up on the city, making no noise. They use spies to check the city defences. Then they lay seige... there is no implication of letting some escape. That makes a lie of your argument.

Also - regarding coming back to haunt them...

"the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent..." (Joshua 6:17)

"And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it..." (Joshua 6:18)

(so, they were forbidden to take the religious articles - but encouraged to slaughter EVERYONE else).

Ahem. No.
Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) was contemporary with Saul and David (the dealings of Akhenaten with the two is closely monitored in the Amarna-tablets, i.e. this pharaoh's court's correspondence with rulers and chieftains in the Levant) and the religion of the Israelite tribes had already been around for quite some time. And Akhenaten's Aton has not even small similarities with the Hebrew concept of god.

Then you should probably revisit either your study of Egyptian religion, or your study of the Hebrew concept of god...

Then you should probably revisit either your study of Egyptian religion, or your study of the Hebrew concept of god...What?

Because man is not exclusive of God?

From a christian standpoint we were created for the glorification of God, which would make us exclusive.

From a christian standpoint we were created for the glorification of God, which would make us exclusive.
How so? You cannot glorify something that you're included in?

What?

Well, if you TRULY believe your own statement, "And Akhenaten's Aton has not even small similarities with the Hebrew concept of god", you clearly a) don't understand how the egyptian gods 'worked', OR b) need a little more study time with your bible, OR c) somehow cannot connect that the Hebrew holy texts may not have been TOTALLY inspired, and may, in fact, have swiped some bits...

So how can you believe the Bible is the word of God if you don't obey it? How can you be a moderate Christian at all, since the Bible mandates religious extremism? Do you simply pick and choose parts to follow, based on modern morality and social systems? Do you say that the parts society now views as reprehensible should be tossed aside, even though God The Omnipotent laid them down as laws for His people? Does developing human society trump God's will?

I'm sorry to have to say this, I'm an ultra liberal Socialist who believes in wealth redistribution, worker's rights, nationalization, gay and lesbian right's e.t.c And I am sick and tired of being bashed and called a Conservative simply because I am a Christian - Don't you realise it gives Atheists a bad name?

Geez!

I'm sick of being stereotyped! - Not all Religious people are the same for fuck sake!

I'm sorry to have to say this, I'm an ultra liberal Socialist who believes in wealth redistribution, worker's rights, nationalization, gay and lesbian right's e.t.c And I am sick and tired of being bashed and called a Conservative simply because I am a Christian - Don't you realise it gives Atheists a bad name?

Geez!

I'm sick of being stereotyped! - Not all Religious people are the same for fuck sake!

Actually, the stereotyping you are encountering (while being uttered, perhaps, by an atheist) is the stereotyping that many christians use. If you do not believe in the Bible implicitly, as the word of god... with all that that entails (like believing homosexuals are the spawn of satan, and the 'separation' of christians from the world, and how great it will be when the world ends...) then MANY CHRISTIANS would tell you that you are not a christian. They'd also say, that since you doubted scripture, you are the servant of the DEVIL... etc.

Actually, the stereotyping you are encountering (while being uttered, perhaps, by an atheist) is the stereotyping that many christians use.

Yet I don't use it.

Shall I resort to stereotyping of all Atheists? I have a gut feeling to considering the fact no atheist I have encountered seems to understand groups of people differ in beliefs, but I won't because I'm sure there are good atheists out there who aren't hypocritical enough to try and brainwash (exactly the same term they use about religion) people into joining 'sceptics societies' (where one member commits suicide every week).

Yet I don't use it.

Shall I resort to stereotyping of all Atheists? I have a gut feeling to considering the fact no atheist I have encountered seems to understand groups of people differ in beliefs, but I won't because I'm sure there are good atheists out there who aren't hypocritical enough to try and brainwash (exactly the same term they use about religion) people into joining 'sceptics societies' (where one member commits suicide every week).

For someone who doesn't 'use' stereotyping, you just did!

Most of the atheist I have met have BEEN different beliefs. Most of them seem to have arrived at Atheism as the last point on a logical progression.

I'm not even sure there ARE skeptic societies?

If one member commits suicide every week... where do you get your figures from?

How so? You cannot glorify something that you're included in?

We are created in the image of God. Because we are the reflection of God, we have been created for the purpose of glorifying God. If we are not in God's image, then we are not accountable to God. A dog will not be judged for his choices, but we are all accountable to God. Because God formed us by His image and created us for a purpose, He has the right to expect us to live within the glory He has created us to reflect. We are not gods, but we are the image of God. What we do reflects upon him.

Source...(scroll down to Part II) (http://www.exchangedlife.com/Acrobat/gen/Gen1_creation.pdf)

We are created in the image of God. Because we are the reflection of God, we have been created for the purpose of glorifying God. If we are not in God's image, then we are not accountable to God. A dog will not be judged for his choices, but we are all accountable to God. Because God formed us by His image and created us for a purpose, He has the right to expect us to live within the glory He has created us to reflect. We are not gods, but we are the image of God. What we do reflects upon him.

Source...(scroll down to Part II) (http://www.exchangedlife.com/Acrobat/gen/Gen1_creation.pdf)

If we were created in God's image, it is because we are the descendants of Adam, yes? But god did not create Adam as a mortal man. Adam was created as something more akin to a god - he couldn't die, and did not NEED to eat. If he had a failing that stopped him being a 'god', it was the fact that he was lacking in the good-sense department.

Furthermore, once he had eaten the tree of knowledge of good and evil, he actually completed his apotheosis. "Behold, the man is become as one of us".

Abel killed Cain in a field.

No, Cain killed Abel in a field. No one killed Cain. That's kind of the point. God put a mark on him, basically ostracizing him from the rest of the humans around during that time, but also protected him from any kind of violent vengeance.
To address the issue at hand, although I'm sure that by now someone has said it better than I could, the Bible contains many parts and must be looked at as a whole to understand the so-called "moderate Christian" point of view. The harsh laws of the Old Testament are harsh, no doubt about it. But they were written for a specific period of time, during which the Israelites came into contact with a lot of other religions. In order to preserve the "one, true" religion in such turbulent times, drastic measures had to be taken. Does that mean that God once advocated such behavior and now does not? That requires a look into God's eternal nature and His relationship with time. I think the answer you'd get from most Christians is that the old harsh laws were a necessity of God's justice, even in a roundabout way, a necessity of His love. It was best for His people that they followed Him, and nothing could be allowed to get in the way of that. Death is a harsh punishment, but according to the New Testament, the souls of those who died before Christ's coming were given a second chance.
As for why we don't follow those laws now... For one thing, most Christians in this day and age are not Jews. The laws were written for the Jews. The New Testament explicitly states which Old Testament laws were to be adopted by the Christian church. At that time, even the Jews themselves were not following all the old laws, having recognized their specificity to a certain time and place. Basically, the New Testament, in the context of the Old Testament, is the story of God supernaturally bypassing laws in general. Many think of it this way: the Old Testament is analogous to a Christian's life before conversion. We are constrained by laws that we absolutely cannot follow completely, because of our fallen nature, and subject to harsh, but just, punishment for our failure. But, when we accept the sacrifice God made for us, "by grace, through faith in Christ," we are no longer "under the law" or subject to condemnation.
I'm sure that was probably confusing, outrageous, infuriating, frightening, and a myriad of other things. Hopefully, it offered a halfway decent explanation, though. Please understand that I'm not trying to convince anyone to become a Christian and don't reply that my "arguments" weren't good enough for you. If you have actual questions about the explanation or would like a respectful, intelligent debate on the subject, toss a telegram my way.

Actually, the stereotyping you are encountering (while being uttered, perhaps, by an atheist) is the stereotyping that many christians use. If you do not believe in the Bible implicitly, as the word of god... with all that that entails (like believing homosexuals are the spawn of satan, and the 'separation' of christians from the world, and how great it will be when the world ends...) then MANY CHRISTIANS would tell you that you are not a christian. They'd also say, that since you doubted scripture, you are the servant of the DEVIL... etc.

And...your point is?

Hellenic States' point was that while there ARE some Christians who believe this...there are a lot more that DON'T.

Which raises the question of why atheists are listening to the most hardcore Christians about things, instead of seeing what the majority of Christians actually DOES believe.

Although, I'll grant you, it could be a silent majority situation, which feeds nicely into my earlier question (i.e., why aren't more moderate Christians publically speaking up against the fundies and saying "As a Christian, lemme go on record as saying that's just wacky").

And...your point is?

Hellenic States' point was that while there ARE some Christians who believe this...there are a lot more that DON'T.

Which raises the question of why atheists are listening to the most hardcore Christians about things, instead of seeing what the majority of Christians actually DOES believe.

Although, I'll grant you, it could be a silent majority situation, which feeds nicely into my earlier question (i.e., why aren't more moderate Christians publically speaking up against the fundies and saying "As a Christian, lemme go on record as saying that's just wacky").

My point was simply that, what HS was reading as an atheist stereotype slander, is the very party-line that the fundamental xtians sell. So, there's no point getting worked up at the atheists... remember the first gulf-war, where most US casualties were caused by blue-on-blue fire?

Atheist listen to the hardcore faction, because the hardcore faction stands there yelling at the atheists about how "they gonna die, they gonna die and they gonna go to hell, they gonna go to hell and they gonna burn!!!"

Plus - Atheists (often) read the bible (know your enemy, and all that - and many are EX-christians) so they know what the 'book' is trying to sell - and that is mostly what atheists object to.

I'm with you, though. The moderates need to stand up and be counted... at the moment, America (for example) looks like a christian majority, and that majority is being represented by (what one hopes is) a wacko minority.

No, Cain killed Abel in a field. No one killed Cain. That's kind of the point. God put a mark on him, basically ostracizing him from the rest of the humans around during that time, but also protected him from any kind of violent vengeance.
To address the issue at hand, although I'm sure that by now someone has said it better than I could, the Bible contains many parts and must be looked at as a whole to understand the so-called "moderate Christian" point of view. The harsh laws of the Old Testament are harsh, no doubt about it. But they were written for a specific period of time, during which the Israelites came into contact with a lot of other religions. In order to preserve the "one, true" religion in such turbulent times, drastic measures had to be taken. Does that mean that God once advocated such behavior and now does not? That requires a look into God's eternal nature and His relationship with time. I think the answer you'd get from most Christians is that the old harsh laws were a necessity of God's justice, even in a roundabout way, a necessity of His love. It was best for His people that they followed Him, and nothing could be allowed to get in the way of that. Death is a harsh punishment, but according to the New Testament, the souls of those who died before Christ's coming were given a second chance.
As for why we don't follow those laws now... For one thing, most Christians in this day and age are not Jews. The laws were written for the Jews. The New Testament explicitly states which Old Testament laws were to be adopted by the Christian church. At that time, even the Jews themselves were not following all the old laws, having recognized their specificity to a certain time and place. Basically, the New Testament, in the context of the Old Testament, is the story of God supernaturally bypassing laws in general. Many think of it this way: the Old Testament is analogous to a Christian's life before conversion. We are constrained by laws that we absolutely cannot follow completely, because of our fallen nature, and subject to harsh, but just, punishment for our failure. But, when we accept the sacrifice God made for us, "by grace, through faith in Christ," we are no longer "under the law" or subject to condemnation.
I'm sure that was probably confusing, outrageous, infuriating, frightening, and a myriad of other things. Hopefully, it offered a halfway decent explanation, though. Please understand that I'm not trying to convince anyone to become a Christian and don't reply that my "arguments" weren't good enough for you. If you have actual questions about the explanation or would like a respectful, intelligent debate on the subject, toss a telegram my way.

I have heard your explanation many times before. However, I do not think there is ever a time when a rape victim should be punished right along with her rapist. There is also *never* a time when it is right to sell your daughter into slavery or to have slavery at all. Genocide is *never* right. I don't care what time period it was, these things are (or should be, if they are not) wrong in the eyes of any benevolent, loving God. To believe that God decreed these laws, you must either believe that God was (or used to be evil) just because the people were, or you must believe that these things are good and just.

When reading the Bible it is wise to ask the Holy Ghost for guidance in
understanding the scriptures as God meant them to be.

When reading the Bible it is wise to remain skeptical and ask your brain for guidance in
understanding the bullshit as man meant it to be.
:p

First of all, let me explain i was raised catholic, spent 14 years as an agnostic/atheist (wavered between the two intellectually, as i learned more about microbiology, chemistry, physics, etc.) and am now what is apparently defined as a moderate Christian. let me explain.

I make a clear designation between old testament and new testament. old testament was the rule set for the Jews, God's chosen people, thousands of years ago. the New Testament was when the Savior came for all people, which mean sme, a Gentile. So i give old testament credit as a historical book, the beginning and origin of God's relationship with people, but follow the rules/philosophies, moral guide set down by the fella who I believe in saved me. I do not take the bible literally, especially the old testament. Why? well, the bible has been translated at least twice, was written by the hand of Man, and you have to make allowances for human error in translation, wriring, etc. inspired by God and written by God makes a huge difference to me, as well as how i can be a believer. many of the old languages carry nuances and symbolic meaning that can change or have trouble being interpreted into, for instance, my native tongue. And the poiint of the Bible can be simplified and summarized by Jesus' message, the Big Dude according to us Gentiles. Forgive. love. believe. adhere to God.

I give as much credence to the Sermon on the Mount as i do any condemnation in the Bible. I give weight to the example Jesus gave when he suffered and died rather than follow a simple line in Leviticus. I see the moral of Christianity and the basis of my faith by the way Jesus lived and what he taught, by word and example. How many people did Jesus kill? How many did he condemn, other than those who sell their soul to other things than God? Christianity has persevered through 2 eons by being adaptable and applying the moral message rather than a particular verse. Jesus blew up a lot of the Old Testament, frankly, by doing what he did to form a bridge between us and God, he didn't do it through condemnation. Love, Forgiveness, Acceptance, Faith, Brotherhood....these were things Jesus lived by and died for, not condemning to death people or taking it upon yourselves to condemn gays, for instance (who Jesus never mentioned! maybe apply the same philosophy to all ie. love, forgiveness, acceptance, i also believe god made "them" too..... he provided is the better path than grabbing a single verse to condemn is a better way). My point is the faith, and i admit it is a faith i CHOOSE, (though i remain very much a believer in scientific method, progress, cynicism, etc. i question my faith and all forms of authority every day) is believing in something you can not prove. I believe Christianity, at least for me, is an intense, personal, and humbling religion when you try to truly live as Jesus did, and due to the fact it was re interpreted from a basically dead language to greek then to english, in our case, written THEN interpreted by man, allows for the flexibility of interpretation that is not as harsh or literal as what is exactly written in many verses, especially old testament, and remember, the ancient languages were also very symbolic, as arabic is now, for example.....i think, again, just me, the moral code and guide to faith is in the bible, rather than a rulebook or manual to heaven....for me, it is the only way it can be accepted....if that makes me "moderate", to love first rather than condemn, to accept and let judgement be by a higher power than myself, then well, i am a moderate, and am very imperfect in these ideals, but i believe i am forgiven... i will now prepare for the flames and answer any question or challenge anyone cares to give, there's a lot to this explanation i can;t write right now, lol.

Actually, the stereotyping you are encountering (while being uttered, perhaps, by an atheist) is the stereotyping that many christians use. If you do not believe in the Bible implicitly, as the word of god... with all that that entails (like believing homosexuals are the spawn of satan, and the 'separation' of christians from the world, and how great it will be when the world ends...) then MANY CHRISTIANS would tell you that you are not a christian. They'd also say, that since you doubted scripture, you are the servant of the DEVIL... etc.

I've had that kind of treatment myself.

That's what sucks about being a moderate...you please no one and piss off EVERYONE. I've been preached at by everyone you can imagine, ranging from fundamentalists of my own religion to extreme atheists.

I HAVE met atheists (though more often agnostics, admittedly...which you could perhaps even consider the "moderate" form of atheism! ;-) ) who did not try to push their beliefs onto me, but I've also run into my share of the militant, pushy kind, too.

I saw a Far Side cartoon that kind of sums the whole point up, about stereotyping. I think it was called "God populating the Earth" or something. They had God sitting over the Earth in a workshop, and there were what looked like salt/spice shakers each with various labels: "Whites", "Blacks", "Christians", "Jews" and so on...

There was a SEPARATE shaker labeled "JERKS", which He was sprinkling over the Earth quite liberally. ;-)

Think about it...that actually makes quite a point there. They're in EVERY group. Not just one. ;-)

By the way, I must congratulate Theweakperish for an excellent statement of the moderate Christian standpoint. May I ask how (if any) science may have influenced your views towards a more religious standpoint? I wonder sometimes if I am alone in finding the maths and sciences actually a positive thing to my faith...?

I wonder sometimes if I am alone in finding the maths and sciences actually a positive thing to my faith...?

Not at all. I am studying biotechnology (and will most likely always be a student of sorts in this field). Every new nuance I learn convinces me even further of the greatness of God. The difference between me and some, though, is that I don't need to discount the scientific explanation in order to do so. God is just as, if not more, great by having put into place and started all of the physical laws that govern the Universe than by having simply poofed everything into existence fully made.

I have heard your explanation many times before. However, I do not think there is ever a time when a rape victim should be punished right along with her rapist. There is also *never* a time when it is right to sell your daughter into slavery or to have slavery at all. Genocide is *never* right. I don't care what time period it was, these things are (or should be, if they are not) wrong in the eyes of any benevolent, loving God. To believe that God decreed these laws, you must either believe that God was (or used to be evil) just because the people were, or you must believe that these things are good and just.

I was simply addressing the actual example that the original poster brought up. I certainly think that there are lots of "laws" in the Old Testament that are, at most, God's concessions to a hopelessly fallen society, or, more likely, human fabrication. I'm not even sure I agree with my own explanation of that specific example. I'm a Christian, and I believe that the Bible has a very real purpose and usefulness in my life, but I don't believe that every word of it must be literally true. However, scads of people had already said that. Thought I'd offer a more extreme point of view.

I was simply addressing the actual example that the original poster brought up. I certainly think that there are lots of "laws" in the Old Testament that are, at most, God's concessions to a hopelessly fallen society, or, more likely, human fabrication. I'm not even sure I agree with my own explanation of that specific example. I'm a Christian, and I believe that the Bible has a very real purpose and usefulness in my life, but I don't believe that every word of it must be literally true. However, scads of people had already said that. Thought I'd offer a more extreme point of view.

Ah, I see. Sorry then. I feel the need to ask those with the more extreme viewpoint to explain themselves. Unfortunately, us more moderate Christians get attacks from both sides =(

And...your point is?

Hellenic States' point was that while there ARE some Christians who believe this...there are a lot more that DON'T.

Which raises the question of why atheists are listening to the most hardcore Christians about things, instead of seeing what the majority of Christians actually DOES believe.

Although, I'll grant you, it could be a silent majority situation, which feeds nicely into my earlier question (i.e., why aren't more moderate Christians publically speaking up against the fundies and saying "As a Christian, lemme go on record as saying that's just wacky").

A question I've often asked myself. The thing is, we often do go on record, but only to our Christian, and occasionally non-Christian, friends. One denomination secretly, or not so secretly, denounces another denomination's "wacky" practices and vice versa. It's not too common that you'll find a group of moderate Christians publicly denouncing in front of non-Christians the beliefs and practices of a less moderate group. I can only guess at the reasons for this: fear of condemnation by the more extreme group, fractured "unity between believers" (like that exists now anyway), or simply because it's hard to draw the line between their wacky beliefs and our less wacky ones. For example, my recent experience:
I was raised in the Southern Baptist church. Amazingly, my parents and my childhood pastor are not utter wackos, although I admit right now a lot of Southern Baptists seem to be. When I told non-believers I was Southern Baptist, I nearly always received a mixed reaction of hostility and condescension. When I joined an Independent Christian church during college, that reaction continued. I recently became Episcopalian. I now receive the exact same reaction from Southern Baptists and others of that type. Many non-Christians assume that I've somehow become more rational and, consequently, stopped actually believing the tenets of Christianity. If asked to outline my theological beliefs as a Southern Baptist and now as an Episcopalian, there would be no difference at all. The only differences lie in my style of Sunday worship and the way I put my beliefs into practice (although I suppose I had actually been acting like a closet Episcopalian for some time). Except for the obviously heretical "Christians" out there, most Christians believe the same things doctrinally. The problem is that Christians of one style hardly ever listen to Christians of another style, so things get out of balance.
Slightly off-topic question for other Christians and those with experience of the Christian church: Have you noticed that Baptists and other evangelical-types have a tendency to criticize Episcopals and Catholics for being too "works-oriented" instead of "grace-oriented"? Yet, why is it that the evangelicals are insisting that people who aren't even Christians live by our rules (outlawing gay marriage, shouting at "fornicators" on the streets) , while the Episcopals and Catholics generally live and let live (except for the rather rabid stance of some Catholics on abortion)?

Slightly off-topic question for other Christians and those with experience of the Christian church: Have you noticed that Baptists and other evangelical-types have a tendency to criticize Episcopals and Catholics for being too "works-oriented" instead of "grace-oriented"? Yet, why is it that the evangelicals are insisting that people who aren't even Christians live by our rules (outlawing gay marriage, shouting at "fornicators" on the streets) , while the Episcopals and Catholics generally live and let live (except for the rather rabid stance of some Catholics on abortion)?

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and yes they do have a tendency to denounce any other denomination, and *espeically* Catholics, for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes the reason is that they are too "works-oriented" and not enough "grace-oriented." Other times the fact that there is no Scriptural basis for some of the rites in the other denominations is touted. Meanwhile, the more evangelical churches are looked down upon by the other denominations.

I, personally, stopped going to a Southern Baptist church when I realized that (a) these people thought they knew everything there was to know and yet refused to even think about questioning their beliefs and (b) every single Sunday School class was either about being anti-choice or anti-gay, both positions I disagreed (and still disagree) with. So, in the end, I stopped going there and began attending a Methodist Church instead. In undergrad, I didn't even attend regular church, instead choosing to go to weekly BSU praise and worship sessions. Now, I am looking for a church closer to the type of worship I obtained at BSU.

In the end, it seems like the best churches are those that can admit that they are no more perfect than the next group and that actually, in a Christ-like manner, will accept *anyone* who enters and will try and tell them about the Gospel. It is very unfortunate that they are often hard to find. All churches need to get back to the basis of Christianity, which is simply to follow Christ's teachings.

Ah, I see. Sorry then. I feel the need to ask those with the more extreme viewpoint to explain themselves. Unfortunately, us more moderate Christians get attacks from both sides =(

Yup. My poor dad is still pretty worried about me and my liberal-heathen Episcopal church, and he's not even that much of a nutter. And, the "free thinkers" I hung out with in college! Man, the closed-mindedness of folks everywhere.
I think we moderates lose our voice, because we're willing to say, "I don't know." Did God create the earth in seven days, or was it billions of years of evolution? "I don't know." Is homosexuality really really really wrong? "I don't know." What's hell actually like? Is there even a hell as we think about it? "I don't know." It gets darned frustrating being honest.

I've had that kind of treatment myself.

That's what sucks about being a moderate...you please no one and piss off EVERYONE. I've been preached at by everyone you can imagine, ranging from fundamentalists of my own religion to extreme atheists.

I HAVE met atheists (though more often agnostics, admittedly...which you could perhaps even consider the "moderate" form of atheism! ;-) ) who did not try to push their beliefs onto me, but I've also run into my share of the militant, pushy kind, too.

I saw a Far Side cartoon that kind of sums the whole point up, about stereotyping. I think it was called "God populating the Earth" or something. They had God sitting over the Earth in a workshop, and there were what looked like salt/spice shakers each with various labels: "Whites", "Blacks", "Christians", "Jews" and so on...

There was a SEPARATE shaker labeled "JERKS", which He was sprinkling over the Earth quite liberally. ;-)

Think about it...that actually makes quite a point there. They're in EVERY group. Not just one. ;-)

By the way, I must congratulate Theweakperish for an excellent statement of the moderate Christian standpoint. May I ask how (if any) science may have influenced your views towards a more religious standpoint? I wonder sometimes if I am alone in finding the maths and sciences actually a positive thing to my faith...?

The atheists that aren't jerks are called "Weak Atheists", (not a good name), because they merely do not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

The atheists that preach are generally "Strong Atheists", because they actively believe that there is NO GOD.

Most "Weak Atheists" tend to have a very accepting view of moderate christians. In general, the Weak Atheist is happy for anyone who has their own belief, and it matters not a jot to them what you believe.

Agnostics just believe it is impossible to determine IF there is a god, so they think Atheists and Christians (and all those other religions) are 'a bit off'.


One last thing, the 'science' thing that most influences my view toward a religious view is the planet Jupiter. Sure, it's lucky the earth is in the orbit it's in. Sure it's lucky that we have one huge moon, to give us tides, etc, rather than the multiple small moons of most planets. But, Jupiter sitting out there between us and the depths of space, a huge sheild who's orbit stops most of the incoming space 'waste' from ever reaching us.

I am an atheist - but Jupiter is a pretty good argument for god.

One last thing, the 'science' thing that most influences my view toward a religious view is the planet Jupiter. Sure, it's lucky the earth is in the orbit it's in. Sure it's lucky that we have one huge moon, to give us tides, etc, rather than the multiple small moons of most planets. But, Jupiter sitting out there between us and the depths of space, a huge sheild who's orbit stops most of the incoming space 'waste' from ever reaching us.

I am an atheist - but Jupiter is a pretty good argument for god.
That is similar to the arguments about natural design that I've heard from religous folk --that the world works so perfectly to sustain us it couldn't have been by accident.

Is there a name in physics for the force (opposite of entropy?) that builds such perfect form by random chance?

A question I've often asked myself. The thing is, we often do go on record, but only to our Christian, and occasionally non-Christian, friends. One denomination secretly, or not so secretly, denounces another denomination's "wacky" practices and vice versa. It's not too common that you'll find a group of moderate Christians publicly denouncing in front of non-Christians the beliefs and practices of a less moderate group.

But that's precisely my point -- if the moderate Christians do say anything, they're preaching to their own choirs.

I can only guess at the reasons for this: fear of condemnation by the more extreme group, fractured "unity between believers" (like that exists now anyway), or simply because it's hard to draw the line between their wacky beliefs and our less wacky ones. For example, my recent experience:
I was raised in the Southern Baptist church. Amazingly, my parents and my childhood pastor are not utter wackos, although I admit right now a lot of Southern Baptists seem to be. When I told non-believers I was Southern Baptist, I nearly always received a mixed reaction of hostility and condescension. When I joined an Independent Christian church during college, that reaction continued. I recently became Episcopalian. I now receive the exact same reaction from Southern Baptists and others of that type. Many non-Christians assume that I've somehow become more rational and, consequently, stopped actually believing the tenets of Christianity. If asked to outline my theological beliefs as a Southern Baptist and now as an Episcopalian, there would be no difference at all. The only differences lie in my style of Sunday worship and the way I put my beliefs into practice (although I suppose I had actually been acting like a closet Episcopalian for some time). Except for the obviously heretical "Christians" out there, most Christians believe the same things doctrinally. The problem is that Christians of one style hardly ever listen to Christians of another style, so things get out of balance.

On the fear: the fear of being lumped in with the ilk of Fred Phelps or Jack Chick doesn't frighten anyone MORE?

On the fine differences between denominations -- that's as may be, but are there not far extremes that you have NO compunctions about deeming to be just plain OUT there?

That is similar to the arguments about natural design that I've heard from religous folk --that the world works so perfectly to sustain us it couldn't have been by accident.

Is there a name in physics for the force (opposite of entropy?) that builds such perfect form by random chance?

Actually, there is: evolution.

But that only applies to life-forms WITHIN the system.

I think the technical SCIENTIFIC name for something like the orbit-of-jupiter-that-really-favours-life is: "really bloody lucky".

That's a technical term, though. ;)

I think the technical SCIENTIFIC name for something like the orbit-of-jupiter-that-really-favours-life is: "really bloody lucky".
Hmmm. I don't think I believe in luck, not as an explaining reason. When I was a kid, I believed that everything had a reason, absolutely everything. Jupiter is what it is because of distribution of matter, forces of momentum and gravity that formed the early solar system. Causes and effects shaped it and positioned it. If we say it was "luck that made it happen" to be where it is (or worse, assign luck some responsibility for it) we give it as much intervening intelligence as the "hand of God" or "Fate" that deliberately poke things to make them work, for better or worse. We "trust" in luck and try to coerce it to work for us, as if it was responsive to us, because it should recognize that we, too, are intelligences. Or we may think of luck as blind and dumb coincidence, but I don't fancy trusting in blind and dumb things for explanations, and I'm sure you don't either --hence the active religion threads. ;-)

Hmmm. I don't think I believe in luck, not as an explaining reason. When I was a kid, I believed that everything had a reason, absolutely everything. Jupiter is what it is because of distribution of matter, forces of momentum and gravity that formed the early solar system. Causes and effects shaped it and positioned it. If we say it was "luck that made it happen" to be where it is (or worse, assign luck some responsibility for it) we give it as much intervening intelligence as the "hand of God" or "Fate" that deliberately poke things to make them work, for better or worse. We "trust" in luck and try to coerce it to work for us, as if it was responsive to us, because it should recognize that we, too, are intelligences. Or we may think of luck as blind and dumb coincidence, but I don't fancy trusting in blind and dumb things for explanations, and I'm sure you don't either --hence the active religion threads. ;-)

I don't know... blind chance is actually a pretty convincing argument - Brownian Motion, for example, is a compelling study in the randomness of reality. Take the random movement of particles, up the scale a fair bit, leave it to simmer for a few billion years and voila.... jam and hammers!

I don't believe in 'luck' as an entity, any more than I believe in that big beardy fellow in the white robes or the little tubby guy with the red suit and the sack of gifts.

I prefer to look at what HAS happened, and try to work out WHY it happened, rather than hoping that their is a hand behind the scenes, and it's all part of some big plan.

Of course, I'd love for one of these 'investigations' to unearth the verifiable presence of "Something More", but I'm not holding my breath... and I'm certainly not expecting to find any of the Usual Suspects in the organised religion game.

Slightly off-topic question for other Christians and those with experience of the Christian church: Have you noticed that Baptists and other evangelical-types have a tendency to criticize Episcopals and Catholics for being too "works-oriented" instead of "grace-oriented"? Yet, why is it that the evangelicals are insisting that people who aren't even Christians live by our rules (outlawing gay marriage, shouting at "fornicators" on the streets) , while the Episcopals and Catholics generally live and let live (except for the rather rabid stance of some Catholics on abortion)?

yeah. trouble is that if you were empowered by the grace of God, you would
love your neighbour as yourself. just love. oh, and remember that jesus didn't add on 'hey, of course that doesnt apply if your neighbour is gay, has had an abortion or believes something slightly different to you'.
i think a good thing to remeber is that jesus wasn't a catholic, a baptist or an evangelical, in fact (dare i say it) he wasn't a christian. he just did God's will. that's it.

I don't know... blind chance is actually a pretty convincing argument - Brownian Motion, for example, is a compelling study in the randomness of reality. Take the random movement of particles, up the scale a fair bit, leave it to simmer for a few billion years and voila.... jam and hammers!

I don't believe in 'luck' as an entity, any more than I believe in that big beardy fellow in the white robes or the little tubby guy with the red suit and the sack of gifts.

I prefer to look at what HAS happened, and try to work out WHY it happened, rather than hoping that their is a hand behind the scenes, and it's all part of some big plan.

Of course, I'd love for one of these 'investigations' to unearth the verifiable presence of "Something More", but I'm not holding my breath... and I'm certainly not expecting to find any of the Usual Suspects in the organised religion game.
Chance is a slightly different beast --very tiny, miniscule semantical difference. *squeezes her fingers together* ;-)

Chance happens; luck happens to us.

I will read up on this Brownian Motion. Thank you.

Not at all. I am studying biotechnology (and will most likely always be a student of sorts in this field). Every new nuance I learn convinces me even further of the greatness of God. The difference between me and some, though, is that I don't need to discount the scientific explanation in order to do so. God is just as, if not more, great by having put into place and started all of the physical laws that govern the Universe than by having simply poofed everything into existence fully made.

This is the same way I feel...although in my case it tends to be physics and math I look towards, rather than biology. The grace of mathematics especially is really quite something when you look at it. I don't claim to be any sort of mathematician, but what I've seen of it is amazing, especially when you start laying the fundamentals of calculus. (I always find it interesting that René Descartes, for all his philosophical accomplishments, was also so heavily involved in its development.) It seems to me that the universe HAS to have a set of orderly processes to run it--and I'd certainly not like a place that we human beings designed! Look at our own efforts to reshape the Earth. Mixed results, to say the least, don't you think? ;-)

Although even in these orderly rules, I should mention that quantum physics leaves a very interesting sort of "back door" to the universe to make even improbable, impossible things occur at times. We see it more on the subatomic levels--some particles traveling faster than light speed, for instance, but I have heard it suggested that even much more improbable events COULD well occur, even if the odds of their occurrence is as low as once in a universe. Which is why I think even miracles for which there is no explanation can't necessarily be ruled out, because it's a bit of a leap to equate improbability with impossibility. Just as some who practice religion close their minds to science, I think some who try to stay "strictly science" end up closing their minds to the fact that we don't know everything and that improbable--even massively improbable--does not mean impossible.

Chance is a slightly different beast --very tiny, miniscule semantical difference. *squeezes her fingers together* ;-)

Chance happens; luck happens to us.

I will read up on this Brownian Motion. Thank you.

I can give you a link that sums Brownian motion up in an incredibly cute and concise manner... sure it's not the text book definition, maybe... but it is REALLY cute...

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/brownian/brownian.html

I think we moderates lose our voice, because we're willing to say, "I don't know." Did God create the earth in seven days, or was it billions of years of evolution? "I don't know." Is homosexuality really really really wrong? "I don't know." What's hell actually like? Is there even a hell as we think about it? "I don't know." It gets darned frustrating being honest.
What if you started saying, "It doesn't matter; it's beside the point"? They really look at you weird, then. ;-)

Geez not another christian topic l- Listen to farce and not fact total fantasy dwellers . grow up if ya wanna do something GOOD do it

I just skimmed 16 pages of posts (woah, that's a lot) and didn't see anything that sounded like I'm about to say. Feel free to ignore it as, after all, it is an opinion.

The Bible consists of two parts, or testaments, referred to as the Old and the New. The basic break down is that everything in the Old Testament deals with Jewish history and poetry and prophecy all pointing toward the Christ, while the New Testament deals with the new church and lays out a groudwork for worship.

Many Christians take all these books at such strict value that they can come up with some interesting views, and in essense ignore the majority of the book.

The Old Testament:

The majority of the Old Testament deals with prophecy and poetry all designed to worship God in one way or another. The first part of the OT deals with Jewish history. The first five books (the pentatuch) deal with the formation of the nation of Israel. Joshua (book 6) deals with the conquest of Canaan. The rest of the old testament deals mostly with the lineage of the kings and various stories pulled from the era.

The Old Testament, according to Christian literature, was all written and included in canon (the Bible) to point to the coming of the Messiah (Christ)

The New Testament:

The New Testament has one history book, four biographical books, one book of prophecy, and many books of letters (episitles).

The biographical books deal with the Messiah (pointed to in the OT). The historical and epistilic books deal with the formation of the new church. The book of prophecy points to end times.

All that for this:

Christian tradition lineates the following:
Creation (eden)
sin (the fall, snake, apple)
It is very clear in the Bible that sin is abhorrent in the eyes of God.
The wages of sin is death.
The laws (Deut, Leviticus) were put in place to pay (atone) for that sin. These methods failed.
The sacrifice method (a reference later to the sacrifice of Christ) was a poor substitute for perfection (the only way to enter the afterlife with God)
Fast forward to the New Testament.
Christ says he has come to fulfill the law (its purpose to attain the perfection needed to enter Heaven)
Christ gives up his life.
Christ rises from the dead (thus conquering death)
The law of the OT no longer matters as Christ has made the ultimate sacrifice, the way to Heaven is now clear.

Present day church traditions tend to follow the above pretty closely.

Modern day churches variate widely when it comes to interpret the words of Paul (most of the epistles) and how wide spread his ideas were to me, or how limited they were to be.

But all that's for another post if anyone is interested after reading all of this.

:)

Hmmm. I don't think I believe in luck, not as an explaining reason. When I was a kid, I believed that everything had a reason, absolutely everything. Jupiter is what it is because of distribution of matter, forces of momentum and gravity that formed the early solar system. Causes and effects shaped it and positioned it. If we say it was "luck that made it happen" to be where it is (or worse, assign luck some responsibility for it) we give it as much intervening intelligence as the "hand of God" or "Fate" that deliberately poke things to make them work, for better or worse. We "trust" in luck and try to coerce it to work for us, as if it was responsive to us, because it should recognize that we, too, are intelligences. Or we may think of luck as blind and dumb coincidence, but I don't fancy trusting in blind and dumb things for explanations, and I'm sure you don't either --hence the active religion threads. ;-)

Um, you familiar with much quantum physics? I ask only because of your emphasis on "cause and effect" in science.

What if you started saying, "It doesn't matter; it's beside the point"? They really look at you weird, then. ;-)

I actually had a long, profound reply to Lower Aquatica that was basically a dissertation on that very subject. But I took so long writing it that the forum logged me out, and it disappeared. It was brilliant, I tell you, brilliant! But, really, you said what needs to be said. None of these arguments matter in the light of the reality and immensity of God. No one can be convinced of that reality, not by arguments anyway. What we should be about is the business of advancing the "Kingdom of God": doing our best to make our earth look like the "New Earth" of the prophecies, with no poverty, no war, no hunger, no oppression, no pollution, no hostile dividing lines. Isn't that what the Holy Spirit was sent for? To enable us to do that? Not necessarily to actually bring it about, but to work for it, to make a difference.
Anyway, thanks. It's nice to know other people ask questions, too. Also, sorry for not scanning down a few replies after your other post. I see the whole quantum question has already been addressed.

But that's precisely my point -- if the moderate Christians do say anything, they're preaching to their own choirs.



On the fear: the fear of being lumped in with the ilk of Fred Phelps or Jack Chick doesn't frighten anyone MORE?

On the fine differences between denominations -- that's as may be, but are there not far extremes that you have NO compunctions about deeming to be just plain OUT there?

To tell you the truth, I'm not as afraid of either possibility as I used to be. Being demonized by the established religious status quo is a time-honored tradition, and I think there are enough of us that it wouldn't be such a lonely place to be. I do, however, worry about creating more divisions in the church. I would prefer to somehow lead people willingly out of their debates and battles and into the actual worship and service of God. As for being stereotyped as a Fred Phelps, I think that sort of thing will always happen. People like stereotypes. I worry about those stereotypes being a hindrance for those people honestly seeking God, but lately I've found that they really foster conversations about God. If we simply do what God is asking us to do, I think this little crisis could turn into something really great, where those who have "known" God for a long time will suddenly learn to know Him better, and those who've never given Him a thought will begin to seek Him. "There is no fear in love."

yeah. trouble is that if you were empowered by the grace of God, you would
love your neighbour as yourself. just love. oh, and remember that jesus didn't add on 'hey, of course that doesnt apply if your neighbour is gay, has had an abortion or believes something slightly different to you'.
i think a good thing to remeber is that jesus wasn't a catholic, a baptist or an evangelical, in fact (dare i say it) he wasn't a christian. he just did God's will. that's it.

Hear, hear. In fact, Jesus went out of his way to show that there were NO groups or individuals too dirty, sinful, or wrong for him and us to love.

This is the same way I feel...although in my case it tends to be physics and math I look towards, rather than biology. The grace of mathematics especially is really quite something when you look at it. I don't claim to be any sort of mathematician, but what I've seen of it is amazing, especially when you start laying the fundamentals of calculus. (I always find it interesting that René Descartes, for all his philosophical accomplishments, was also so heavily involved in its development.) It seems to me that the universe HAS to have a set of orderly processes to run it--and I'd certainly not like a place that we human beings designed! Look at our own efforts to reshape the Earth. Mixed results, to say the least, don't you think? ;-)

Although even in these orderly rules, I should mention that quantum physics leaves a very interesting sort of "back door" to the universe to make even improbable, impossible things occur at times. We see it more on the subatomic levels--some particles traveling faster than light speed, for instance, but I have heard it suggested that even much more improbable events COULD well occur, even if the odds of their occurrence is as low as once in a universe. Which is why I think even miracles for which there is no explanation can't necessarily be ruled out, because it's a bit of a leap to equate improbability with impossibility. Just as some who practice religion close their minds to science, I think some who try to stay "strictly science" end up closing their minds to the fact that we don't know everything and that improbable--even massively improbable--does not mean impossible.

I had a whole class on this in college, taught by Dr. Lothar Shafer (a chemist of all things). You might enjoy his book: In Search of Divine Reality: Science as a Source of Inspiration . It's all about quantum theory and how it revolutionized the way we look at science, philosophy, and art, and how perhaps it can revolutionize the way we look at religion.

I had a whole class on this in college, taught by Dr. Lothar Shafer (a chemist of all things). You might enjoy his book: In Search of Divine Reality: Science as a Source of Inspiration . It's all about quantum theory and how it revolutionized the way we look at science, philosophy, and art, and how perhaps it can revolutionize the way we look at religion.

Thanks for the recommendation...I may end up taking a look at it tomorrow, if the local Barnes and Noble carries it.

I just skimmed 16 pages of posts (woah, that's a lot) and didn't see anything that sounded like I'm about to say. Feel free to ignore it as, after all, it is an opinion.

I won't ignore you, just fix a few of your mistakes, granted the couple that you made, well everyone makes them. So don't worry.


The Bible consists of two parts, or testaments, referred to as the Old and the New. The basic break down is that everything in the Old Testament deals with Jewish history and poetry and prophecy all pointing toward the Christ, while the New Testament deals with the new church and lays out a groudwork for worship.

You are right, it does consist of 2 parts, however the mistake here is the part of "Jewish" history, the word "Jew" didn't come into the bible until 2nd Kings, around 600 years after the death of King David. And they were fighting the Israelites (the chosen people).

A big problem with the Bible is that after so many translations the words have become mixed up, and where they couldn't translate a word, they would just swap it.


Many Christians take all these books at such strict value that they can come up with some interesting views, and in essense ignore the majority of the book.

The Old Testament:

The majority of the Old Testament deals with prophecy and poetry all designed to worship God in one way or another. The first part of the OT deals with Jewish history. The first five books (the pentatuch) deal with the formation of the nation of Israel. Joshua (book 6) deals with the conquest of Canaan. The rest of the old testament deals mostly with the lineage of the kings and various stories pulled from the era.

Once again your pretty well spot on apart from the word "Jewish" in there. Sorry but the word "Jewish" can't be put in where it should be Israelites. It is a common mistake, but a costly one.

It would be well for every Christian to remember that the word JEW has four distinct meanings in the Scriptures:

1 - A DESCENDANT OF JUDAH - an ethnic designation. These are a tiny minority among Jewry.
2 - A REMNANT - of those who went into Babylonian captivity and returned under Ezra and Nehemiah to rebuild Jerusalem.

3 - AN INHABITANT OF JUDEA - a geographical designation.

4 - A PERSON WHO FOLLOWS THE TALMUDIC RELIGION OF JUDAISM - These can be of any race. They developed a corrupt religion in Jerusalem, (see 2 Kings 17:32-34) - "So they feared the Lord, and made unto themselves of the lowest of them priests of the high places, which sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They feared the Lord (doesn't say they served Him) and served their own gods, AFTER THE MANNER OF THE NATIONS WHOM THEY CARRIED AWAY FROM THENCE. Unto this day they do after the former manner: they fear not the Lord, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordinances, or after the law and commandment which the Lord commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel." This is a perfect word description of TALMUDIC JUDAISM. For a New Testament description of them, read 1 John 2:22, 23. Isaiah 29:13 says of them: ". . . they have removed their heart far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men." Yasha said of them in Mark 7:13 - "Making the word of God of non-effect through your traditions . . ."

If you read John 1:47-49 where it talks about Nathaniel, Yahsha said "Behold, an ISRAELITE indeed" - note how it didn't say Jew. Now I have been told that this referred to the House of Israel, but the Israelites were all of the 12 Tribes, not just of the house of Israel, but also the house of Yudea.


The Old Testament, according to Christian literature, was all written and included in canon (the Bible) to point to the coming of the Messiah (Christ)

The New Testament:

The New Testament has one history book, four biographical books, one book of prophecy, and many books of letters (episitles).

The biographical books deal with the Messiah (pointed to in the OT). The historical and epistilic books deal with the formation of the new church. The book of prophecy points to end times.

This is all correct


All that for this:

Christian tradition lineates the following:
Creation (eden)
sin (the fall, snake, apple)
It is very clear in the Bible that sin is abhorrent in the eyes of God.
The wages of sin is death.
The laws (Deut, Leviticus) were put in place to pay (atone) for that sin. These methods failed.
The sacrifice method (a reference later to the sacrifice of Christ) was a poor substitute for perfection (the only way to enter the afterlife with God)
Fast forward to the New Testament.
Christ says he has come to fulfill the law (its purpose to attain the perfection needed to enter Heaven)
Christ gives up his life.
Christ rises from the dead (thus conquering death)
The law of the OT no longer matters as Christ has made the ultimate sacrifice, the way to Heaven is now clear.

All is correct apart from the Apple mark, the fruit itself is unknown, it may have been an apple. Different Bibles have different things, mine has "Fruit"

and the part about the Laws of the OT no longer matters is a bit off, I mean we are now forgiven...IF WE BELIEVE and are Baptized. But that doesn't mean we can just go around discounting the laws themselves. The Sabbath itself must be followed, this doesn't mean Saturday, but can be any day of the week. Most Christians have Sunday as a time to rest. Also to take the lords name in vain is a sin, we can be forgiven of that, but the unforgiveable sin (Using the Holy Spirit's name in Vain, well it speaks for itself)


Present day church traditions tend to follow the above pretty closely.

Modern day churches variate widely when it comes to interpret the words of Paul (most of the epistles) and how wide spread his ideas were to me, or how limited they were to be.

But all that's for another post if anyone is interested after reading all of this.

:)

Let me finish by stating there are probably many spelling mistakes in this, I don't feel so well and am pretty tired. Oh and thanks for the post, it was good reading. Oh and if you want more info, read THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE, written by Arthur Kosetler.

I won't ignore you, just fix a few of your mistakes, granted the couple that you made, well everyone makes them. So don't worry.



I stand corrected. I didn't even realize I was using Jewish incorrectly. Thanks for the FYI!!


All is correct apart from the Apple mark, the fruit itself is unknown, it may have been an apple. Different Bibles have different things, mine has "Fruit"



I used apple to bring into a frame of reference for those who may have heard the story and were trying to remember it. But yes, fruit is more correct.


and the part about the Laws of the OT no longer matters is a bit off, I mean we are now forgiven...IF WE BELIEVE and are Baptized. But that doesn't mean we can just go around discounting the laws themselves. The Sabbath itself must be followed, this doesn't mean Saturday, but can be any day of the week. Most Christians have Sunday as a time to rest. Also to take the lords name in vain is a sin, we can be forgiven of that, but the unforgiveable sin (Using the Holy Spirit's name in Vain, well it speaks for itself)



So far as this....I disagree. 99% of Old Testament Israelite laws were set up so that Israel could attone for the sins of Adam and Eve. Those were no longer required.

The 10 commandments....these are fundamental (for the most part) to all countries legal systems. However, I will agree with you that these 10 of all the OT laws should be followed if we are to claim that we are following God.

Of course, if we don't keep with them, they are forgiven...and I believe the unforgiveable sin is to greive the Holy Spirit..

Thanks for the response!

You do realize, of course, Bottle, that the quotation you cited about why you should kill people who believe otherwise (kinda funny in light of 'thou shalt not kill, but people are so used to that they never question it) ...well, that was directed toward *the Hebrews.* I believe the same book also *forbids* non-hebrews from worshipping their god, and in fact, *commands* non-Hebrews to follow the Gods of their *own* ancestors.

Gotta find that citation.

Could save my life someday.

I stand corrected. I didn't even realize I was using Jewish incorrectly. Thanks for the FYI!!

I used apple to bring into a frame of reference for those who may have heard the story and were trying to remember it. But yes, fruit is more correct.

So far as this....I disagree. 99% of Old Testament Israelite laws were set up so that Israel could attone for the sins of Adam and Eve. Those were no longer required.

The 10 commandments....these are fundamental (for the most part) to all countries legal systems. However, I will agree with you that these 10 of all the OT laws should be followed if we are to claim that we are following God.

Of course, if we don't keep with them, they are forgiven...and I believe the unforgiveable sin is to greive the Holy Spirit..

Thanks for the response!

Yeah, with the whole laws of the OT, I just believe we shouldn't go out and ignore them, I mean grated we are given forgiveness for our sins, we are really sorry for our sins. I mean most Chrisitans follow the Sabbath (Any day can be used for Rest, Most Christians use Sunday)...but yeah if we go out and break the laws when we know it, it isn't really a good thing to do. But yes you are correct for the most part. ...

This is a reply to an email I sent to a Pastor who is a follower of the Remnant of YHWH - they believe the OT laws are still important, I will send him a question about the OT laws, and post his response for you if you like..

Cheers mate...

Philip - Shalom!
I don't believe in bantering around titles, but we would consider ourselves
Messianic Israylites - not "Jews", not Talmudic/Hasidic, but holding fast
to the religion of the Messiah. Non-believers labeled the first century
followers of Yahsha h'Meshiyakh as "Natzarim" or Nazarenes which in
Hebrew means "bearer of crowns". I am currently working on a tract
entitled, "The Law of Crowns for the Melchizedek Priesthood" - Awesome
what YHWH has planned for His children!
We are not espousing any new religion
but simply cutting off the pagan customs and manipulations of the scriptures
by the mystery schools, such as communion, "Elohim", and much much
more. If you are seeking the truth, you wouldn't be complete until you under-
stand where we are coming from.. we want to help you help yourself in
seeing the demonically inspired changes for yourself so you can see why
and how Satan is doing these things to YHWH's covenant word over time.
Satan has deceived us into blaspheming by teaching us Hebrew words that
mean the opposite of what we think they mean in english - Hebrew is the
mother tongue of all (Gen.11:1) and this is the heavenly language invented
by YHWH and used to bring the universe and all into existence. Yahsha
Messiah speaks Hebrew and will forever - for this is the standard of perfection.
Satan knows the power of Hebrew and has convinced gullible christians to
use "bible" when referring to the Word, when in Hebrew "bibel" means confusion..
ie. Tower of Bibel. Also in Hebrew "holy" is a Hebrew word and literally
means confusion. So christians mock and blaspheme by calling YHWH's
covenant word as the "holy bibel" or "book of foolishness and confusion".
There's more....!! This is how Satan has deceived the whole world (Rev.12:9)
using words - as we speak either death or life (Prov.18:21). Satan has taught
us wrong and we are speaking blasphemy and death...that's why YHWH
tells us that His Hebrew pure language has to be restored in the last days
so that people understand and can call upon YHWH in unity (Zeph.3:9).
The Jews began the "changing" of YHWH's word long ago with a major leap
of deception occuring during the Babylonian Exile, when the "aramaic" Hebrew
script was born. I will gladly send you an info pak, if you first tell me how
you heard of us and your mailing address. Look forward to hearing from
you again...
In Yahsha's Service,
Pastor **** ******