NationStates Jolt Archive

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

To be a christian means to follow the teachings of Christ, and Christ said absolutely nothing about homosexuality or abortion, and when he came across an adulteress, he stopped her from being stoned with the ever famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Rather, Christ gave a few statements on how to live. His first two and greatest commandments were to 1) love God with all you have and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. Then there was also the Golden rule--treat others as you would be treated. And then there were the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount--you know, blessed are the merciful, etc.

You know, if you want to talk about christianity, Whittier, you might try reading what Christ actually said rather than listening to church leaders.

You're clueless.

You're clueless.

I was referring to Whittier, not Nazz. Testify, brother Nazz.

To be a christian means to follow the teachings of Christ, and Christ said absolutely nothing about homosexuality or abortion, and when he came across an adulteress, he stopped her from being stoned with the ever famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Rather, Christ gave a few statements on how to live. His first two and greatest commandments were to 1) love God with all you have and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. Then there was also the Golden rule--treat others as you would be treated. And then there were the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount--you know, blessed are the merciful, etc.

You know, if you want to talk about christianity, Whittier, you might try reading what Christ actually said rather than listening to church leaders.
Actually I dont' put much into "church leaders" say. I get my info direct from the Bible itself.
And since you mentioned the beautitudes I will be back in just a minute.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

You couldn't be further from the truth. That's not what being Chrisitan is about. The fundamental belief is that God is God, and Jesus was his son and died on the cross for humanity's sins. Yes, adultery, abortion, and homosexuality are wrong, but so is murder.

Actually I dont' put much into "church leaders" say. I get my info direct from the Bible itself.
And since you mentioned the beautitudes I will be back in just a minute.

I would have to agree with Nazz. But I'm curious if you have any passages to refer to that prove your point.

I get my info direct from the Bible itself.

You apparently aren't very well-rounded in the Bible if you think the three things you listed is what Christianity is about. You also might want to mention the love God has for you, even if you are an adulterer or have had an abortion or have engaged in homosexual activity (I've seen nothing to suggest that simply being homosexual is a sin - acting on it is, but it is equal to premarital heterosexual intercourse).

Actually I dont' put much into "church leaders" say. I get my info direct from the Bible itself.
And since you mentioned the beautitudes I will be back in just a minute.

So you get your info from a book that was put together by a group of people who down the road decided that in order to help the fish industry make eating meat on a certain day a mortal sin?

"The Nazz" has the right idea

If everyone followed the simple beautiful principles espoused by Christ the world would be a better place.

Trying to be a better person, how is that bad?
Giving everyone a fair go no matter what race or relegion or sins they may have?

Getting the picture?

Go out today and make the world a better place. :)

why was I thinking sermon on the mount when I read beautitudes?

But the beautitudes in Matthew 5 are merely the beginning of the sermon of mount.

When you speak of the beautitudes I would assume you speak of:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Correct?

BTW, which version are you using?

I would have to agree with Nazz. But I'm curious if you have any passages to refer to that prove your point.
You mean besides the one he already referenced that warned of following official church leadership?

You mean besides the one he already referenced that warned of following official church leadership?

Funny how the Church leadership put the bible together.

You apparently aren't very well-rounded in the Bible if you think the three things you listed is what Christianity is about. You also might want to mention the love God has for you, even if you are an adulterer or have had an abortion or have engaged in homosexual activity (I've seen nothing to suggest that simply being homosexual is a sin - acting on it is, but it is equal to premarital heterosexual intercourse).
Hold up. Read my whole post. I said that was only a start. I haven't gotten to the those parts.
I know your all enthusiastic and all but give me a chance. After all Rome wasn't built in a day.

"The Nazz" has the right idea

If everyone followed the simple beautiful principles espoused by Christ the world would be a better place.

Trying to be a better person, how is that bad?
Giving everyone a fair go no matter what race or relegion or sins they may have?

Getting the picture?

Go out today and make the world a better place. :)And here's something that'll probably fry Whittier's noodle--the basic teachings of Christ are virtually identical to those of the oldest religions on earth--Buddhism and Hinduism. The gods are different, and the texts have different purposes, but the basics--love, be kind to each other, etc., are identical.

Funny how the Church leadership put the bible together.
It is written "becareful that you not follow after the hypocrites." Shall I give you chapter with a verse?

And here's something that'll probably fry Whittier's noodle--the basic teachings of Christ are virtually identical to those of the oldest religions on earth--Buddhism and Hinduism. The gods are different, and the texts have different purposes, but the basics--love, be kind to each other, etc., are identical.
Are you ignoring me? Just wondering cause I asked a question earlier.

Well you should remember the last two:

10. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

These people who are persecuted for righteousness sake are the same people who are sincerely out promoting the law of God. They are the ones who promote morality and ethics. They tend to be your whistleblowers or the picketers in front of the abortion clinic.
Now don't go thinking that covers killing abortion docters. There is nothing righteous about murdering. And if you say I am posting support of that, you will be lying cause I said no such thing.

Then you have this one:

11. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

This happens all the time. The true christians are the ones who are persecuted and reviled. Their opinions are most often the minority opinions.
This can be seen from history. And the other thing is, that those christians who do try to live their faith usually do end up being falsely accused.

That is why, later in the old testament, they wrote, if a brother be accused, there must be at least two witnesses.

Do you follow?

It is written "becareful that you not follow after the hypocrites." Shall I give you chapter with a verse?

Well this sounds much different from this

You mean besides the one he already referenced that warned of following official church leadership?

I love how there is the change from the warning of following official church leadership to hypocrites.

13. Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

14. Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Know you what that means? I know what means. But I would like to know what you think first. Then I'll tell you what I hold it to mean.

Um... now I could be wrong, but I thought that the fundamental start (the bedrock, if you will) of being a Christian was "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whomever shall believe in him shall not perish but shall have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV)

As well as the two commandments of "Love the LORD your God, with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your neighbor as you love yourself".

But I might be wrong, of course.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin
Really?

I was under the impression that the fundamentals of christianity were to love everybody, forgive and forget, dont' judge others and look after those who need your help plus the whole bit about belief in Jesus getting you into heaven no matter what terrible things you've done.

But then I guess I'm just a stupid heathen who apparantly paid better attention while reading the Bible than you did.

Well this sounds much different from this



I love how there is the change from the warning of following official church leadership to hypocrites.
Let me find that passage I am referring to. I think you know which one I am referring to. But I'll grab it anyway.

Um... now I could be wrong, but I thought that the fundamental start (the bedrock, if you will) of being a Christian was "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son and whomever shall believe in him shall not perish but shall have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV)

As well as the two commandments of "Love the LORD your God, with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your neighbor as you love yourself".

But I might be wrong, of course.
No no. You are right. But there are 12 commandments, not just two.
John 3:16 is the bedrock of the christian faith. Without it, everything else is futile.

The point I am trying to get across whitt is that you say you dont trust church leadership and follow the bible, yet the bible was put together by the leadership of the church.

Any belief system that has a fundament is a belief system I'll make a point of steering clear of, thanks.

Really?

I was under the impression that the fundamentals of christianity were to love everybody, forgive and forget, dont' judge others and look after those who need your help plus the whole bit about belief in Jesus getting you into heaven no matter what terrible things you've done.

Don't forget, "Turn the other cheek."

Don't forget, "Turn the other cheek."
That's basically forgive and forget though, isn't it?

Really?

I was under the impression that the fundamentals of christianity were to love everybody, forgive and forget, dont' judge others and look after those who need your help plus the whole bit about belief in Jesus getting you into heaven no matter what terrible things you've done.

But then I guess I'm just a stupid heathen who apparantly paid better attention while reading the Bible than you did.
I never called you a "stupid heathen".
Why are you saying that? BTW, you are talking about Matt 7

No no. You are right. But there are 12 commandments, not just two.
John 3:16 is the bedrock of the christian faith. Without it, everything else is futile.
12? If you are referring to Moses and those 10, those were... hmm.. abandoned isn't quite the right word here. But I thought the new covenant spoken of during the Last Supper (This cup is the new covenant in(of) my blood, shed for the forgiveness of sin) meant that the old laws were now superseded.

That and all 10 were rather well wrapped up by those two He gave us. ;)

That's basically forgive and forget though, isn't it?

Eh, more or less. I just wanted to say that though...always makes me giggle...

The point I am trying to get across whitt is that you say you dont trust church leadership and follow the bible, yet the bible was put together by the leadership of the church.
Mathew 23:Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

He was speaking of the official religious leaders of his day. And if you notice the leaders of those days are like the church leader of today.

Now when you speak of the Church leadership putting the Bible together, you have to understand that those at the council were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But if you speaking of the leadership of the Catholic Church then I grant your point. But I am not talking bout the Catholic Church cause there was no Catholic Church when the Bible was assembled. There was only the Church of Christ.

12? If you are referring to Moses and those 10, those were... hmm.. abandoned isn't quite the right word here. But I thought the new covenant spoken of during the Last Supper (This cup is the new covenant in(of) my blood, shed for the forgiveness of sin) meant that the old laws were now superseded.

That and all 10 were rather well wrapped up by those two He gave us. ;)
I'll get to them. Cause they are covered in the sermon on the mount.

I never called you a "stupid heathen".
Why are you saying that? BTW, you are talking about Matt 7
I belive I was talking about a number of different concepts here. Whether they were all covered in Matther 7 is beyond me (I'm not much for memorizing chapter:verse) and really, a lot of the themes get repeated in the new testament.

And really, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, abortion et c the only person in the new testament who came close to talking about homosexuality was Paul, though he referred to the practise of temple prostitutes in one instance, not a loving consentual relationship, and in another, it was really mistranslated... as for abortion, the only part that really mentions what happens when someone causes a miscarriage is that the husband gets paid off, wheras the punishment for murder is more severe... not that any of this is particularly fundamental to christianity, let alone the teachings of Jesus. We're talking about the man who is said to have said "Pull the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brother's" to look at your own failings and deal with them before even saying anything about the failings of others. Not to judge, not to hate, not to discriminate... and here you are, judging, hating, discriminating and dragging his good name and teachings through the mud.

Now when you speak of the Church leadership putting the Bible together, you have to understand that those at the council were under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

If you can prove with facts and eyewitness accounts who can verify that in fact the Holy spirit influenced them I will believe you. Otherwise its just a bunch of normal falible guys who got together and decided to choose what is considered "The word of god" and what was not

Are you ignoring me? Just wondering cause I asked a question earlier.
I'm not ignoring you--I got a phone call. As to the beatitudes, yes those are what I was talking about. As to the translation I'm using, up till now I've been going strictly from memory because my books are in boxes--I'm moving in two weeks--but it's likely a combination of the American Standard and the King James, with a little of the Bible in Living English mixed in.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

That's kinda insultingly simplistic.. It's not much of a chore to flip through a bible on occasion, any one of the Gospels.. might take, maybe, 30 minutes. Especially if you have a KJV with red text for Christ's words. Adultery is definitely in there, but not abortion or homosexuality.. so I'm not sure how those became the Big Three, so to speak.

In regard to the passages about being salt and being light, it is also written in Luke 8: 16. No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
17. For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

And there is a passage in Mark that says the same thing.

You might be wondering what's the relevance? How does this relate?
Well, I've heard people who claim to know Christianity post on these forums that Christ said we are not to talk about our faiths in a public forum. But as you can tell from these that is not what he said. We are not keep our faith in the closet. That's not where it belongs.

Now this doesn't mean that you have to go out with a bullhorn, get in your care and drive around shouting "Repent you uncircumcised Philistines or you'll go to hell." to unsuspecting passersby. Everyone has different ways of doing it. But the teaching of Christianity is that is a command of Christ that we go out into the world preaching and teaching. Course not everyone is called to be preacher but many are called to teach and mentor. If you're not trying to make disciples you are not following all the commands of Christ.

Now I am going to part that you have been jumping on me about. Namely the 10 commandments and whether they are still in effect for Christians today.

Now when you speak of the Church leadership putting the Bible together, you have to understand that those at the council were under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But if you speaking of the leadership of the Catholic Church then I grant your point. But I am not talking bout the Catholic Church cause there was no Catholic Church when the Bible was assembled. There was only the Church of Christ.
Whittier, I'm saying this in all sincerity and honesty, and because I once thought the way you do--you really need to do some study on the history of the early christian church, indepth, historical study. It'll shock you just how much division there was--if you think there are disagreements today between sects of christianity, a study of that period will blow your mind. Just the period from the first to the fourth centuries was filled with uhndreds of schisms and fights of church dogma, and most of the time, the victors not only killed the defeated, they did all they could to destroy proof of their existence. Obviously, they were unsuccessful, because we know of them today, but only if you look. Christianity has done a very good job of putting up a united front as far as the composition of the Bible is concerned for the last 500 years or so, so that now it seems natural to us, but it wasn't always so. Take the time and look into it--it increased my appreciation for the teachings of christ--didn't do much for my thoughts on organized religion, but it did wonders for Christ.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

Hmmm yes, start off with a completely biased and unfair view of a religion and expect those people who believe it to turn it into a sensible debate.... oh and if they don't you'll just say they're flamers and hypocrtites :D typical NS

Anyway, the fundamental teachings of Christianity are obviously not the 3 you mentioned, they just happen to be the most controversial so i'll give you my opinion on them.

Yes, i do think adultery is a sin. But also when you think about it, it should be common sense not to do it. Adultery screws up peoples lives, the people involved and any kids involved. As for prostitutes etc. thats not adultery it's fornication (still a sin). But this command is mainly to protect us and to show respect from God. Do you think prostitutes enjoy it, that they wwant to do it? And, a body is a gift from God, as is sex, we should treat them with respect, sex was designed for marriage.

Abortion, yes again i think it's a sin but not all Christians agree with me. I don't want to turn this into a debate on abortion so i'll stop there.

Homosexuality, i don't think same sex marriages are right, and i don't think that's the way God meant it to be. But i'm not really an expert on those issues so i don't want to go into detail, as i'm probably wrong

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Well... if you explain that with punctuation i'll give you my views... maybe i'm just dumb, but i don't understand it...

I belive I was talking about a number of different concepts here. Whether they were all covered in Matther 7 is beyond me (I'm not much for memorizing chapter:verse) and really, a lot of the themes get repeated in the new testament.

And really, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, abortion et c the only person in the new testament who came close to talking about homosexuality was Paul, though he referred to the practise of temple prostitutes in one instance, not a loving consentual relationship, and in another, it was really mistranslated... as for abortion, the only part that really mentions what happens when someone causes a miscarriage is that the husband gets paid off, wheras the punishment for murder is more severe... not that any of this is particularly fundamental to christianity, let alone the teachings of Jesus. We're talking about the man who is said to have said "Pull the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brother's" to look at your own failings and deal with them before even saying anything about the failings of others. Not to judge, not to hate, not to discriminate... and here you are, judging, hating, discriminating and dragging his good name and teachings through the mud.

Not every one can remember the exact chapter and verse. But that's why its a good idea to keep the book handy. That way if you get into a discussion like this one, you can look it up. I myself have the same problem. I know the concepts but I can't memorize chapter in verse except for the major stuff.
Stuff like John 3:16 and Matthew 5-8.
If you are going to memorize stuff start off with John 3:16 and Matthew 5 to 6. Though that's a lot.

If you can prove with facts and eyewitness accounts who can verify that in fact the Holy spirit influenced them I will believe you. Otherwise its just a bunch of normal falible guys who got together and decided to choose what is considered "The word of god" and what was not
well, I don't anyone whose been alive that long. Are you saying that you do?

The matter of whether the Holy Spirit influenced them, is something that you have to take on faith. Its not something that you can measure or test. Either you believe or you don't.

Sorry if my last post sounded a bit harsh it wasn't meant to come out like that... it was meant to be :p more of a joke

I'm not ignoring you--I got a phone call. As to the beatitudes, yes those are what I was talking about. As to the translation I'm using, up till now I've been going strictly from memory because my books are in boxes--I'm moving in two weeks--but it's likely a combination of the American Standard and the King James, with a little of the Bible in Living English mixed in.
I have the same versions but mine are locked away in a storage bin back home. I am using an software Bible. Do you have one those?

The matter of whether the Holy Spirit influenced them, is something that you have to take on faith. Its not something that you can measure or test. Either you believe or you don't.

Right I dont agree with what you have just said at all. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say I told you that your religion was wrong and that the true religion is the Raelien religion(Intellegent aliens created humans etc.). You ask for proof and I say you have to take it on faith alone and its not something you can measure or test. Are you going to convert to the Raelien religion?

Now some of you have said that when Jesus came, he eliminated the law.
Or at least that was what you heard or was told. Correct me if I am wrong.

Right I dont agree with what you have just said at all. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Say I told you that your religion was wrong and that the true religion is the Raelien religion(Intellegent aliens created humans etc.). You ask for proof and I say you have to take it on faith alone and its not something you can measure or test. Are you going to convert to the Raelien religion?
I would likely give you the same answer you might give me if I asked you to convert the religion of Star Wars with the Sith being the supreme God.
(ok, its a far fetched example)

Faith must not be blind or it isn't really faith. You must be convinced in your own mind that a particular faith is right. I can tell you the universe is actually part of multiverse. But you have to make up your own mind whether you will believe it and accept.

Now, before we continue it is good that you bring up this point. Cause I would just like to point out that the purpose of this thread is not to try to convert people to christianity. If it happens it happens but I am not going to push it.

Whittier, I'm saying this in all sincerity and honesty, and because I once thought the way you do--you really need to do some study on the history of the early christian church, indepth, historical study. It'll shock you just how much division there was--if you think there are disagreements today between sects of christianity, a study of that period will blow your mind. Just the period from the first to the fourth centuries was filled with uhndreds of schisms and fights of church dogma, and most of the time, the victors not only killed the defeated, they did all they could to destroy proof of their existence. Obviously, they were unsuccessful, because we know of them today, but only if you look. Christianity has done a very good job of putting up a united front as far as the composition of the Bible is concerned for the last 500 years or so, so that now it seems natural to us, but it wasn't always so. Take the time and look into it--it increased my appreciation for the teachings of christ--didn't do much for my thoughts on organized religion, but it did wonders for Christ.
actually the church has never really been united about which books belong in the Bible. Remember the Apochrypha?

As to whether the laws are still binding:

quick warning (some of you will find that passages appear to contradict what you were taught or heard about christianity. Please don't be offended cause this is coming straight the lips of Jesus in the book Matthew chapter 5, it is right after the beautitudes:

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

BRB.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

Even though that I do not think those are the fundamentals of Christianity, I heard on the History Channel that some Christian churches consider the following to be sins:

masturbation
fornication
anal sex
any other forms of irregular sex, including having sex with the woman on top

So basically in Christianity the only way to have sex that's not a sin is if a married couple have sex while the man is on top.

I would likely give you the same answer you might give me if I asked you to convert the religion of Star Wars with the Sith being the supreme God.
(ok, its a far fetched example)
Then what if i switch it around to say be a more main stream religion like Islam? Are you still going to give me the same answer?

Faith must not be blind or it isn't really faith. You must be convinced in your own mind that a particular faith is right. I can tell you the universe is actually part of multiverse. But you have to make up your own mind whether you will believe it and accept.
So in other words there needs to be some sort of proof that turns you towards the religion in question in order for the faith to be legitimate?

actually the church has never really been united about which books belong in the Bible. Remember the Apochrypha?
Oh yeah--and there are other books that didn't even make it that far. It's fascinating reading. In fact, I'm reading a book right now about the history of Byzantium, and it includes many of the fights over doctrine both inside the Empire and between the various patriarchates and the papacy. So much of what's taken for granted as settled doctrine now wasn't settled until long after Christ was dead. That's why I don't talk about doctrine when I talk about christianity--I talk about what Christ said. I don't even take what Paul wrote into consideration very much, as he was a guy with his own agenda--if Jesus was the contemplative side of christianity, then Paul was the evangelical side, and the two often conflict.

Even though that I do not think those are the fundamentals of Christianity, I heard on the History Channel that some Christian churches consider the following to be sins:

masturbation
fornication
anal sex
any other forms of irregular sex, including having sex with the woman on top

So basically in Christianity the only way to have sex that's not a sin is if a married couple have sex while the man is on top.
there are churches that believe that. But Paul dealt with that issue in his letters. Cause you have to remember that some congregations back in the day had similar restrictive interpretations.

Then what if i switch it around to say be a more main stream religion like Islam? Are you still going to give me the same answer?


So in other words there needs to be some sort of proof that turns you towards the religion in question in order for the faith to be legitimate?
In order for it to be legit to you. Yes. But what makes a religion legit is different for different people. My standards may not be the same as your and neither of our standards may be the same as (random poster here).

But as your first question, I would give you the same answer. But I in either case I would investigate first.

why was I thinking sermon on the mount when I read beautitudes?

But the beautitudes in Matthew 5 are merely the beginning of the sermon of mount.

When you speak of the beautitudes I would assume you speak of:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Correct?

BTW, which version are you using?

10. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
11. (paraphrased) Blessed are you when you are persecuted, insulted, in MY name or because of me. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

The Sermon on the Mount is about 3 chapters long. It's actually a good thing to commit to memory.

But as your first question, I would give you the same answer. But I in either case I would investigate first.

And I respond by saying Its not something you can measure or test. You just have to have faith. Are you going to believe me or are you going to still go with the no answer?

Oh yeah--and there are other books that didn't even make it that far. It's fascinating reading. In fact, I'm reading a book right now about the history of Byzantium, and it includes many of the fights over doctrine both inside the Empire and between the various patriarchates and the papacy. So much of what's taken for granted as settled doctrine now wasn't settled until long after Christ was dead. That's why I don't talk about doctrine when I talk about christianity--I talk about what Christ said. I don't even take what Paul wrote into consideration very much, as he was a guy with his own agenda--if Jesus was the contemplative side of christianity, then Paul was the evangelical side, and the two often conflict.
But you should know that Paul's agenda was Christ's agenda. Remember when Jesus bitchslapped Paul on the road to Damascus. If you look at the two and what they taught there really isn't much conflict. Both were very evangelical.
Remember that they both moved around preaching to huge crowds. Though I think Jesus might have had bigger crowds. But anyways, Paul was obeying a command of christ when he did his travels and preachings and his letters. Let us not forget about the letters written and the speeches that were given by the Apostle Peter.

10. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.
11. (paraphrased) Blessed are you when you are persecuted, insulted, in MY name or because of me. Rejoice and be glad for great is your reward in heaven for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

The Sermon on the Mount is about 3 chapters long. It's actually a good thing to commit to memory.
yes it is.

I only mentioned the first ten in that post cause those are the ones every one likes to talk about. The last two, which I posted later on, and which you just cited, tend to get ignored. Unfortunately. I recommend dividing it into sections and memorizing it one section at a time. Its easier. Also it goes from Matt. 5 to 8.

So you have this memorized you say?

12? If you are referring to Moses and those 10, those were... hmm.. abandoned isn't quite the right word here. But I thought the new covenant spoken of during the Last Supper (This cup is the new covenant in(of) my blood, shed for the forgiveness of sin) meant that the old laws were now superseded.

That and all 10 were rather well wrapped up by those two He gave us. ;)

The New Covenant does not necessarily supercede the old, like the New Testament doesn't supercede the old (otherwise why include it in the Bible at all?) but rather it complements like like two right triangles make a square. ALL SCRIPTURE is the Word of God, useful for instruction, rebuke, etc.

I agree... they are summed up - indeed Christ said that the Greatest Commandment - Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself sums up the law and the prophets (Old Testament)

And I respond by saying Its not something you can measure or test. You just have to have faith. Are you going to believe me or are you going to still go with the no answer?
Well, I would let you have a go at convincing me. Though the likelihood is pretty small.
When I say you have to take it on faith, I don't mean blind faith. If anyone asks you to convert to this or that, you should always investigate. But because it is faith, it can't be wieghed or measured. It can only testified about.

The New Covenant does not necessarily supercede the old, like the New Testament doesn't supercede the old (otherwise why include it in the Bible at all?) but rather it complements like like two right triangles make a square. ALL SCRIPTURE is the Word of God, useful for instruction, rebuke, etc.

I agree... they are summed up - indeed Christ said that the Greatest Commandment - Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself sums up the law and the prophets (Old Testament)
Why do we seem to think alike? Odd.

I belive I was talking about a number of different concepts here. Whether they were all covered in Matther 7 is beyond me (I'm not much for memorizing chapter:verse) and really, a lot of the themes get repeated in the new testament.

And really, Jesus never said anything about homosexuals, abortion et c the only person in the new testament who came close to talking about homosexuality was Paul, though he referred to the practise of temple prostitutes in one instance, not a loving consentual relationship, and in another, it was really mistranslated... as for abortion, the only part that really mentions what happens when someone causes a miscarriage is that the husband gets paid off, wheras the punishment for murder is more severe... not that any of this is particularly fundamental to christianity, let alone the teachings of Jesus. We're talking about the man who is said to have said "Pull the log out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brother's" to look at your own failings and deal with them before even saying anything about the failings of others. Not to judge, not to hate, not to discriminate... and here you are, judging, hating, discriminating and dragging his good name and teachings through the mud.

The book of Romans speaks very plainly about lust and homosexuality.

Knowing God but not acknowledging him leads to the old Luciferian sin of pride - pride leads to people thinking that all is permissible and nothing is wrong and eventually leads to lust (satiation of the flesh) and once they get bored with the opposite sex, they start looking for other ways like homosexuality.

Romans 1: 18-32

Well, I would let you have a go at convincing me. Though the likelihood is pretty small.
When I say you have to take it on faith, I don't mean blind faith. If anyone asks you to convert to this or that, you should always investigate. But because it is faith, it can't be wieghed or measured. It can only testified about.

Well then if you say you should investigate or have some sort of proof before you commit to something on faith why then did you say this.

The matter of whether the Holy Spirit influenced them, is something that you have to take on faith. Its not something that you can measure or test. Either you believe or you don't.

This is pretty much you saying I have to have blind faith in something. Your saying right here I cant investigate something and that I either have to believe it on the merit of faith alone or not at all. It seems to me that you have eliminated the choice believing in it based on faith and that only leaves the not believing in it answer.

That's kinda insultingly simplistic.. It's not much of a chore to flip through a bible on occasion, any one of the Gospels.. might take, maybe, 30 minutes. Especially if you have a KJV with red text for Christ's words. Adultery is definitely in there, but not abortion or homosexuality.. so I'm not sure how those became the Big Three, so to speak.

Christ was Jewish and the Jewish law is very specific about those practices - that's one reason the Jewish people were 'set apart' from other religions including those of the Greeks (which practiced homosexuality - Alexander movie anyone? - and exposure - leaving infants exposed, like Oedipus for example) and the Canaanites whose sexualized religions based on Astarte and the Baals worshipped sensuality, ritualized shrine prostitution and infant sacrifice (Molech - the detestable god of the Canaanites. God commanded that his people should not let their children 'pass through the fire' - be sacrificed by being thrown into the burning 'stomach' of the idol.)

Whittier, I'm saying this in all sincerity and honesty, and because I once thought the way you do--you really need to do some study on the history of the early christian church, indepth, historical study. It'll shock you just how much division there was--if you think there are disagreements today between sects of christianity, a study of that period will blow your mind. Just the period from the first to the fourth centuries was filled with uhndreds of schisms and fights of church dogma, and most of the time, the victors not only killed the defeated, they did all they could to destroy proof of their existence. Obviously, they were unsuccessful, because we know of them today, but only if you look. Christianity has done a very good job of putting up a united front as far as the composition of the Bible is concerned for the last 500 years or so, so that now it seems natural to us, but it wasn't always so. Take the time and look into it--it increased my appreciation for the teachings of christ--didn't do much for my thoughts on organized religion, but it did wonders for Christ.

To that I say look at the Christ, not at 'Christians'. If 'Christians' have any power it is only through Christ and when our 'darker angels' reveal themselves it is the fallen nature, the 'old man' and we are not living through Christ. But that's because we are sinful human beings - and THAT's why we need Christ.

Well then if you say you should investigate or have some sort of proof before you commit to something on faith why then did you say this.



This is pretty much you saying I have to have blind faith in something. Your saying right here I cant investigate something and that I either have to believe it on the merit of faith alone or not at all. It seems to me that you have eliminated the choice believing in it based on faith and that only leaves the not believing in it answer.
lol
There will be some things in christianity that you will have to take on 'blind faith" though shouldn't be too many. But you won't find any whole religion based on only blind faith.
But you will find parts that are.

I was looking for something to support what Maharlikana said when I thought that this was relevant to our discussion of faith:

1 Corinthians 2

1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power:
5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin
...and some more words here...

And here I was, under the false impression that the two fundamentals of Christianity are love your neighbour and love God. Whoops!

lol
There will be some things in christianity that you will have to take on 'blind faith" though shouldn't be too many. But you won't find any whole religion based on only blind faith.
But you will find parts that are.
I questioned the validity of the bible because of the fact that it was chosen by men who are falible and often times wrong. You respond by saying the people who chose it were under the influence of the holy spirit. I challenged you to come up with proof and you said it was something to be accepted on faith alone. I question this answer by presenting you with a similar situation in which you are forced to choose your belief based only on faith. You reject it and yet it uses the same logic you used to justify your claim that the people who chose the books of the bible were under the influence of the holy spirit. Not only that but you yourself admit that blind faith isnt really faith.

Faith must not be blind or it isn't really faith.

And yet you still accept parts of the religion on blind faith. Isnt that hypocrisy?

As to whether the laws are still binding:

quick warning (some of you will find that passages appear to contradict what you were taught or heard about christianity. Please don't be offended cause this is coming straight the lips of Jesus in the book Matthew chapter 5, it is right after the beautitudes:

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

BRB.

In conjunction with this we also have Romans 3:

19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

I questioned the validity of the bible because of the fact that it was chosen by men who are falible and often times wrong. You respond by saying the people who chose it were under the influence of the holy spirit. I challenged you to come up with proof and you said it was something to be accepted on faith alone. I question this answer by presenting you with a similar situation in which you are forced to choose your belief based only on faith. You reject it and yet it uses the same logic you used to justify your claim that the people who chose the books of the bible were under the influence of the holy spirit. Not only that but you yourself admit that blind faith isnt really faith.



And yet you still accept parts of the religion on blind faith. Isnt that hypocrisy?
Not really. Do you see the difference between the two?
In scenario one, you asked to believe that some men were filled by the holy ghost. Something you have to do on blind faith (well not blind if you accept the eyewitness testimonies from the time)
In scenario two, you ask me to be base my entire religion on blind faith but did not offer any testamonies or even a book.

But you should know that Paul's agenda was Christ's agenda. Remember when Jesus bitchslapped Paul on the road to Damascus. If you look at the two and what they taught there really isn't much conflict. Both were very evangelical.
Remember that they both moved around preaching to huge crowds. Though I think Jesus might have had bigger crowds. But anyways, Paul was obeying a command of christ when he did his travels and preachings and his letters. Let us not forget about the letters written and the speeches that were given by the Apostle Peter.
If you take Paul's conversion story as literal truth instead of metaphorical, then you have more of an argument, but when you examine the thrust of both their messages, you can see that Paul was very different from Jesus. Paul explains that away by saying that Jesus preached to the Jews, while Paul was apostle to the world. Paul was a much more in-your-face personality than Jesus, not to mention a horrible misogynist. I don't doubt that both were evangelical, but Jesus focused far more on changing personal behavior and becoming a better person, while Paul focused largely on conversion of others, and less on the self, except when he was talking about feeling guilty.

It seems to me that the places where churches have gone horribly astray on doctrinal matters and personal conduct, it's always been in misinterpretation of Paul rather than Jesus. That can't just be a coincidence.

23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

argh. You missed out to Boldify the best part :p

To that I say look at the Christ, not at 'Christians'. If 'Christians' have any power it is only through Christ and when our 'darker angels' reveal themselves it is the fallen nature, the 'old man' and we are not living through Christ. But that's because we are sinful human beings - and THAT's why we need Christ.
I found it. This should be what you are referring to:

Romans 7

1. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2. For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.
6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
8. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

And all true christians experience this conflict. But is part of our job to resist and not give in.

It seems to me that the places where churches have gone horribly astray on doctrinal matters and personal conduct, it's always been in misinterpretation of Paul rather than Jesus. That can't just be a coincidence.

You must be joking. Cause as far as I've known, I'm only person that I know of, that has had that belief.
They've mangled his teachings. It was a massacre. And what's worse is that people believe those who do the twisting instead of investigating. And if you challenge it you're a false prophet.
See, that's why I am copy pasting chapter and verse, so people can pick up their own bibles and see that the stuff I am qouting really is in there. If someone says, "you don't need the Bible, you can just take my word for it", know that you have been forwarned about false prophets. A false prophet will always tell you to go by the word of Pastor Sonson instead of the word of God.

Snip.

There was also some differences. Jesus hasn't died yet, nor has the Christians been given the Holy Spirit.

Jesus came to fulfill and preach the law in it's perfection. Hence, your hand sins, cut it off type of thing.

Not really. Do you see the difference between the two?
In scenario one, you asked to believe that some men were filled by the holy ghost. Something you have to do on blind faith (well not blind if you accept the eyewitness testimonies from the time)
In scenario two, you ask me to be base my entire religion on blind faith but did not offer any testamonies or even a book.

Lets then substitute the whole religion part with the fact that I am asking you to believe that the Quran is the true "Word of God" and that through the prophet Mohammed, Allah put his words down into writting. Same prerequisits you brought forth before. You cant prove this through measurements and experiments you can only take it on faith alone. Are you going to take the Quran as the true "Word of God"?

argh. You missed out to Boldify the best part :p
I caught it but I only boldified 23

argh. You missed out to Boldify the best part :p
eh, you forgot 31.

There was also some differences. Jesus hasn't died yet, nor has the Christians been given the Holy Spirit.

Jesus came to fulfill and preach the law in it's perfection. Hence, your hand sins, cut it off type of thing.
?????????????

where did you get that interpretation? I have never heard of that.

Lets then substitute the whole religion part with the fact that I am asking you to believe that the Quran is the true "Word of God" and that through the prophet Mohammed, Allah put his words down into writting. Same prerequisits you brought forth before. You cant prove this through measurements and experiments you can only take it on faith alone. Are you going to take the Quran as the true "Word of God"?
If I was going to, I would have to do it on faith alone. So yes the same principle.

Hmmm yes, start off with a completely biased and unfair view of a religion and expect those people who believe it to turn it into a sensible debate.... oh and if they don't you'll just say they're flamers and hypocrtites :D typical NS

Anyway, the fundamental teachings of Christianity are obviously not the 3 you mentioned, they just happen to be the most controversial so i'll give you my opinion on them.

Yes, i do think adultery is a sin. But also when you think about it, it should be common sense not to do it. Adultery screws up peoples lives, the people involved and any kids involved. As for prostitutes etc. thats not adultery it's fornication (still a sin). But this command is mainly to protect us and to show respect from God. Do you think prostitutes enjoy it, that they wwant to do it? And, a body is a gift from God, as is sex, we should treat them with respect, sex was designed for marriage.

Abortion, yes again i think it's a sin but not all Christians agree with me. I don't want to turn this into a debate on abortion so i'll stop there.

Homosexuality, i don't think same sex marriages are right, and i don't think that's the way God meant it to be. But i'm not really an expert on those issues so i don't want to go into detail, as i'm probably wrong



Well... if you explain that with punctuation i'll give you my views... maybe i'm just dumb, but i don't understand it...

My personal, informed (as far as I understand the bible), take on this is as follows:

God is love. God loved mankind and created mankind to have the freedom to love him (for love without choice is not love but compulsion). Love is the greatest of all virtues and the one virtue God identifies with, one which he expects his people to practice 'religiously'.

Since the beginning, the Devil, who was perverted by his pride and lust for power, has sought to pervert all that God said was good. Thus love becomes perverted with lust, the desire to satiate one's flesh or cravings. And lust in itself is idolatry (so says the bible) because it is placing one's lust above one's love for God.

Lust as I said previously, can lead to things like fornication or adultery. Both are messed up and mess up relationships (the woman who is fornicating does not exist in a vaccuum. She's someone's daughter, sister, mother, etc. Same thing with the guy). Adultery has the relationships more brutally defined. This destroys marriage and marriage is a picture that God chose to illustrate his love for humanity, for his people, his church. God doesn't speak of the government or graduation or conquest or triumphal march of the 'Lamb' but the Marriage Feast of the Lamb.

And, our biology being what it is, lust can (and will) lead to pregnancy. Pregnancy that can 'complicate things' - can the mother give the child a decent life? Will that child, a being created in the image of god, have a home, food, clothes, education and parental love, care and protection? What's the alternative? Abortion. Abortion makes it way too easy to sin and get away with 'murder' (and lust). While there are some special cases, think of that old story...

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1184.htm

Now homosexuality... God designed us purposefully, indeed we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made'. I believe personally that everyone has a weakness, an Achilles heel - and for some men and women it is attraction to other men. Regardless, it's again the case of lust and in many cases, deceit and lies from the devil and his angels. Lies that just because you are loving or have a great heart or cry (as a guy) then you're 'effeminate'. Lies that you can never find one who will love you among the opposite sex, that you're ugly or unnatural. The devil is a liar, indeed his name means DECEIVER, and the father of lies. While one may feel attraction, even lust for his own sex, it is his responsibility to keep that under control, same as males who lust for women must control it.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

You forgot the ist on the end of fundamental. These are in NO way the FUNDAMENTAL parts of Christianity! Remember what fundamental means - like a foundation, the things a greater whole is built off of. What Christianity is built off of is Christ's life and death (and resurrection, etc.), but mainly His teachings. Unfortunately, the topics you listed here are the fundamentalist views from Christianity, and seem to be what the fundamentalists hold most important. Please don't sum up Christianity by taking ideas fro the Bible out of context. The Bible didn't even exist when Christianity was formed and grew, it came about as the leaders of the Church wrote down their beliefs and encouraged their followers/congregations. Those of us with brains in our heads and literacy in those brains have come to the conclusion that just because Paul or Peter wrote that homosexuality is a sin and all those who practice it are going to Hell, it doesn't mean that that is what will happen, nor what Christ taught. Find me a piece from the Gospel where Jesus condemns homosexuality, adultery, or abortion. Abortion isn't even in the Bible!

If I was going to, I would have to do it on faith alone. So yes the same principle.

Alright then lets take away the hypotheticals shall we. Right now I am telling you that Christianity is the wrong religion and that Islam is the correct religion. You ask for proof and I say that you cant measure and experiments to prove it you can only have faith. Are you going to convert to Islam right now?

All religions are taken on blind faith. We can’t know for sure if God hates or loves us, or even if there is a God for that matter. You can reason part way to the answer, but we will never know for sure. Even the atheist and agnostics have to take their belief systems on blind faith. There is no real proof that there isn’t a God. Also, there is no absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God and the same goes for all the various claims made about every other religion’s sacred text. Basically my argument is that there is no concrete proof for any belief system so you can’t discount the Bible on grounds of no proof. It's not like we can run a double blind control experiment on God.

Even though that I do not think those are the fundamentals of Christianity, I heard on the History Channel that some Christian churches consider the following to be sins:

masturbation
fornication
anal sex
any other forms of irregular sex, including having sex with the woman on top

So basically in Christianity the only way to have sex that's not a sin is if a married couple have sex while the man is on top.

Fornication is definitely condemned as a sin.

Masturbation is a bit of a 'gray area'. A good friend of mine, a pastor's son, once explained it like this - Christ said do not lust, or even look at a woman lustfully (which is committing adultery in your heart) - and it goes for looking at a man too or one of the same gender! - now if you have emissions (they do naturally come out when it gets 'full') without lusting it's not a sin.

Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. A relationship with the Eternal God who, Christians believe, communes with them through prayer and miracles. Now lets say you want to 'sodomize' your wife and she refuses and you insist and end up raping her. How is that acting in love? In matters between the sheets, aside from adultery, fornication and homosexuality, it - like ultimately everything - is primarily between you and God. If you have 'tested the spirits', read your Bible and gotten good council, then God will find some way to reveal his will to you.

Oh yeah--and there are other books that didn't even make it that far. It's fascinating reading. In fact, I'm reading a book right now about the history of Byzantium, and it includes many of the fights over doctrine both inside the Empire and between the various patriarchates and the papacy. So much of what's taken for granted as settled doctrine now wasn't settled until long after Christ was dead. That's why I don't talk about doctrine when I talk about christianity--I talk about what Christ said. I don't even take what Paul wrote into consideration very much, as he was a guy with his own agenda--if Jesus was the contemplative side of christianity, then Paul was the evangelical side, and the two often conflict.

How do they conflict?

Paul himself said he was following Christ's example.

All religions are taken on blind faith. We can’t know for sure if God hates or loves us, or even if there is a God for that matter. You can reason part way to the answer, but we will never know for sure. Even the atheist and agnostics have to take their belief systems on blind faith. There is no real proof that there isn’t a God. Also, there is no absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God and the same goes for all the various claims made about every other religion’s sacred text. Basically my argument is that there is no concrete proof for any belief system so you can’t discount the Bible on grounds of no proof. It's not like we can run a double blind control experiment on God.

I think your absolutely right that there is no real proof that there is or is not a god. Which is why I dont think any religions have gotten the correct "God" at all. They have a moral and social code which is based off of blind faith. Ask yourself do you really want people who believe that it is there duty to kill all non believers(not refering to Islam) to say to your response that there is no proof to his beliefs with the faith answer?

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

Within the United States, fundamentalism was originally a movement beginning in the late 19th century of Christian evangelical conservatives, who, in a reaction to modernism, insisted on adhering to a set of core beliefs. Fundamentalists, in this sense, have engaged in criticism of more liberal movements. The original formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878. In 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals", which were:

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth (or deity) of Jesus
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus
* The miracles (or, alternatively, the second coming) of Jesus Christ

The term "fundamentalist" itself probably derives from a series of twelve anti-modernist booklets titled The Fundamentals written by conservative Protestant theologians between 1910 and 1913. Thanks to a $250,000 grant from Lyman Stewart, the head of the Union Oil Company of California, about three million copies were distributed to ministers across the United States.

Honestly sir, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

yes it is.

I only mentioned the first ten in that post cause those are the ones every one likes to talk about. The last two, which I posted later on, and which you just cited, tend to get ignored. Unfortunately. I recommend dividing it into sections and memorizing it one section at a time. Its easier. Also it goes from Matt. 5 to 8.

So you have this memorized you say?

Used to.... my sword is rusty ;)

My pastor on the other hand, has it memorized. He's pretty cool - he used to be a bodybuilder in the US Navy but now he's the 'Sermonator' :D Seriously he's really a great guy and that's one thing that he preached on that stuck, the Sermon on the Mount.

How do they conflict?

Paul himself said he was following Christ's example.
And he might not have misinterpreted? Come on--people get it wrong all the time, as the current state of Christianity is a living testament to (not to mention most of the last two thousand years). Paul gets a pass because he was one of the first, but just because he was one of the early church leaders doesn't necessarily mean he got it right, and I think there's a solid argument to be made that in some very fundamental ways, Paul did as much damage to the basic core message of Jesus as anyone, perhaps more so because his words have come to be considered holy writ. Always remember--Paul was only a man, and therefore fallible, even if his words did make it into the Bible.

Alright then lets take away the hypotheticals shall we. Right now I am telling you that Christianity is the wrong religion and that Islam is the correct religion. You ask for proof and I say that you cant measure and experiments to prove it you can only have faith. Are you going to convert to Islam right now?
In theory, (assuming I had the inclination) I would.
But I believe Kijergia sums up the nature of faith pretty well.

?????????????

where did you get that interpretation? I have never heard of that.

Matthew 18:8, if your eye sins, gorge it out. If your hand sins, cut it off.

People take this as some kind of metaphor, but Jesus was talking about the seriousness and perfection of the Law of God.

In theory, (assuming I had the inclination) I would.
But I believe Kijergia sums up the nature of faith pretty well.

This isnt in theory Whitter--. This isnt a hypothetical question anymore. Based on the question I just gave you in the previous post I made are you going to convert to Islam?

Hmm... I have to disagree. Jesus said that through Him the law was fullfilled. He also mentioned the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple, which was symbolised in the tearing of the curtian that seperated the Holy of Holies (where God was said to reside) and everyone else, meaning that through His death, all sins were forgiven.

The laws of Moses were given to provide a way for penitance and asking for forgiveness of sin. However, those laws are no longer needed as the Blood of the Lamb has washed us clean (which is why Christian don't sacrifice animals to God anymore). The old laws are gone, it is the new laws that interest me and guide me.

The OT is there in the Bible to show us the coming of Him and where we came from. So I cannot accept your notion that adultry, homosexuality, and abortion as sin are the foundations of Christian faith.

And while He did call upon us to go out amoung nations and whitness, He also asked us to follow Him, and that is far harder. Until I get THAT right I'm not going to be telling anyone anything unless asked first.

How do they conflict?

Paul himself said he was following Christ's example.

True, and much of what Paul said either directly follows or intuitively follows Christ's teachings. But remember, though Paul may have been striving to follow Christ's example, Jesus the man was not standing next to Paul telling him, "No, you got me wrong there, I didn't mean that," or "Yes, what you said is true." Paul still had to interpret his own understanding and memory of Christ's life for himself, and like all humans, he made mistakes. While I do consider the Bible to be "the Word of God," I know it not to be spotless, for humans from Paul to historical Church leaders to Medieval and postMedieval translators have had to interpret using limited human judgement, and have undoubtedly strayed from the Truth. Each one of us must decide for ourselves, are we going to follow the words of Christ as the foundation, or put a mortal human's opinions on the same level as the commands of the Christ? Paul and other church leaders, of various churches, are/were intelligent, God-fearing individuals who eithert read Scripture or had some exposure to Christ's teachings. These people also prayed to God for insight. It doesn't mean they always received God's answer correctly, or at all. The only fundamentals of Christianity are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I think your absolutely right that there is no real proof that there is or is not a god. Which is why I dont think any religions have gotten the correct "God" at all. They have a moral and social code which is based off of blind faith. Ask yourself do you really want people who believe that it is there duty to kill all non believers(not refering to Islam) to say to your response that there is no proof to his beliefs with the faith answer?
brings to mind the movie "The Seventh Sign" where the guy goes "What if we were all wrong. What if there was a god but not like what the christians, hindus, muslims, jews, agnostics claim. And what if his agenda was very different from what any of them were thinking?" If forgot the name of the character that said that though. But it was a good movie.

Matthew 18:8, if your eye sins, gorge it out. If your hand sins, cut it off.

People take this as some kind of metaphor, but Jesus was talking about the seriousness and perfection of the Law of God.
He might just as easily been referring to cutting yourself off from things as close to you as your eyes or your hand. If your occupation requires you to kill innocent people, Jesus would have you either not murder or quit your job.

Used to.... my sword is rusty ;)

My pastor on the other hand, has it memorized. He's pretty cool - he used to be a bodybuilder in the US Navy but now he's the 'Sermonator' :D Seriously he's really a great guy and that's one thing that he preached on that stuck, the Sermon on the Mount.
it should stick to everyone.

brings to mind the movie "The Seventh Sign" where the guy goes "What if we were all wrong. What if there was a god but not like what the christians, hindus, muslims, jews, agnostics claim. And what if his agenda was very different from what any of them were thinking?" If forgot the name of the character that said that though. But it was a good movie.

Thats really nice but the question was a yes or no answer. So what is it. Based off the question I asked are you going to be a new convert to Islam or are you going to stay a Christian?

He might just as easily been referring to cutting yourself off from things as close to you as your eyes or your hand. If your occupation requires you to kill innocent people, Jesus would have you either not murder or quit your job.
Yep--it's called metaphor, and Jesus used an awful lot of it in his teaching. Problem is that too many people take as literal what could easily be metaphorical, and thus we get inquisitions and holy wars and the like.

And he might not have misinterpreted? Come on--people get it wrong all the time, as the current state of Christianity is a living testament to (not to mention most of the last two thousand years). Paul gets a pass because he was one of the first, but just because he was one of the early church leaders doesn't necessarily mean he got it right, and I think there's a solid argument to be made that in some very fundamental ways, Paul did as much damage to the basic core message of Jesus as anyone, perhaps more so because his words have come to be considered holy writ. Always remember--Paul was only a man, and therefore fallible, even if his words did make it into the Bible.
But you know that is fundamental to being a christian that we accept that the writings of Paul, as included in the bible, are inspired of God. Further that it is fundamental that when Paul taught and preached, he did so under the guidance of the holy spirity. He didn't speak for himself, but rather God, through the Holy Ghost, spoke through him.
If you reject one part of scripture you have to reject the whole thing.

Revelation 22: 19

19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.
Personally, the concept of "sinning" in someone's absolute moral view appeals to me.

And actually, I believe that a good bit of Christians agree that your "bible" does not at all say homosexuality is a sin, but homosexual acts, and it is still quite open to interpretation.

This isnt in theory Whitter--. This isnt a hypothetical question anymore. Based on the question I just gave you in the previous post I made are you going to convert to Islam?
well, in that case, no.

well, in that case, no.

Why not?

Yep--it's called metaphor, and Jesus used an awful lot of it in his teaching. Problem is that too many people take as literal what could easily be metaphorical, and thus we get inquisitions and holy wars and the like.
All too
Sad but True

He might just as easily been referring to cutting yourself off from things as close to you as your eyes or your hand. If your occupation requires you to kill innocent people, Jesus would have you either not murder or quit your job.
if you're in the military you don't have the option of quitting. just so you know. and in very rare cases will you be allowed to change jobs.

And he might not have misinterpreted? Come on--people get it wrong all the time, as the current state of Christianity is a living testament to (not to mention most of the last two thousand years). Paul gets a pass because he was one of the first, but just because he was one of the early church leaders doesn't necessarily mean he got it right, and I think there's a solid argument to be made that in some very fundamental ways, Paul did as much damage to the basic core message of Jesus as anyone, perhaps more so because his words have come to be considered holy writ. Always remember--Paul was only a man, and therefore fallible, even if his words did make it into the Bible.

How do they conflict? What instances?

The line of reasoning being followed here seems to be, man=falliable, bible was written by man, therefore bible=infaliable, right?

There is no doubt that man is infalliable and that some of the writers and heroes of the bible were guilty of terribly grievous sins. David, writer of the Psalms was a murderer and adulterer, Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land, Peter denied Christ. We're not denying that mankind, writers of the Bible included, are falliable, sinful human beings.

This is where God comes in. God takes our falliability and our weaknesses - Paul's included - and uses it to show his strength. He uses us DESPITE our weaknesses and allows us to become instruments that bring him praise and glory, if we allow him to use us.

Paul's letters (and Johns and Peters etc etc) were included because they were written by those who knew the Christ the best, who could be counted on to give as accurate a revelation of him as they could and, at least we Christians believe, because ultimately GOD HAD A HAND IN IT.

Now you may not believe any of that and that's your choice.

To paraphrase: "Some look for wisdom (logical, empirical proof) and others for miraculous signs (ecstatic revelations, 'religious experiences') but we preach Christ crucified (THE FUNDAMENTAL THING) which is foolishness to the former and a stumbling block to the latter. But the 'foolishness' of God is wiser than human wisdom and the 'weakness' of God is wiser than human strength... for God chose the 'foolish' things of the world to shame the wise and the 'weak' things of the world to shame the strong."

Personally, the concept of "sinning" in someone's absolute moral view appeals to me.

And actually, I believe that a good bit of Christians agree that your "bible" does not at all say homosexuality is a sin, but homosexual acts, and it is still quite open to interpretation.
1. Interesting. How so?

2. Homosexuality =homosexual acts. And the bible does say it is a sin. But we called to condemn the sin, not the sinner.

Why not?
Because I cannot betray my God, who I hold to be the only true God.
Nothing against your religion or anything but, maybe you can find someone else to convert to it.

True, and much of what Paul said either directly follows or intuitively follows Christ's teachings. But remember, though Paul may have been striving to follow Christ's example, Jesus the man was not standing next to Paul telling him, "No, you got me wrong there, I didn't mean that," or "Yes, what you said is true." Paul still had to interpret his own understanding and memory of Christ's life for himself, and like all humans, he made mistakes. While I do consider the Bible to be "the Word of God," I know it not to be spotless, for humans from Paul to historical Church leaders to Medieval and postMedieval translators have had to interpret using limited human judgement, and have undoubtedly strayed from the Truth. Each one of us must decide for ourselves, are we going to follow the words of Christ as the foundation, or put a mortal human's opinions on the same level as the commands of the Christ? Paul and other church leaders, of various churches, are/were intelligent, God-fearing individuals who eithert read Scripture or had some exposure to Christ's teachings. These people also prayed to God for insight. It doesn't mean they always received God's answer correctly, or at all. The only fundamentals of Christianity are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

True, the bible is open to interpretation and, more dangerously, MIS-interpretation. Which is why God promised us the Holy Spirit to help us and guide us in all truth. The problem also is not that people shouldn't read less (just the Gospels) but they don't read enough (the whole Bible). The Bible says ALL SCRIPTURE is God breathed ... and it warns against adding or subtracting to scripture. Remember also at times that Paul was speaking to certain peoples and situations - Corinth would be different from Rome and different from Philippi and each letter would address certain specific situations. As such they are examples which we should follow and adminitions, while not from Christ himself, from the man chosen by the Holy Spirit (at Antioch) as the mouthpiece of Christ to the Gentiles (which, realistically speaking, is all us non-Jews).

But you know that is fundamental to being a christian that we accept that the writings of Paul, as included in the bible, are inspired of God. Further that it is fundamental that when Paul taught and preached, he did so under the guidance of the holy spirity. He didn't speak for himself, but rather God, through the Holy Ghost, spoke through him.
If you reject one part of scripture you have to reject the whole thing.

Revelation 22: 19

19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.Well that's convenient, isn't it? Nice way to lock in an orthodoxy that gives a ruling priest class a way to control believers. And it's also convenient that all these people who wrote claimed to have gotten what they wrote from the Holy Spirit, isn't it?

This is the problem with religion--you have all these layers of people between the source and the individual. Even the words of Jesus weren't written by him--they were accounts built off of each other by people who weren't eyewitnesses, unless you accept that John actually wrote his gospel some sixty years after Jesus' death.

In the end, what belief in the Bible comes down to is faith--and it's an incredulous, blind faith that the people who wrote it 1) actually talked to God and weren't just crazy, 2) that when they heard God, they wrote down what he said accurately, and 3) that when it was transcribed, it was done accurately and that the translations we have today are remotely similar to the original (and if you think that's easy, I suggest you try some academic translation some time--it will humble you).

And yet, in spite of all those difficulties, there are some parts of the Gospels that ring true, and I mean true in the sense of universal truth, not in the sense of accurate. And why do they ring true? Because they're the same teachings that are found in the oldest religions on earth--the Buddhist and the Hindu--the need to push away selfishness and live for a greater purpose, to put away fear and hatred and accept love. Those are eternal truths--not the sillinesses that come out of restrictions on conduct and the like. That's the core, fundamental truth to come out of Jesus. The rest of the Bible is good literature, fantastic imagery, and bad history and science.

But you know that is fundamental to being a christian that we accept that the writings of Paul, as included in the bible, are inspired of God. Further that it is fundamental that when Paul taught and preached, he did so under the guidance of the holy spirity. He didn't speak for himself, but rather God, through the Holy Ghost, spoke through him.
If you reject one part of scripture you have to reject the whole thing.
Do you realize that to Jesus Himself, "scripture" was only the Old Testament? It was only the Jewish texts of the time. And whoever said that it is fundamental to being a CHRISTIAN (note: Christian means follower of Christ, or 'little Christ'. I am not a Paulian, I am a Christian.) We have no reason to believe that God through el Espíritu Sancto spke through Paul at any other time than at the Pentecost, when they were visited by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the writings of the Bible are inspired by God, but again, humans may either misinterpret or poorly communicate. God may have meant Paul to say something like "Homosexuality is not the natural state of human sexual existence, and should not be pursued," and what Paul wrote down zealously was "Homosexuality is a sin, and those who practice it will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." I don't know for sure, but I do know that Paul was human, and he wrote no laws that were in any way endorsed when or after he wrote them by any of the Trinity. An excellent point was made by someone earlier, that Christ actually saved the life of the adulteress, rather than condemning her. Yes, He did say that adultery is a sin, but that occurs several times throughout the Bible, and if marriage is ordained by God, then breaking that covenant would indeed be sin. None of this makes "adultery is a sin" a fundamental belief of Christianity.

Revelation 22: 19

19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Could John not very well have meant this book of prophecy, Revelation? The Bible is not a book of prophecy in itself, but a religious text that contains some prophecy, most of which has already been fulfilled, therefore invalidating the Bible as a "book of prophecy." People quote this verse in Revelation all the time, forgetting that John was not writing the Bible when he wrote it, he was merely writing Revelation, and anyone who understands the English language should infer that when he wrote "this book," he was referring to the book which he was writing, Revelation.

Because I cannot betray my God, who I hold to be the only true God.
Nothing against your religion or anything but, maybe you can find someone else to convert to it.

What is so convincing to you about the Christian God? Why is it more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God? What about Buddhism?

I believe you can't have true faith until you know what other faiths are out there. If you say your house is the best in the world and have never seen another house, your belief is groundless. However, if you circle the globe and return with your original belief solidified, it would be that much more satisfying.

brings to mind the movie "The Seventh Sign" where the guy goes "What if we were all wrong. What if there was a god but not like what the christians, hindus, muslims, jews, agnostics claim. And what if his agenda was very different from what any of them were thinking?" If forgot the name of the character that said that though. But it was a good movie.

Then I will have had the honour of serving the dictates of a conscience guided by what I believe is the highest moral code which commands me and inspires me and gives me a glimpse of eternity and compels me to love my neighbor as myself.

1. Interesting. How so?

2. Homosexuality =homosexual acts. And the bible does say it is a sin. But we called to condemn the sin, not the sinner.
1. I am a bitter anti-theist who dislikes the word "sin".

2. Homosexuality is not at all the exact same thing as a homosexual act. One may be homosexual and choose not to indulge homosexual acts, just as a heterosexual can choose not to indulge in heterosexual acts. Also, those who identify as heterosexual may have a homosexual experience in their lifetime.

True, the bible is open to interpretation and, more dangerously, MIS-interpretation. Which is why God promised us the Holy Spirit to help us and guide us in all truth. The problem also is not that people shouldn't read less (just the Gospels) but they don't read enough (the whole Bible). The Bible says ALL SCRIPTURE is God breathed ... and it warns against adding or subtracting to scripture. Remember also at times that Paul was speaking to certain peoples and situations - Corinth would be different from Rome and different from Philippi and each letter would address certain specific situations. As such they are examples which we should follow and adminitions, while not from Christ himself, from the man chosen by the Holy Spirit (at Antioch) as the mouthpiece of Christ to the Gentiles (which, realistically speaking, is all us non-Jews).
You are correct, sir, but I must point out, in light of the topic of this thread, that you said "Paul was speaking to certain people and situations." Therefore, since Paul was not wiritng what he meant to be lasting Church fundamentals, only encouragement and clarification, the words in Paul's writings can not be construed as THE fundamentals of Christianity. They may be up there, but narrowing the only fundamentals of Christianity down to teachings that exist largely outside of the Gospels is inaccurate.

Since the beginning, the Devil, who was perverted by his pride and lust for power, has sought to pervert all that God said was good. Thus love becomes perverted with lust, the desire to satiate one's flesh or cravings. And lust in itself is idolatry (so says the bible) because it is placing one's lust above one's love for God.



Nitpick time.

*Note-I am not Christian, nor do I claim to hold any Christian beliefs*

THe devil has not been the adversary(Satan means Adversary in Hebrew) since the beginning. Infact, in the beginning, Lucifer was an extremely high ranking angel, and very, very powerful. Lucifer was also the only Angel to be given free will. Basically, he grew to despise God and his power, and thinking he could overtake God, led a revolt of angels(who oddly didn't have free will, and shouldn't have been able to revolt) against god, but God(Being all powerful, ya know) caste Lucifer from Heaven and into hell. The only thing keeping the Devil in Hell is his pride-basically he thinks he has the cajones to take on God. As soon as he releases himself from this pride, he would be free from Hell(More or less, depending on who you ask).

The most famous and common depiction of this is in "Paradise Lost".

However, this begs a few a questions.

1.If God is all powerful and all knowing, he must not only know what has happened and what is happening, but also what will happen. Thus,
----God knew it would happen, but allowed it to happen.
----God knew it would happen, but could do nothing to stop it, thus he is not omnipotent.
----God did not know it would happen, thus he is not omnipotent nor all knowing
2.God created Lucifer knowing that he would revolt, and allowing this "evil" to be spread.

*For the remainder, this is going to assume Christianity is true*

However, now is where I will answer my own questions(HURRAY-No redundancy). You see, these questions have been used to try and cripple Christianity, however I see it the other way. I see these questions are HELPING Christianity(WHAA??? A non-Christian trying to strengthen Christianity?). Let's address Question #1 first.

The answer here is simple. The answer is in another question: "Did the same God that created Good also create Evil?". Yes. God created Evil. Some may find this hard to stomach, but God created evil. Remember: Without Good there is no Evil. God also created us with free will. What good is free will without choice? Thus the existance of Free Will needs both Good and Evil to exist.
How does this relate to the revolt of Lucifer? Lucifer was created with the sole purpose of giving us this choice. Without Lucifer, the choice would never been given to Adam between good and evil. Temptation is the true test of the devout. Simply put, without Lucifer there is no Free Will.

As to my second question:

Like I pointed out before, Lucifer represents choice. Temptation over servitude. God knew he would revolt. Lucifer had the choice; he chose to oppose God. God knew this would happen. Without Lucifer, there is no Free Will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Note I am not a Christian, nor do I claim CHristian beliefs.

Hmm... This isn't really what I meant to say. I forgot what I was going to say, and just kept typing. hope this make sense.

Oh, and my original point-Lucifer began as an ally to God.

What is so convincing to you about the Christian God? Why is it more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God? What about Buddhism?

I believe you can't have true faith until you know what other faiths are out there. If you say your house is the best in the world and have never seen another house, your belief is groundless. However, if you circle the globe and return with your original belief solidified, it would be that much more satisfying.
You should check your posts more carefully before clicking submit. The Christian God and the Jewish God and the Islamic God are THE SAME ENTITY. Intelligent, read, and well-versed members of all three faiths agree that the God they serve is God, in whatever language you choose to speak His name. The Christian God cannot be more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God because He IS those Gods. Do your homework, please.

What is so convincing to you about the Christian God? Why is it more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God? What about Buddhism?

I believe you can't have true faith until you know what other faiths are out there. If you say your house is the best in the world and have never seen another house, your belief is groundless. However, if you circle the globe and return with your original belief solidified, it would be that much more satisfying.
I've seen/experienced evidence. But that is for me and not for you. If I told you, you would say I was looney.

You should check your posts more carefully before clicking submit. The Christian God and the Jewish God and the Islamic God are THE SAME ENTITY. Intelligent, read, and well-versed members of all three faiths agree that the God they serve is God, in whatever language you choose to speak His name. The Christian God cannot be more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God because He IS those Gods. Do your homework, please.
How about the Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Norse, Roman, and like "mythologies"? How are they any less valid?

Well that's convenient, isn't it? Nice way to lock in an orthodoxy that gives a ruling priest class a way to control believers. And it's also convenient that all these people who wrote claimed to have gotten what they wrote from the Holy Spirit, isn't it?

This is the problem with religion--you have all these layers of people between the source and the individual. Even the words of Jesus weren't written by him--they were accounts built off of each other by people who weren't eyewitnesses, unless you accept that John actually wrote his gospel some sixty years after Jesus' death.

In the end, what belief in the Bible comes down to is faith--and it's an incredulous, blind faith that the people who wrote it 1) actually talked to God and weren't just crazy, 2) that when they heard God, they wrote down what he said accurately, and 3) that when it was transcribed, it was done accurately and that the translations we have today are remotely similar to the original (and if you think that's easy, I suggest you try some academic translation some time--it will humble you).

And yet, in spite of all those difficulties, there are some parts of the Gospels that ring true, and I mean true in the sense of universal truth, not in the sense of accurate. And why do they ring true? Because they're the same teachings that are found in the oldest religions on earth--the Buddhist and the Hindu--the need to push away selfishness and live for a greater purpose, to put away fear and hatred and accept love. Those are eternal truths--not the sillinesses that come out of restrictions on conduct and the like. That's the core, fundamental truth to come out of Jesus. The rest of the Bible is good literature, fantastic imagery, and bad history and science.

Well then... that's not Biblical Christianity that you described. Biblical Christianity opens up the Lines of Communication between the Eternal God and mortal man. It's called prayer. That's about as intimate a conversation as you can get next to a face to face conversation - there are those who'd say it's more intimate than even that.

Second point. The Bible is the best attested and most complete of the ancient manuscripts - you throw it out, then be prepared to throw out the father of History, Herodotus, Julius Caesar, Aesop, Homer, etc. etc. etc. which are not only incomplete but written hundreds of years after the fact. The Bible also has the most complete record of ancient manuscripts available. If all the Bibles of the world were burned right now, the book can be recreated from those fragments. That in itself is miraculous (but did not Christ say that until all is fulfilled not the smallest letter and least stroke of a pen will pass away?) These translations weren't just haphazardly translated either. The Jewish scribes needed to make perfect copies - imperfect copies, with even a single mistake, were burned.

Third point. How is it bad history? Or bad science? Perhaps bad interpretations or uninformed interpretations but name a chapter and verse which goes against historic or scientific fact (miracles, by definition a violation of 'normal' laws, don't count).

Nitpick time.

-snip-
You nailed all that perfectly, even the conclusions as to why God created Lucifer. *thumbs up*

And, yes...I am a Christian (and amateur Bible scholar ;)).

Do you realize that to Jesus Himself, "scripture" was only the Old Testament? It was only the Jewish texts of the time. And whoever said that it is fundamental to being a CHRISTIAN (note: Christian means follower of Christ, or 'little Christ'. I am not a Paulian, I am a Christian.) We have no reason to believe that God through el Espíritu Sancto spke through Paul at any other time than at the Pentecost, when they were visited by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the writings of the Bible are inspired by God, but again, humans may either misinterpret or poorly communicate. God may have meant Paul to say something like "Homosexuality is not the natural state of human sexual existence, and should not be pursued," and what Paul wrote down zealously was "Homosexuality is a sin, and those who practice it will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." I don't know for sure, but I do know that Paul was human, and he wrote no laws that were in any way endorsed when or after he wrote them by any of the Trinity. An excellent point was made by someone earlier, that Christ actually saved the life of the adulteress, rather than condemning her. Yes, He did say that adultery is a sin, but that occurs several times throughout the Bible, and if marriage is ordained by God, then breaking that covenant would indeed be sin. None of this makes "adultery is a sin" a fundamental belief of Christianity.


Could John not very well have meant this book of prophecy, Revelation? The Bible is not a book of prophecy in itself, but a religious text that contains some prophecy, most of which has already been fulfilled, therefore invalidating the Bible as a "book of prophecy." People quote this verse in Revelation all the time, forgetting that John was not writing the Bible when he wrote it, he was merely writing Revelation, and anyone who understands the English language should infer that when he wrote "this book," he was referring to the book which he was writing, Revelation.

Christ saved the life of the adulteress - then he said, "Go now and sin no more." Implying of course that what she was doing was sinful. An example to perfection of hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Why precisely should we exorcise Paul from the Bible? Or Hebrews or John or Peter or the Old Testament?

You should check your posts more carefully before clicking submit. The Christian God and the Jewish God and the Islamic God are THE SAME ENTITY. Intelligent, read, and well-versed members of all three faiths agree that the God they serve is God, in whatever language you choose to speak His name. The Christian God cannot be more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God because He IS those Gods. Do your homework, please.

The person to whom I directed the post seems to find Christianity much more appealing than any of the other religions I listed. I agree, they are the same God, but there is great dissention on that point among some religious. The wording was absolutely intentional on my part. The differences are primarily dogmatic, and I wanted to see Whittier's reaction. I could have put God as "God" instead, or used the religion names, but I didn't. I was afraid of a nitpick response like this before Whittier could respond, and my fears were realized. Oh well.

How about the Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Norse, Roman, and like "mythologies"? How are they any less valid?
How does your question apply to my post? I didn't invalidate ANY other gods, entities, or mythologies, the latter of which I find most interesting and fascinating. I merely said that anyone who claims to make a difference between the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish God is trying to do the impossible.

How does your question apply to my post? I didn't invalidate ANY other gods, entities, or mythologies, the latter of which I find most interesting and fascinating. I merely said that anyone who claims to make a difference between the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish God is trying to do the impossible.
I actually wasn't addressing you, personally. It was more a universal question. *Smiles.*

The person to whom I directed the post seems to find Christianity much more appealing than any of the other religions I listed. I agree, they are the same God, but there is great dissention on that point among some religious. The wording was absolutely intentional on my part. The differences are primarily dogmatic, and I wanted to see Whittier's reaction. I could have put God as "God" instead, or used the religion names, but I didn't. I was afraid of a nitpick response like this before Whittier could respond, and my fears were realized. Oh well.
My bad. It wasn't my place to jump in anyway. I apologize. I haven't even been following this thread between pages 3 to 6.

What is so convincing to you about the Christian God? Why is it more convincing than the Jewish God or Islamic God? What about Buddhism?

I believe you can't have true faith until you know what other faiths are out there. If you say your house is the best in the world and have never seen another house, your belief is groundless. However, if you circle the globe and return with your original belief solidified, it would be that much more satisfying.

The Jewish God and the Christian God are technically the same. When Islam began it only rejected Christianity due to the concept of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and Judaism as corrupted. Otherwise I believe it's a very wise man's way of understanding the Eternal Truth.

I actually wasn't addressing you, personally. It was more a universal question. *Smiles.*
*Grins* Anyway, I don't take the itnernet seriously, I could just as fervently debate in favor of the A.F.A. or Satan himself (but only because I'm an actor at heart, and bluff sincerity on things I don't really mean.). I see now that I should pay more attention to the thread itself than the single posts that quote mine. LoL. I'm calm now. *deep breath*

The Jewish God and the Christian God are technically the same. When Islam began it only rejected Christianity due to the concept of the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and Judaism as corrupted. Otherwise I believe it's a very wise man's way of understanding the Eternal Truth.

see last post by me

You are correct, sir, but I must point out, in light of the topic of this thread, that you said "Paul was speaking to certain people and situations." Therefore, since Paul was not wiritng what he meant to be lasting Church fundamentals, only encouragement and clarification, the words in Paul's writings can not be construed as THE fundamentals of Christianity. They may be up there, but narrowing the only fundamentals of Christianity down to teachings that exist largely outside of the Gospels is inaccurate.

That I think I can agree with... the Gospels are the centerpiece and a good starting point (though it's kind of like starting the Tolkien series with The Fellowship of the Ring or the Two Towers - in medias res).

Paul's writings however are still valid because situations like these occur and contine to occur to this day and they do not disagree with the message of the Bible - they enhance and clarify it.

You nailed all that perfectly, even the conclusions as to why God created Lucifer. *thumbs up*

And, yes...I am a Christian (and amateur Bible scholar ;)).

Pretty good for an agnost, huh? Some people have a "vendetta" so to speak against Christianity, or other organized religions. I try to understand things better. I may not believe in it, but I understand the idea that was to be conveyed. People tend to be ignorant on all sides of any debate. I try my best not to be.

And that post came to me. I haven't really done a great deal of "heaving thinking" on that particular issue until as of late. Oh well, just a "thought of the day" sort of quirk with me.

Christ saved the life of the adulteress - then he said, "Go now and sin no more." Implying of course that what she was doing was sinful. An example to perfection of hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Why precisely should we exorcise Paul from the Bible? Or Hebrews or John or Peter or the Old Testament?
I realize now that that is not what I meant. I even didn't mean what I said. So I have now made myself a classic case for what I was referencing: humans get passionately heated about some point or something, and in overzealously pursuing to expound on their point, they actually say/write something that is derived from what they mean to say, but is not what is meant when it comes out.

I leap before I look, and it's a bad habit. :(

Christ saved the life of the adulteress - then he said, "Go now and sin no more." Implying of course that what she was doing was sinful. An example to perfection of hating the sin, loving the sinner.

Why precisely should we exorcise Paul from the Bible? Or Hebrews or John or Peter or the Old Testament?
John 8:
2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

And that post came to me. I haven't really done a great deal of "heaving thinking" on that particular issue until as of late. Oh well, just a "thought of the day" sort of quirk with me.
More people should have "quirks" like that. :D

That I think I can agree with... the Gospels are the centerpiece and a good starting point (though it's kind of like starting the Tolkien series with The Fellowship of the Ring or the Two Towers - in medias res).

Paul's writings however are still valid because situations like these occur and contine to occur to this day and they do not disagree with the message of the Bible - they enhance and clarify it.
Exactly. And back to Whittier's first post, the fundamentals are what are enhanced and clarified, and these as you said are the Gospels.

Well then... that's not Biblical Christianity that you described. Biblical Christianity opens up the Lines of Communication between the Eternal God and mortal man. It's called prayer. That's about as intimate a conversation as you can get next to a face to face conversation - there are those who'd say it's more intimate than even that.

Second point. The Bible is the best attested and most complete of the ancient manuscripts - you throw it out, then be prepared to throw out the father of History, Herodotus, Julius Caesar, Aesop, Homer, etc. etc. etc. which are not only incomplete but written hundreds of years after the fact. The Bible also has the most complete record of ancient manuscripts available. If all the Bibles of the world were burned right now, the book can be recreated from those fragments. That in itself is miraculous (but did not Christ say that until all is fulfilled not the smallest letter and least stroke of a pen will pass away?) These translations weren't just haphazardly translated either. The Jewish scribes needed to make perfect copies - imperfect copies, with even a single mistake, were burned.

Third point. How is it bad history? Or bad science? Perhaps bad interpretations or uninformed interpretations but name a chapter and verse which goes against historic or scientific fact (miracles, by definition a violation of 'normal' laws, don't count).You'd better start checking archaeology textbooks. You can pretty much toss all of the history before King Josiah in the Old Testament as a mixture of legend combined with a desire to create a national sense of unity among the people of the kingdom of Judah--check the book The Bible Unearthed for starters. It's a good distillation of the work done by hundreds of archaeologists in the area, and it comes to the basic conclusion that most of the Old Testament history doesn't stack up against the archaeology of the area. It surprised me just how large a discrepancy there was.

And it continues into more modern times--check out Excavating Jesus for a combination archaeological/exegetical examination of the Holy Land at the time of Jesus--lots of stuff just doesn't add up. Open your mind to the possibility that the Bible is not the infallible word of God and I think you may learn to appreciate it even more. I certainly have.

I leap before I look, and it's a bad habit. :(

You are forgiven; sometimes it can be useful.

John 8:
2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
And notice he didn't follow that command with, "Because this is the foundation of all I am teaching." He was dealing with a specific situation, not the ground rules for life/faith itself.

You are forgiven; sometimes it can be useful.
Well, I only hope it serves me then, and not between those times.

Nitpick time.

*Note-I am not Christian, nor do I claim to hold any Christian beliefs*

THe devil has not been the adversary(Satan means Adversary in Hebrew) since the beginning. Infact, in the beginning, Lucifer was an extremely high ranking angel, and very, very powerful. Lucifer was also the only Angel to be given free will. Basically, he grew to despise God and his power, and thinking he could overtake God, led a revolt of angels(who oddly didn't have free will, and shouldn't have been able to revolt) against god, but God(Being all powerful, ya know) caste Lucifer from Heaven and into hell. The only thing keeping the Devil in Hell is his pride-basically he thinks he has the cajones to take on God. As soon as he releases himself from this pride, he would be free from Hell(More or less, depending on who you ask).

The most famous and common depiction of this is in "Paradise Lost".

However, this begs a few a questions.

1.If God is all powerful and all knowing, he must not only know what has happened and what is happening, but also what will happen. Thus,
----God knew it would happen, but allowed it to happen.
----God knew it would happen, but could do nothing to stop it, thus he is not omnipotent.
----God did not know it would happen, thus he is not omnipotent nor all knowing
2.God created Lucifer knowing that he would revolt, and allowing this "evil" to be spread.

*For the remainder, this is going to assume Christianity is true*

However, now is where I will answer my own questions(HURRAY-No redundancy). You see, these questions have been used to try and cripple Christianity, however I see it the other way. I see these questions are HELPING Christianity(WHAA??? A non-Christian trying to strengthen Christianity?). Let's address Question #1 first.

The answer here is simple. The answer is in another question: "Did the same God that created Good also create Evil?". Yes. God created Evil. Some may find this hard to stomach, but God created evil. Remember: Without Good there is no Evil. God also created us with free will. What good is free will without choice? Thus the existance of Free Will needs both Good and Evil to exist.
How does this relate to the revolt of Lucifer? Lucifer was created with the sole purpose of giving us this choice. Without Lucifer, the choice would never been given to Adam between good and evil. Temptation is the true test of the devout. Simply put, without Lucifer there is no Free Will.

As to my second question:

Like I pointed out before, Lucifer represents choice. Temptation over servitude. God knew he would revolt. Lucifer had the choice; he chose to oppose God. God knew this would happen. Without Lucifer, there is no Free Will.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Note I am not a Christian, nor do I claim CHristian beliefs.

Hmm... This isn't really what I meant to say. I forgot what I was going to say, and just kept typing. hope this make sense.

Oh, and my original point-Lucifer began as an ally to God.

Quite right though I would like to restate something :D It reminds me of a philosophical discussion I had with my film professor (we were talking about Ethnocentricity and Multi-culturalism). Which came first Primitive Society or Civilization? We all thought it's Primitive Society but he explained that it was Civilization because when Civilization came along, Primitive Society (whether it was the Maoris, the Native Americans or the Scottish Highlanders) became 'the other'. That being said, you're right about Lucifer. He was a high ranking angel, the angel of light, who aspired to the throne of God.

What I would restate is this: God did not create evil per se but he left Lucifer and humankind a situation where evil could come to exist. Evil, as defined by God who is all that is good and loving, is simply going against his will. I can trust that God has my best interests at heart, because that is his nature, his character - and because when I do the things the other dude says (here goes my 'unconscious Argentinian from Moulin Rouge' imitation) it always ends BAD!!!

Philosophically yes that is the purpose of Lucifer.

How about the Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Norse, Roman, and like "mythologies"? How are they any less valid?

In one of the letters of Paul there's the explanation... the sacrifices to 'idols' are offered to demons. And indeed if you read their history and their actions these 'gods' were certainly demonic, demanding human sacrifice, obscure and costly ritual and other hokey things that mess with your mind (drugs, sex and... ) If they were rejected, its because the people, for the most part, found Christ's message and Christ's love, as shown by his people, to be superior.

Open your mind to the possibility that the Bible is not the infallible word of God and I think you may learn to appreciate it even more. I certainly have.
"You" is hypothetical, not necessarily any one poster.
Or you could realize that though the Bible was written as the infallible word of God Himself, at the time that statement was written down in the Scriptures, the Bible hasn't even been translated once yet. How many centuries has it gone through to make it to all the translations it is in now? And how many translations are there in the English language? I think more than the number of different translations in any other single language on earth, but I can't back that up. I only guess. Maharlikana mentioned earlier that Jewish scribes copied exactly, and though that may be true, Jewish scribes only copied in Aramaic, Hebrew, Yiddish, and maybe Greek, and less maybe even Latin, but certainly not German, French, English, Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Slovakian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, ok I'm tired of listing laguages now but you get my point. Humans have had more than several opporunities of corrupting the Bible if only slightly and they could all add up. Perhaps the Bible was the infallible word of God when that phrase was written, but the same may not be exactly true today. Life is not black and white, it exists in all the color spectrum we can see!

And notice he didn't follow that command with, "Because this is the foundation of all I am teaching." He was dealing with a specific situation, not the ground rules for life/faith itself.
The claim was made in another thread that neither Jesus nor the Bible said that homosexuality or adultery were sins.
This thread was started as a discussion between myself and Nax. on that issue and others were just invited to join in with their two cents.
Abortion is not specifically mentioned but I was compelled by the spirit to include it. But on that issue, there much disagreement even among the most fundamentalist of christians.

see last post by me

hmmm... okay.

How about the Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Mayan, Aztec, Norse, Roman, and like "mythologies"? How are they any less valid?

I just realized how they would be less valid. All of those mythologies are all like Latin - they are now "dead," meaning that none of them exists as a current religion, practiced by any people. Religions and mythologies are different things, and though mythologies may have inspired religions back when those cultures existed, those religions are now gone or do not exist in the same form. Note your quote reads "Ancient...mythologies."

What I would restate is this: God did not create evil per se but he left Lucifer and humankind a situation where evil could come to exist. Evil, as defined by God who is all that is good and loving, is simply going against his will. I can trust that God has my best interests at heart, because that is his nature, his character - and because when I do the things the other dude says (here goes my 'unconscious Argentinian from Moulin Rouge' imitation) it always ends BAD!!!

Philosophically yes that is the purpose of Lucifer.

That was moreso the point I was trying to get across. I didn't mean to come across as saying "And God Said unto thee, LET THERE BE EVIL!", but moreso that God created the possibility for evil. That although Evil is to go against God's will, it exists for a reason, so to speak.

And on a similar note of Lucifer, there are those who believe that Lucifer is not truly an entity, either physically or spiritually, but a "driving force" within us all. Basically, a temptation that resides within us that we choose either to follow or deny. It's an interesting concept, one that intrigues the hell out of me(No pun intended).

"You" is hypothetical, not necessarily any one poster.
Or you could realize that though the Bible was written as the infallible word of God Himself, at the time that statement was written down in the Scriptures, the Bible hasn't even been translated once yet. How many centuries has it gone through to make it to all the translations it is in now? And how many translations are there in the English language? I think more than the number of different translations in any other single language on earth, but I can't back that up. I only guess. Maharlikana mentioned earlier that Jewish scribes copied exactly, and though that may be true, Jewish scribes only copied in Aramaic, Hebrew, Yiddish, and maybe Greek, and less maybe even Latin, but certainly not German, French, English, Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Slovakian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, ok I'm tired of listing laguages now but you get my point. Humans have had more than several opporunities of corrupting the Bible if only slightly and they could all add up. Perhaps the Bible was the infallible word of God when that phrase was written, but the same may not be exactly true today. Life is not black and white, it exists in all the color spectrum we can see!

We've only had translations of the bible in the popular tongues since (the day the Gutenberg Bible was invented). Not a very long time.

The claim was made in another thread that neither Jesus nor the Bible said that homosexuality or adultery were sins.
This thread was started as a discussion between myself and Nax. on that issue and others were just invited to join in with their two cents.
Abortion is not specifically mentioned but I was compelled by the spirit to include it. But on that issue, there much disagreement even among the most fundamentalist of christians.
Yeah, isn't it insane how touchy of an issue abortion is when it isn't even a concept in the Bible, or in any Christian writings before this century? I find it most humorous to watch, since I am, by the literal English meaning of the term, "pro-choice." I am not about supporting women getting abortions, but I agree that it is their right to do so or not, and I wholeheartedly support the CHOICE of no, don't do it.

The claim was made in another thread that neither Jesus nor the Bible said that homosexuality or adultery were sins.
This thread was started as a discussion between myself and Nax. on that issue and others were just invited to join in with their two cents.
Abortion is not specifically mentioned but I was compelled by the spirit to include it. But on that issue, there much disagreement even among the most fundamentalist of christians.
I just realized I've been shut down again because I jumped into a thread without reading all of it first, AND I didn't think through my posts before I posted them.

We've only had translations of the bible in the popular tongues since (the day the Gutenberg Bible was invented). Not a very long time.
Good point. What I should have referenced, rather than the translations, was the literally more than a thousand years between when the Bible was written and when someone actually sat down to read it who wasn't a Catholic clergyman. The Bible I believe we all are quoting from is derived from the Latin copies held by a medieval Roman Catholic church that preached zealously ideas that are not Biblically mentioned, supported, or inspired: purgatory, Sainthood, the ascension of the Mother of Jesus, and all that crazy Pope is God's right hand on Earth and indulgences and stuff.

You apparently aren't very well-rounded in the Bible if you think the three things you listed is what Christianity is about. You also might want to mention the love God has for you, even if you are an adulterer or have had an abortion or have engaged in homosexual activity (I've seen nothing to suggest that simply being homosexual is a sin - acting on it is, but it is equal to premarital heterosexual intercourse).


In the book of Daniel, homosexuality is referred to as "the abomination which causes desolation" and Paul in his letters alikens homosexuals to "dogs that eat their own vomit" and "brute beasts that ought to be destroyed."

Leviticus 18:22 says that homsexuality is an "abomination" and a bit later in leviticus it states that homosexual sex acts are a crime worthy of death.


In short, NO, homosexuality is not the same as fornication, one is a sin by which the very nature of the sin (Jeremiah 6:15) is such that the ability of the homosexual to repent is seriously in doubt.

Fornication however, is not the "abomination that causes desolation" but it is still a sin. Not of the same sort as homosexuality though.

Yeah, isn't it insane how touchy of an issue abortion is when it isn't even a concept in the Bible, or in any Christian writings before this century? I find it most humorous to watch, since I am, by the literal English meaning of the term, "pro-choice." I am not about supporting women getting abortions, but I agree that it is their right to do so or not, and I wholeheartedly support the CHOICE of no, don't do it.
I think since we humans are fallible in our ability to discern other people's motives, we ought to give the woman the benefit of the doubt. (Though I am anti abortion).
Though some people call that being pro abortion. I call it realism. I mean your not there when the woman ends up having to have the abortion. So who are we to second guess? All I know is that if she did for the wrong reason, God will hold her to account. But only he knows the reality of what really happened.
The way I used to put it, before my congressional bid days, this one girl asked me if she was going to hell because she had an abortion. And, speaking with what the Holy Spirit had put in me to tell her, I said that it was between her, her boyfriend, and God. Therefore, while abortion is a sin and we are called to oppose it, we must be careful not condemn the sinner. That is God's territory.

why was I thinking sermon on the mount when I read beautitudes?

But the beautitudes in Matthew 5 are merely the beginning of the sermon of mount.

When you speak of the beautitudes I would assume you speak of:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
9. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Correct?

BTW, which version are you using?


Blessed are the meek, meek before God. You're supposed to be meek before God, it doesn't mean you can't point out other peoples sins. You're not supposed to be meek before a sinner, as it is written, "rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith."

You're supposed to rebuke sinners so they can be sound in the faith.

Just a few quick hits, questions, opinions, and more regarding this discussion ( from the beginning to now ):

Whittier-your beginning I would say is not exactly the fundamentals of Christianity

Nazz-Close on christians not close on leaders.

Avios-Act on sin is correct

Nazz-Similarities to other religions, not identical.

Nervan-If you doubt your interpretation reread the bible

Dakini-Forgive not forget, closer to forgive and learn. Do you know why they believe jesus gets you to heaven?

Nazz-curious as to what you have read regarding early church history. Just curious.

Maharlikana-Interesting triangle analogy. Good thinking.

Whittier- Refering to the bible is always a good thing.

Ekland-Those concepts have been around for some time before 1878. Was that how you intended your post?

Nazz- Do you think that the scriptures were never compared or scrutinized before? Especially between the gospels.

Individualnost-you are correct, people are always diverging from the truth.

Nazz-I would say good literature, very visual, historical and scientific too. Just not as we want it to be or expect it.

Bellaria- I disagree just because Whittier has faith in what Whittier believes doesn't mean Whittier's belief is groundless. I could describe our country's education or any other subject the same way.

Seangolia-Lucifer was the only one known to have free will but rather than discuss that, since lucifer is not an equal or opposite of God, your rationale seems flawed. Just a wierd question for the ponder, what about free will before the fall of Lucifer?

Individualnost-I would have to disagree about the same God comment since not all the doctrines support each other. I doubt that one God would support or create different doctrines which do not support each other if that were the case. Pick an interpretation.

good discussion material. Hope to join in again at another time. All, leave me something good to read for later!

Martel, it would help if you posted where in the Bible that view is backed by.

Good point. What I should have referenced, rather than the translations, was the literally more than a thousand years between when the Bible was written and when someone actually sat down to read it who wasn't a Catholic clergyman. The Bible I believe we all are quoting from is derived from the Latin copies held by a medieval Roman Catholic church that preached zealously ideas that are not Biblically mentioned, supported, or inspired: purgatory, Sainthood, the ascension of the Mother of Jesus, and all that crazy Pope is God's right hand on Earth and indulgences and stuff.
That's why God inspired Luther to start a reformation movement. ;)

Martel, it would help if you posted where in the Bible that view is backed by.



Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;



Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.


2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke , exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.


Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

In short, NO, homosexuality is not the same as fornication, one is a sin by which the very nature of the sin (Jeremiah 6:15) is such that the ability of the homosexual to repent is seriously in doubt.
In doubt? You need to re-read then. There is forgiveness for every sin and one can repent of every sin. Be glad of that.

We've only had translations of the bible in the popular tongues since (the day the Gutenberg Bible was invented). Not a very long time.
Well, five hundred years is a good while by my reckoning, but since it's been over 2,000 since Jesus walked the earth, I guess I'll give it to you. But regardless of whether we've been translating it for five hundred or two thousand years, the fact is that translation is itself more art than science. There's a reason that an advanced degree in translation is a Master of Fine Arts, after all--that's because there's never a simple way to translate a text. There's no way to get all the nuance, the wordplay, the joking and punning that is done in writing in one's own language to come across in a translation. You always lose something. Hell, even the textbooks on translation are miserable to slog through--I know, because I've taken graduate level courses in translation and had to read them. Try Theories of Translation if you ever have trouble sleeping.

If you'd like a more secular example of the difficulties, try reading the many different translations of dante's Inferno. There must be thirty of them out there, and I've read at least six--one of those graduate level classes I mentioned--and it's amazing how many different ways translators come up with expressing the same Italian phrase in modern English. This is Italian that's what--700 years old?--so there's been relatively little language drift, and it's going from one language into another, unlike some parts of the Old Testament, which exist only in Greek translations of the original Hebrew or Aramaic, which means we're translating an translation and if you want to see that disaster, just play with babelfish one night and see what happens.

Anyway, it's been a pleasant conversation, but I have to hit the sack now. We can continue this later if you wish.

Blessed are the meek, meek before God. You're supposed to be meek before God, it doesn't mean you can't point out other peoples sins. You're not supposed to be meek before a sinner, as it is written, "rebuke them sharply that they may be sound in the faith."

You're supposed to rebuke sinners so they can be sound in the faith.
but if you read what Paul and Peter were saying they were addressing Christians. They said if a Christian was doing this or this, rebuke them sharply. They did not mean go to some guy (who is not a christian) and start bitchslapping him for not doing christian things.
We must bear in mind that the requirements for those claim to christian are more stringent than those who have yet to join or who are new to the faith. To those who have been in the faith awhile, much is required.

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;



Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.


2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke , exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.


Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

But if you read those in context, it means those who already claim to be christian.

In doubt? You need to re-read then. There is forgiveness for every sin and one can repent of every sin. Be glad of that.
The only unpardonable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit. Even rejection of the son of God is forgivable.

Nervan-If you doubt your interpretation reread the bible

Well, besides the fact I was using a rhetorical device... there is always doubt and room for interpretation of the Bible. Or do you not finish a reading with a prayer that the Holy Spirt might aid you in understanding and bring wisdom?

The big stuff we seem to agree on, it's the little things that are open, arguable, and that leave room for... how many denomiations are there now anywho?

I think since we humans are fallible in our ability to discern other people's motives, we ought to give the woman the benefit of the doubt. (Though I am anti abortion).
Though some people call that being pro abortion. I call it realism. I mean your not there when the woman ends up having to have the abortion. So who are we to second guess? All I know is that if she did for the wrong reason, God will hold her to account. But only he knows the reality of what really happened.
The way I used to put it, before my congressional bid days, this one girl asked me if she was going to hell because she had an abortion. And, speaking with what the Holy Spirit had put in me to tell her, I said that it was between her, her boyfriend, and God. Therefore, while abortion is a sin and we are called to oppose it, we must be careful not condemn the sinner. That is God's territory.
I just wonder, are we realy called to oppose it? I hate the way people think of good honest Christians when they see them standing on a roadside picketing against abortion. It makes us look stupid and fundamentalist, in a bad way.

Well, besides the fact I was using a rhetorical device... there is always doubt and room for interpretation of the Bible. Or do you not finish a reading with a prayer that the Holy Spirt might aid you in understanding and bring wisdom?

The big stuff we seem to agree on, it's the little things that are open, arguable, and that leave room for... how many denomiations are there now anywho?
a couple of hundred and growing every day

The only unpardonable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit. Even rejection of the son of God is forgivable.
Ok, where is that found in the Bible and how can rejection of the Son not be the same as the Spirt in the Holy Trinity? (Not an attack, an actual question... and it's sad that such has to be labled within NS)

The only unpardonable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit. Even rejection of the son of God is forgivable.
But herein lies a very interesting, very amateur Christian debate. What does it mean to "reject the Holy Spirit?" How is that done?

Ok, where is that found in the Bible and how can rejection of the Son not be the same as the Spirt in the Holy Trinity? (Not an attack, an actual question... and it's sad that such has to be labled within NS)
It's in the Gospels, I don't rmemeber which one. It's there, though. Jesus said it.

a couple of hundred and growing every day
a couple HUNDRED DENOMINATIONS?? That's insane. Isn't that a little unecessary? I for one can only name like 25-30 denominations, unless you count things like Luthern Missouri Synod and the other Lutheranism as two denominations.

The only unpardonable sin is rejection of the Holy Spirit. Even rejection of the son of God is forgivable.



Matthew 12:32 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

From my understanding (it's plainly written for all to understand) anybody who mocks the Holy Ghost, has just bought himself/herself a one-way ticket to hell.

I just wonder, are we realy called to oppose it? I hate the way people think of good honest Christians when they see them standing on a roadside picketing against abortion. It makes us look stupid and fundamentalist, in a bad way.
well, the new testament addressed issues similar to that.
But is it any worse than christians picketing the White House with signs that say something like "all soldiers are baby killers"?
Or what of the Christians who participate in the Minute Man project?
Or the ones that demanded Clinton's removal from office cause he violated their religious moral codes?
do they not the same?

If God has not pricked your heart to protest abortion or any of the stuff, why do it? Each christian has a different calling. That is God's calling for them. The point where they cross over to false religion is when they start picketing for the woman or the doctor to be killed. Or when they start throwing rocks.
The ones that do that and claim to be christian are the ones we should be worried about. The rest are tend to be pretty harmless sheep following a leader. (I don't mean to offend any prolifers but that was just my observation from having been to a some pro life meetings. It's alway one or two people telling the rest what to do.)

Ok, where is that found in the Bible and how can rejection of the Son not be the same as the Spirt in the Holy Trinity? (Not an attack, an actual question... and it's sad that such has to be labled within NS)
Matthew 12:

31. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

a couple HUNDRED DENOMINATIONS?? That's insane. Isn't that a little unecessary? I for one can only name like 25-30 denominations, unless you count things like Luthern Missouri Synod and the other Lutheranism as two denominations.

You'd be surprised at how the many Lutheran synods differ. I had the "pleasure" of walking into a room of two fighting over some petty quarrel that was of "vital" importance to the Bible, or at least to them.

Also, there are dozens upon dozens of mini-cults. I think that's what Whittier was referring to when the statement "growing everyday". You'd be surprised at how many pop up each year.

On a similar note, did any body else find it odd that the Hale-Bop Cult(Or maybe it was some other wack-job cult), who all committed suicide simultanaeously were sponsored by Nike? Just curious, because they all wore Nike shoes. Random quip, I know.

a couple HUNDRED DENOMINATIONS?? That's insane. Isn't that a little unecessary? I for one can only name like 25-30 denominations, unless you count things like Luthern Missouri Synod and the other Lutheranism as two denominations.
Its more if you include all the house churches, mega churches, televangelism churches, etc. The sad thing is that many of them are based on a twisting of the Bible or the personal ego of the leader.

well, the new testament addressed issues similar to that.
But is it any worse than christians picketing the White House with signs that say something like "all soldiers are baby killers"?
Or what of the Christians who participate in the Minute Man project?
Or the ones that demanded Clinton's removal from office cause he violated their religious moral codes?
do they not the same?

If God has not pricked your heart to protest abortion or any of the stuff, why do it? Each christian has a different calling. That is God's calling for them. The point where they cross over to false religion is when they start picketing for the woman or the doctor to be killed. Or when they start throwing rocks.
The ones that do that and claim to be christian are the ones we should be worried about. The rest are tend to be pretty harmless sheep following a leader. (I don't mean to offend any prolifers but that was just my observation from having been to a some pro life meetings. It's alway one or two people telling the rest what to do.)
True, they are just as lamentable. And because I am deprived, I don't remember what the Minute Man project is. They do the same. And you're pretty much in scope with your comments on antiabortionism (or prolife, a term which I'm not sure I condone, being an English nerd.).

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin

And there are other things I could list, but those were the things that were being discussed. And this is what I learned from the Bible of what it is to be a true christian.

Being a christian does not mean you ignore sin nor does it teach that everyone will go to heaven. It says only a minority will cause the majority will reject the true teachings of Christ.

Now this is not all I got to say about what it is to be a christian, its just a start.

But I am breaking here so people can have a chance to reply.

The fundamental teaching of Christianity (the core of the gospel) is that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son, that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life". The fundamental commandments of Christianity are (1) to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and (2) to love your neighbour as yourself.

Did you know that abortion is never directly mentioned in the Bible?

Its more if you include all the house churches, mega churches, televangelism churches, etc. The sad thing is that many of them are based on a twisting of the Bible or the personal ego of the leader.
Aha. I see now why it would be so high. It's sad, too, the influence those sort of people can gain over others simply because they are good at persuasion or speaking to a large crowd of average humans, or because of the talkees' lack of lucidity. I mean look at that crazy guy in S. America with the koolaid.

From my understanding (it's plainly written for all to understand) anybody who mocks the Holy Ghost, has just bought himself/herself a one-way ticket to hell.
Got it, thanks. But it is not plain to read though, a Google search on it turns up a lot of different ideas on what that means.

Ah well.

True, they are just as lamentable. And because I am deprived, I don't remember what the Minute Man project is. They do the same. And you're pretty much in scope with your comments on antiabortionism (or prolife, a term which I'm not sure I condone, being an English nerd.).
I am prolife-prochoice.

I am prolife-prochoice.
LoL ..???

Got it, thanks. But it is not plain to read though, a Google search on it turns up a lot of different ideas on what that means.

Ah well.

And the question is:

What of those who may mock God early in life, but perhaps realize the error of their way ways, and truly regret and repent, not out of fear of Hell, but out of love of God? What then? What of those who's ideology and theologies change? I'm curious on this. People often regret the past, as people know they were stupid when they were young.

LoL ..???
I don't beleive in that one side or another stuff.
You can be prolife but still prochoice just like you can prochoice but still proabortion.

That is, you can personally think that abortion should be banned or that it should be mandatory, but still hold that it is up the woman.
I like to think there are actually 4 categories:
Prolife Prochoice
Proabortion Prochoice
Prolife Antichoice
ProAbortion Antichoice.

But the hardcore activists on both sides insist that you are either one of two choices. And I really don't think they represent America. I think Americans are more spread among the four choices I came up with. (actually I think most americans are prolife prochoice.)

And the question is:

What of those who may mock God early in life, but perhaps realize the error of their way ways, and truly regret and repent, not out of fear of Hell, but out of love of God? What then? What of those who's ideology and theologies change? I'm curious on this. People often regret the past, as people know they were stupid when they were young.
That is actually at the heart of the argument, from what I was scanning. Some folks were saying that rejection isn't the right word, but attributing acts of the Holy Spirt to Satan even after corrected. Of course I'm also seeing two different translations of those passages as well.

One pastor maintained that actually you couldn't commit this sin any more as you could only atribute works of the Spirt as demonic when Jesus was committing said works (He was looking at the context of the passge).

Ah the fun of Bible passages.

I don't beleive in that one side or another stuff.
You can be prolife but still prochoice just like you can prochoice but still proabortion.

That is, you can personally think that abortion should be banned or that it should be mandatory, but still hold that it is up the woman.
I like to think there are actually 4 categories:
Prolife Prochoice
Proabortion Prochoice
Prolife Antichoice
ProAbortion Antichoice.

But the hardcore activists on both sides insist that you are either one of two choices. And I really don't think they represent America. I think Americans are more spread among the four choices I came up with. (actually I think most americans are prolife prochoice.)
Exactly. Classic case of a small minority using controversial material to hijack the media and impose their views on the rest of the pop. Sickening. Though not nearly as bad here, since it's only with an interpretation of the sides of a debate, rather than other things I could cite that are in other threads, anyway.

You'd better start checking archaeology textbooks. You can pretty much toss all of the history before King Josiah in the Old Testament as a mixture of legend combined with a desire to create a national sense of unity among the people of the kingdom of Judah--check the book The Bible Unearthed for starters. It's a good distillation of the work done by hundreds of archaeologists in the area, and it comes to the basic conclusion that most of the Old Testament history doesn't stack up against the archaeology of the area. It surprised me just how large a discrepancy there was.

And it continues into more modern times--check out Excavating Jesus for a combination archaeological/exegetical examination of the Holy Land at the time of Jesus--lots of stuff just doesn't add up. Open your mind to the possibility that the Bible is not the infallible word of God and I think you may learn to appreciate it even more. I certainly have.

Well apparently Mssr Crossan has his own bone to pick... just because he's an archeologist I don't think he's above writing something to prove his own beliefs which in this case seem more about proving the 'fiction' of Jesus than examining 'what if it was true'.

"You" is hypothetical, not necessarily any one poster.
Or you could realize that though the Bible was written as the infallible word of God Himself, at the time that statement was written down in the Scriptures, the Bible hasn't even been translated once yet. How many centuries has it gone through to make it to all the translations it is in now? And how many translations are there in the English language? I think more than the number of different translations in any other single language on earth, but I can't back that up. I only guess. Maharlikana mentioned earlier that Jewish scribes copied exactly, and though that may be true, Jewish scribes only copied in Aramaic, Hebrew, Yiddish, and maybe Greek, and less maybe even Latin, but certainly not German, French, English, Russian, Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian, Portuguese, Welsh, Irish Gaelic, Flemish, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Slovakian, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, ok I'm tired of listing laguages now but you get my point. Humans have had more than several opporunities of corrupting the Bible if only slightly and they could all add up. Perhaps the Bible was the infallible word of God when that phrase was written, but the same may not be exactly true today. Life is not black and white, it exists in all the color spectrum we can see!

I've met and interviewed people from the Sumer Institute of Linguistics which, among other things, translates the bible into languages you never knew existed. These people don't just place things there for the sake of placing them. Imagine you're working for British Intelligence on ULTRA in World War 2 and every letter you decode can spell the loss of potentially thousands of lives. These people are working for the King of Heaven and that's a far greater responsibility which they take very, very seriously, even risking and giving up their lives for it (anyone heard of Martin and Gracia Burnham?)

That was moreso the point I was trying to get across. I didn't mean to come across as saying "And God Said unto thee, LET THERE BE EVIL!", but moreso that God created the possibility for evil. That although Evil is to go against God's will, it exists for a reason, so to speak.

And on a similar note of Lucifer, there are those who believe that Lucifer is not truly an entity, either physically or spiritually, but a "driving force" within us all. Basically, a temptation that resides within us that we choose either to follow or deny. It's an interesting concept, one that intrigues the hell out of me(No pun intended).

Well said... there are more than a few moral/philosophical points I'd like to take up with God, myself, and there are moments when I've felt quite literally 'god-forsaken' so I hope you take all these in the spirit of friendly (emphasis on that) debate rather than lecturing with a sense of superiority. I'm speaking only of what I know in my heart and believe.

Speaking of spirits, I for one believe in spirits and entities rather than forces but the end result I think is the same. The major difference there is it becomes a 'Star Wars Force' yin-yang issue which, to some, weakens the morality and makes it impersonal. For example, I'm striving to please a person (Heavenly Father, Christ, Holy Spirit) rather than striving to keep to the 'good side of the Force'.

I think since we humans are fallible in our ability to discern other people's motives, we ought to give the woman the benefit of the doubt. (Though I am anti abortion).
Though some people call that being pro abortion. I call it realism. I mean your not there when the woman ends up having to have the abortion. So who are we to second guess? All I know is that if she did for the wrong reason, God will hold her to account. But only he knows the reality of what really happened.
The way I used to put it, before my congressional bid days, this one girl asked me if she was going to hell because she had an abortion. And, speaking with what the Holy Spirit had put in me to tell her, I said that it was between her, her boyfriend, and God. Therefore, while abortion is a sin and we are called to oppose it, we must be careful not condemn the sinner. That is God's territory.

That's right. That is God's turf (Judge not lest ye be judged). While I'm anti-abortion as well I do believe there are some instances (mother's life vs the child's life) when it may actually be justified (may God not make me choose!) but what I disagree with in principle is the idea that, like other rights, it will be abused (as it sadly is).

Ok, where is that found in the Bible and how can rejection of the Son not be the same as the Spirt in the Holy Trinity? (Not an attack, an actual question... and it's sad that such has to be labled within NS)

Matt. 12:22-32 says, "Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB).

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... some believe (let me qualify)... is when someone who should know better (like the 'religious' folk in this passage) attribute to the devil, those acts which are done by Christ. Of course there are a number of different interpretations but this is pretty clear I think.

Essentially, rejecting Christ when you don't know him is forgivable (ie. God's forgiveness is still available) at least until you die (after which it's too late). These people were guilty of the unpardonable sin because, despite the words, signs, miracles and the sheer goodness that was being done, they had the nerve to attribute the healing, miracles and wholeness worked by Christ as the work of the Devil.

The fundamental teaching of Christianity (the core of the gospel) is that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son, that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life". The fundamental commandments of Christianity are (1) to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and (2) to love your neighbour as yourself.

Did you know that abortion is never directly mentioned in the Bible?

Abortion is essentially the same as 'passing children through the fire' - though this was done in the context of religious practices. Basically you're taking a living child and killing it.

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin
Isn't Christianity mainly about believing in God? Or believing in Christ and his ressurection? Aren't these the most important things? Ie more important that abortion, which wasn't even a word when Christ was alive?

And the question is:

What of those who may mock God early in life, but perhaps realize the error of their way ways, and truly regret and repent, not out of fear of Hell, but out of love of God? What then? What of those who's ideology and theologies change? I'm curious on this. People often regret the past, as people know they were stupid when they were young.

Christ had a lot to say about this - the story of the prodigal son is one, the oft quoted adulteress's story brought up here is another, the story of the son who promised his father he'd work but didn't and the other who said he wouldn't work but changed his mind is another.

Christ also had a 'rogues gallery' for followers - rough-hewn fishermen (who probably cussed everytime they lost a catch), a collaborator/tax-collector for the Roman government (which was about equivalent to sin in Jewish eyes, like the American who joined the Taliban), an ex-Zealot (who by rights would - SHOULD have GUTTED the tax-collector), a woman who had seven demons exorcised, 'gentiles' (heaven forbid) and if there was one thing the 'religious elite' accused him of, it was partying with prostitutes, tax-collectors and various other sinners. Yet he said to them, 'look, the prostitutes and tax-collectors are entering heaven ahead of you' - but this was because they accepted his message and repented.

That is actually at the heart of the argument, from what I was scanning. Some folks were saying that rejection isn't the right word, but attributing acts of the Holy Spirt to Satan even after corrected. Of course I'm also seeing two different translations of those passages as well.

One pastor maintained that actually you couldn't commit this sin any more as you could only atribute works of the Spirt as demonic when Jesus was committing said works (He was looking at the context of the passge).

Ah the fun of Bible passages.

Well here's some food for thought... remember those old Bugs Bunny or Roadrunner cartoons where Coyote is chasing the road runner and he runs off a cliff into the air and he keeps running and he's doing fine until he looks down? I think that's what happens to Christians sometimes. We're too busy debating over landmines that may or may not be there rather than looking for ways to obey and praise. Heaven knows I'm as guilty of sin of that myself and please don't take this as criticism of your statement - just my humble opinion here.

Abortion is essentially the same as 'passing children through the fire' - though this was done in the context of religious practices. Basically you're taking a living child and killing it.

That's a stretch. When giving your children to be sacficied to molech is prohibited in the Bible, I tend to believe the message was intended to be "don't burn your kids to death in an idolaterous ritual" or "God does not approve of human sacrifice", not "abortion is wrong".

I'm not trying to say abortion is always justified or anything, I just dispute that it is one of the three most fundamental points of Christian teaching.

That's a stretch. When giving your children to be sacficied to molech is prohibited in the Bible, I tend to believe the message was intended to be "don't burn your kids to death in an idolaterous ritual" or "God does not approve of human sacrifice", not "abortion is wrong".

I'm not trying to say abortion is always justified or anything, I just dispute that it is one of the three most fundamental points of Christian teaching.

Well God says that we aren't to commit murder - the wilful extermination of a human being. Perhaps there are times when abortion is necessary and perhaps there are times when it's permissible. I think there's a difference between abortion because there's a danger to the life of the mother and abortion because a girl wanted to have sex with her boyfriend and the condom broke and now she's a disgrace and she doesn't want to settle down yet or whatever.

When a child was sacrificed to Molech it was not just because of idolatry but because the culture that promoted it had sexual worship and idolized fecundity. Ultimately the idol here is one's own self - selfish desires, personal pride, pleasure, status, etc.

I think there's truth in Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion... it's a gray area.

And well, apologies to Whittier, I don't think it's really ultimately the most fundamental point of Christian teaching. Perhaps what he meant was it's one of the most fundamental issues facing Christianity today?

Hey guys, it's been fun debating! I'm off from work now so I'll be heading out. Look forward to talking tomorrow...

God bless us everyone,
Maharlikana

I don't beleive in that one side or another stuff.
You can be prolife but still prochoice just like you can prochoice but still proabortion.

That is, you can personally think that abortion should be banned or that it should be mandatory, but still hold that it is up the woman.
I like to think there are actually 4 categories:
Prolife Prochoice
Proabortion Prochoice
Prolife Antichoice
ProAbortion Antichoice.

But the hardcore activists on both sides insist that you are either one of two choices. And I really don't think they represent America. I think Americans are more spread among the four choices I came up with. (actually I think most americans are prolife prochoice.)
Prolife Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you are personally against abotion, but respect other's rights to choose)
Proabotion Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you don't personally have a problem with abortion and respect the right to choose)
Prolife Antichoice = Prolife (Meaning, you are personally agaisnt abortion and don't respect anyone's right to choose)
ProAbortion Antichoice = Just plain scary (Meaning you're some kind of maniac who believes you have the right to invade another person's privacy and body and do whatever the hell you want to them).

Just because you are not personally comfortable with the idea of having your own child aborted, doesn't make you prolife. To be prolife means you want to force everyone to make your personal decision of not having an abortion. To be prochioce means regardless of your personal opinion you believe other people should have the right to decide for themselves. That's why there's only need of two distictions, the last one you listed isn't even an issue as most everyone, especially in America and other countries who value freedom, can agree that forcing people to undergo such a procedure is a ridiculous notion not worth consideration, especially by the government.

As for abortion and the bible, I don't see why anyone would think abortion would be covered in the bible as such a procedure in those times would probably prove quite fatal. Hell, in those days, actual childbirth was often fatal and rife with complications. Abortion just wouldn't have been an important enough issue to be covered in those times, and if you can even admit that it is in disupte between fundamental Christians, how you can list it as one of the fundamentals of Christianity is beyond me. I'd tend to think that the fundamentals of Christianity would be the things that all Christians no matter what demonination could agree upon.

Abortion is essentially the same as 'passing children through the fire' - though this was done in the context of religious practices. Basically you're taking a living child and killing it.
Your comparison still applies. It is a form of human sacrifice.

Well God says that we aren't to commit murder - the wilful extermination of a human being. Perhaps there are times when abortion is necessary and perhaps there are times when it's permissible. I think there's a difference between abortion because there's a danger to the life of the mother and abortion because a girl wanted to have sex with her boyfriend and the condom broke and now she's a disgrace and she doesn't want to settle down yet or whatever.

When a child was sacrificed to Molech it was not just because of idolatry but because the culture that promoted it had sexual worship and idolized fecundity. Ultimately the idol here is one's own self - selfish desires, personal pride, pleasure, status, etc.

I think there's truth in Pro-Life, Pro-Abortion... it's a gray area.

And well, apologies to Whittier, I don't think it's really ultimately the most fundamental point of Christian teaching. Perhaps what he meant was it's one of the most fundamental issues facing Christianity today?
yep. It doesn't apply to you if you are not a christian. It only applies to those who claim to be christians. If you are Christian, then you must oppose abortion.
And actually this whole thread was pointed at those who have been calling themselves christians to see if they really measured up to what it is to be a Christian. But still it is interesting to see the input of the nonchristians.

Abortion is essentially the same as 'passing children through the fire' - though this was done in the context of religious practices. Basically you're taking a living child and killing it.
Does it breathe? No.
Can it survive outside of the womb? No.
I'd say that'd make it a rather dubious thing to call it a "living child". At that point, a fetus isn't all that different from an appendix. Hence why the topic is so debatable even among Christians.

Prolife Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you are personally against abotion, but respect other's rights to choose)
Proabotion Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you don't personally have a problem with abortion and respect the right to choose)
Prolife Antichoice = Prolife (Meaning, you are personally agaisnt abortion and don't respect anyone's right to choose)
ProAbortion Antichoice = Just plain scary (Meaning you're some kind of maniac who believes you have the right to invade another person's privacy and body and do whatever the hell you want to them).

Just because you are not personally comfortable with the idea of having your own child aborted, doesn't make you prolife. To be prolife means you want to force everyone to make your personal decision of not having an abortion. To be prochioce means regardless of your personal opinion you believe other people should have the right to decide for themselves. That's why there's only need of two distictions, the last one you listed isn't even an issue as most everyone, especially in America and other countries who value freedom, can agree that forcing people to undergo such a procedure is a ridiculous notion not worth consideration, especially by the government.

As for abortion and the bible, I don't see why anyone would think abortion would be covered in the bible as such a procedure in those times would probably prove quite fatal. Hell, in those days, actual childbirth was often fatal and rife with complications. Abortion just wouldn't have been an important enough issue to be covered in those times, and if you can even admit that it is in disupte between fundamental Christians, how you can list it as one of the fundamentals of Christianity is beyond me. I'd tend to think that the fundamentals of Christianity would be the things that all Christians no matter what demonination could agree upon.


Eh no. You are wrong. Just because you support the right to life does not mean you have to force it on people. As I said earlier, when you do so, you committing blasphemy but doing something that only God has a perogative to do. Your whole first paragraph was nothing more than a political ad for Planned Parenthood, which i've noticed is proabortion antichoice. Just like the Chinese govt. You might have forgotten bout the Chinese. Remember their one child policy. The rest have to be aborted or the mother gets punished for it.
But this isn't a political thread. If you are not Christian, go ahead and support all the abortions you want. That is your perogative. But when you say "I support abortion on demand" and you say "I am a Christian". Well I am going to call you on it cause you can't support abortion and be a christian.

Now there's a lot of people who posted on here who are baffled what abortion has to do with Christianity. Obviously the term abortion is not specifically mentioned in the Bible. In fact the word didn't even exist back then. But I will return to that later to explain what I mean. But I just want to start on the next couple of sections of the sermon on the mount. If you don't mind.

Does it breathe? No.
Can it survive outside of the womb? No.
I'd say that'd make it a rather dubious thing to call it a "living child". At that point, a fetus isn't all that different from an appendix. Hence why the topic is so debatable even among Christians.
No it is not debatable among Christians. Christianity is not a democracy. The guy up in the sky, he made the rules. Christians cannot support abortion.

Matthew 5:

21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.
26. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

What this means is that if you have a feud with some one or you are angry with someone, God will not hear your prayers until you have reconciled. I refer to this as the first law of prayer. Now alot of people, say "God don't exist cause he don't answer my prayers." Well you have to figure that if you are in hostile relationship with someone, that is going to block God from hearing you and being able to do anything for you. The reason for this is that when you approach the throne of God while in enmity with anyone, you are approaching with enmity, vile, hate, selfishness, greed, spite, hypocrisy. These are contrary to the nature of God. And when you approach the throne of God in prayer with these, its like pollution. It creates a barrier between you and God. The only way to remove that barrier is to fix things between you and who ever you enemy is (whether it be some guy at work that cheated you out of a promotion or your former best friend that stole your girlfriend). If you have enmity between you two when you come to approach God, don't even bother praying. Go and fix your relationship, set things right, then come before God in prayer. And he will hear you. For God to hear your prayer, you have to be willing to forgive those who have wronged you, however that may have been.

This is one of the requirements for a christian to have an effective prayer life.
If you want to know how to specifically pray, while I am sure everyone knows the Lord's Prayer.
But that is in Chapter 6 of Matthew.

No it is not debatable among Christians. Christianity is not a democracy. The guy up in the sky, he made the rules. Christians cannot support abortion.

Then how can Christianity support Democracy? I mean, in a democratic state you have the risk of the People disagreeing with the guy in the sky (they do tend to do that alot). The only way of keeping the people from deciding against god's rule, is not letting them have power.

Eh no. You are wrong. Just because you support the right to life does not mean you have to force it on people. As I said earlier, when you do so, you committing blasphemy but doing something that only God has a perogative to do.
Which makes you prochoice because you do not support forcing it on people.
Your whole first paragraph was nothing more than a political ad for Planned Parenthood, which i've noticed is proabortion antichoice. Just like the Chinese govt. You might have forgotten bout the Chinese. Remember their one child policy. The rest have to be aborted or the mother gets punished for it.
Umm, right, you're obviously quite confused. China obviously isn't a country that values freedom, and for some reason, I find it hard to believe that Planned Parenthood is trying to force people to have abortions, at least around here, the one girl I know who considered having an abortion was scared away from having it by the place she went to get the procedure done in after they explained to her exactly what it would entail.
But this isn't a political thread. If you are not Christian, go ahead and support all the abortions you want. That is your perogative. But when you say "I support abortion on demand" and you say "I am a Christian". Well I am going to call you on it cause you can't support abortion and be a christian.
That's just it, I don't claim to be Christian, nor do I personally support abortions, I just don't support denying people the choice. I wouldn't want my future wife to be forced to have an abortion any more than I'd want to force someone not to have one.
No it is not debatable among Christians. Christianity is not a democracy. The guy up in the sky, he made the rules. Christians cannot support abortion.
Abortion is not specifically mentioned but I was compelled by the spirit to include it. But on that issue, there much disagreement even among the most fundamentalist of christians.
It's not good to contradict yourself like that...

Then how can Christianity support Democracy? I mean, in a democratic state you have the risk of the People disagreeing with the guy in the sky (they do tend to do that alot). The only way of keeping the people from deciding against god's rule, is not letting them have power.
Ah, if you or me were God that would be things would be. Would it not?
But fortunately, God does not think like men. It would go against his nature. You see God values free will. He's not going to force to obey his laws. That's why it important that if you become Christian you do so voluntarily not because you are coerced. If you become christian due to coercion, it is the same as if you are not a christian only worse.

But as far as governments, it is written that not every ruler governs with God's consent. And indeed it is also in the Bible that the people will choose leaders who are as sinful as they are. And if you look at say America. You can see this. When the American people were like anything goes, there is no sin, they put Bill Clinton in the White House. When the American people decided, "we have strayed, we want values, we are a christian nation" guess what happened. Bush got elected.

One was God's choice the other one wasn't. What happened here? Free choice. You see the God of love, the God of life, is also the God of free choice.

You could also ask the same question about why God allows evil and sin in the first place. The answer simple: God gave freedom of choice to you.

Ah, if you or me were God that would be things would be. Would it not?
But fortunately, God does not think like men. It would go against his nature. You see God values free will. He's not going to force to obey his laws. That's why it important that if you become Christian you do so voluntarily not because you are coerced. If you become christian due to coercion, it is the same as if you are not a christian only worse.

But as far as governments, it is written that not every ruler governs with God's consent. And indeed it is also in the Bible that the people will choose leaders who are as sinful as they are. And if you look at say America. You can see this. When the American people were like anything goes, there is no sin, they put Bill Clinton in the White House. When the American people decided, "we have strayed, we want values, we are a christian nation" guess what happened. Bush got elected.

One was God's choice the other one wasn't. What happened here? Free choice. You see the God of love, the God of life, is also the God of free choice.

You could also ask the same question about why God allows evil and sin in the first place. The answer simple: God gave freedom of choice to you.

Which one was "God's choice"?

One was God's choice the other one wasn't. What happened here? Free choice. You see the God of love, the God of life, is also the God of free choice.
So, the God of love, life, and free chioce is the God who chose a president who favors hate, war, and restricting freedoms?

Which makes you prochoice because you do not support forcing it on people.

Umm, right, you're obviously quite confused. China obviously isn't a country that values freedom, and for some reason, I find it hard to believe that Planned Parenthood is trying to force people to have abortions, at least around here, the one girl I know who considered having an abortion was scared away from having it by the place she went to get the procedure done in after they explained to her exactly what it would entail.

That's just it, I don't claim to be Christian, nor do I personally support abortions, I just don't support denying people the choice. I wouldn't want my future wife to be forced to have an abortion any more than I'd want to force someone not to have one.


It's not good to contradict yourself like that...
1. It makes me prolife prochoice. The reason being that if I favored forcing people, I would not be prolife but antichoice and antilife cause to end abortion I would have to advocate firebombings and killings and stuff like that. And that my sir, is contradictory to the very term "prolife".

2. China isn't the only country where abortions are mandatory.
Planned Parenthood is pretty militant about abortions.
Informed consent is always best.

3. then you are prolife prochoice. You oppose abortion but you would not force your position on some one else.

4. There is disagreement on when personhood starts. Not on whether abortion is right.

Which one was "God's choice"?
Hazard a guess.

So, the God of love, life, and free chioce is the God who chose a president who favors hate, war, and restricting freedoms?
Actually President Bush is what one those rare national leaders who actually does believe the Christian faith and backs it.
He does not favor hate or war. Nor does he favor restricting freedom.
And when you look at the laws that have been passed since he's been in office, none of them involve restricting freedom. The Patriot Act, they still have to get a warrant. Though the FBI has asked for exemption, they are not going to get it.
The war we are in, was forced on him. Remember when he first came into office? His original plan was to start bringing troops back from all these countries we had them in. You should be able to find some of his 2000 speeches on the subject by googling. On 911 everything changed and he was forced to send troops out instead of bring them home.

What do you mean by favors hate?

Actually, new info shows president Bush was planning to go to war before 9/11. The terrorist attacks just gave a him a reason.

Ah, if you or me were God that would be things would be. Would it not?
But fortunately, God does not think like men. It would go against his nature. You see God values free will. He's not going to force to obey his laws. That's why it important that if you become Christian you do so voluntarily not because you are coerced. If you become christian due to coercion, it is the same as if you are not a christian only worse.

But as far as governments, it is written that not every ruler governs with God's consent. And indeed it is also in the Bible that the people will choose leaders who are as sinful as they are. And if you look at say America. You can see this. When the American people were like anything goes, there is no sin, they put Bill Clinton in the White House. When the American people decided, "we have strayed, we want values, we are a christian nation" guess what happened. Bush got elected. .

So your god is a saddistic bastard, that though theoretically being omnipotent, allows is childreen to screw themselves.


One was God's choice the other one wasn't. What happened here? Free choice. You see the God of love, the God of life, is also the God of free choice. .

God of love and of life? Holy shit! Read the old testament! And don't come with that crap "yea, but we made a new covenant blablabla", unless you are willing to admit that your god screwed up in the first place. If he did so, then he isnt omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, he can be challenged, and won over.



You could also ask the same question about why God allows evil and sin in the first place. The answer simple: God gave freedom of choice to you.

Yet he damns to hell all those that choose to disagree with him. But that is also saddistic, since god, being omnipotent, knows exactly how I will choose to live my life, even before i am born. Since i am a sinner, your god made me just to send me to hell.

God of love and of life? Holy shit! Read the old testament! And don't come with that crap "yea, but we made a new covenant blablabla", unless you are willing to admit that your god screwed up in the first place. If he did so, then he isnt omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, he can be challenged, and won over.
You can't get past Genesis without reading about God's infallability. The Biblical flood where afterwards he went "oops, my bad, I'll never do that again..." anyone?

The fundamental part of christian teachings are that:
adultery is sin
abortion is sin
homosexuality is sin.
So those are the fundamental teachings?
I suppose Christianity isn't about following Jesus's teachings anymore then. Didn't Jesus himself say that it is fundamental to love God and love others, or something like that? John 13:34 or something?

But no, apparently gays and pro-choicers being sinners is far more important than love...

And what about the Ten Commandments? I thought they were the fundamentals?

But no, couldn't be...

To be a christian means to follow the teachings of Christ, and Christ said absolutely nothing about homosexuality or abortion, and when he came across an adulteress, he stopped her from being stoned with the ever famous "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Rather, Christ gave a few statements on how to live. His first two and greatest commandments were to 1) love God with all you have and 2) love your neighbor as yourself. Then there was also the Golden rule--treat others as you would be treated. And then there were the beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount--you know, blessed are the merciful, etc.

You know, if you want to talk about christianity, Whittier, you might try reading what Christ actually said rather than listening to church leaders.

Yay, for The Nazz!

Well said.

The war we are in, was forced on him. Remember when he first came into office? His original plan was to start bringing troops back from all these countries we had them in. You should be able to find some of his 2000 speeches on the subject by googling. On 911 everything changed and he was forced to send troops out instead of bring them home.


Oh yeah, Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. I forgot about that.

Actually, new info shows president Bush was planning to go to war before 9/11. The terrorist attacks just gave a him a reason.
that's your political opinion. It really has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I wonder how many people that posted today, actually read the whole thread, yes that means every post, before jumping in.

Prolife Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you are personally against abotion, but respect other's rights to choose)
Proabotion Prochoice = Prochoice (Meaning, you don't personally have a problem with abortion and respect the right to choose)
Prolife Antichoice = Prolife (Meaning, you are personally agaisnt abortion and don't respect anyone's right to choose)
ProAbortion Antichoice = Just plain scary (Meaning you're some kind of maniac who believes you have the right to invade another person's privacy and body and do whatever the hell you want to them).

Just because you are not personally comfortable with the idea of having your own child aborted, doesn't make you prolife. To be prolife means you want to force everyone to make your personal decision of not having an abortion. To be prochioce means regardless of your personal opinion you believe other people should have the right to decide for themselves. That's why there's only need of two distictions, the last one you listed isn't even an issue as most everyone, especially in America and other countries who value freedom, can agree that forcing people to undergo such a procedure is a ridiculous notion not worth consideration, especially by the government.

As for abortion and the bible, I don't see why anyone would think abortion would be covered in the bible as such a procedure in those times would probably prove quite fatal. Hell, in those days, actual childbirth was often fatal and rife with complications. Abortion just wouldn't have been an important enough issue to be covered in those times, and if you can even admit that it is in disupte between fundamental Christians, how you can list it as one of the fundamentals of Christianity is beyond me. I'd tend to think that the fundamentals of Christianity would be the things that all Christians no matter what demonination could agree upon.

Abortion at its most basic is killing an unwanted child. Nowadays, with our science and medicine (ah the Hippocratic oath - which by the way does mention abortion and forbids it: "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.") we do it and use euphemisms to hide the truth that we are exterminating another human life. In those days it was done through exposing the child to the elements or tossing them into the river to be eaten by crocodiles or off cliffs or sacrificing them to idols as part of religious ritual.

Also... take a look at this... Hazael, General of a north Canaanite rival kingdom is sent by his ruler Ben Hadad to meet Elisha, prophet of God to inquire is he will get better from a current illness...

"10 And Elisha said unto him, Go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the LORD hath shewed me that he shall surely die.

11 And he settled his countenance stedfastly, until he was ashamed: and the man of God wept.

12 And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

13 And Hazael said, But what, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing? And Elisha answered, The LORD hath shewed me that thou shalt be king over Syria."

Does it breathe? No.
Can it survive outside of the womb? No.
I'd say that'd make it a rather dubious thing to call it a "living child". At that point, a fetus isn't all that different from an appendix. Hence why the topic is so debatable even among Christians.

It can feel, it can think, it shows fear when it's about to be bashed in and sucked out.

And just because someone calls himself a Christian and says Lord, Lord doesn't make him one...

This 'thing', as you so eloquently call it, was created in the image of God and, barring the extreme situation, deserves as much love and protection as the richest man in the world.

It can feel, it can think, it shows fear when it's about to be bashed in and sucked out.

Proof?

So your god is a saddistic bastard, that though theoretically being omnipotent, allows is childreen to screw themselves.



God of love and of life? Holy shit! Read the old testament! And don't come with that crap "yea, but we made a new covenant blablabla", unless you are willing to admit that your god screwed up in the first place. If he did so, then he isnt omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, he can be challenged, and won over.




Yet he damns to hell all those that choose to disagree with him. But that is also saddistic, since god, being omnipotent, knows exactly how I will choose to live my life, even before i am born. Since i am a sinner, your god made me just to send me to hell.

He doesn't damn them to hell until their last breath is gone and they've stood before the judgement seat.

He may know you'll mess up my life - Newsflash: WHO HASN'T!! - but He loves you anyway and wants you to have the BEST in life. And just so it's clear, God didn't mess up the world - mankind did - and (like he does whenever he makes a mistake) he shoves off the blame to some convenient scapegoat and often to God. It's like the food junkie who eats till he's as large as Jabba the hut then sues Mickey D's because he's fat. Who couldn't control his eating binges? Who forked over the cash? Who swallowed the food? It wasn't Ronald!!

Nations and peoples that were willing to follow the law of God were allowed to live and thrive. Nations that didn't - that committed DETESTABLE sins and worshipped DETESTABLE gods - were to be destroyed because if allowed to live they were going to pollute the chosen people. Instead of welcoming the people of God they raised the draw bridge and called out the troops! But look at what happened to Nineveh, capital of the baby-killing, ruthless ASSYRIAN Empire - God SPARED it!! (and ticked off Jonah who was expecting a fire-and-brimstone light show!) Why? Everyone from the King on down repented of their sins and wore sack-cloth and sat in ashes as a sign of their contrition. God is forgiving but he is also just and righteous.

About letting his children screw themselves - we aren't perfect anymore, not by a long-shot. We all know the difference between good and evil, deep in our hearts we know - even YOU know I'm sure. I once came to a point where I wondered why God, who knows all and can do all, would let me get to a point where I couldn't handle things, where I would mess up.

One - because we have the CHOICE to mess up or not. Our responsibility still.
Two - because whichever CHOICE we make will have consequences for good or ill. And those will shape our characters for good or ill DEPENDING on HOW we accept them. A good choice with good consequences may still lead to harm if one develops PRIDE. A bad choice with bad consequences may lead to good if one learns HUMILITY.

Finally, when God's 'patience' is exhausted with mankind's stubbornness, he 'gives them over' to whatever they want. In fact, if God is punishing a Christian he shouldn't be bitter because that's an indication GOD LOVES HIM (it was hard for me to accept too) but when he 'lets you get away with things' BE AFRAID because that may mean God has 'abandoned' you to your own desires and good buddy Satan until such time as you choose to return, whereupon he welcomes you with open arms, or you die and must face the consequences of your rejection of his FREE gift of love.

Ultrasound, scans of the womb when abortions are being performed, the shape of the half developed and many times FULLY developed child as abortions take place even in the last trimester.

I don't deny that there are certain extenuating circumstances, issues of danger to the life of the mother, which may justify an abortion. But to kill a fully functional human being or a human being who is conscious and displays emotion is murder and God's wrath and judgement is upon those who so casually practice it.

Third trimester pregnancies are only aborted if the life of the mother is in danger.

Legally, unless the life of the mother is in danger, you cannot have an abortion beyond the first trimester, which is long before the fetus could possibly respond to stimuli.

Let me ask you, do know that it takes approximately 48 hours (following intercourse) for an egg to be fertilized?

Further, is not agreed that the definition of pregnancy is when the fertilized egg has already implanted itself into the uterus? Yes or No?
While we're at it, how long does it take for the fertilized egg to go from being fertilized to implanting itself?

Third trimester pregnancies are only aborted if the life of the mother is in danger.

Legally, unless the life of the mother is in danger, you cannot have an abortion beyond the first trimester, which is long before the fetus could possibly respond to stimuli.

And yet those second and third trimester abortions happen without the extenuating medical circumstances and nothing is seemingly done about it. It's all too easy, like getting a haircut. That's just not right.

And yet those second and third trimester abortions happen without the extenuating medical circumstances and nothing is seemingly done about it. It's all too easy, like getting a haircut. That's just not right.
And where are on Earth are you getting THAT information? It is NOT as easy as getting a haircut in any way shape or form.

Another NSer posted on another abortion thread his experiance about having to take his gf to go get one and what they went through. I have to agree with his conclusion that until you stand there, until you are in that position, you have no clue what is going on, what is going through their head, and what they are feeling. You don't know and you can't know. I don't even want to begin to try to say I know.

Only they and God knows. And as He said, judge not unless ye be judged.

So saying it is done on the fly on a moments lark is very wrong and hurtful to those who do go through that. If you want to be Christian, then comfort those and help them and try to know them.

That was the great thing about Jesus, He ALWAYS knew the other's heart and was not only forgave, but comforted them. Saying that they are now damned to hellfire or are un-Christian is about as far from his example as I can come up with.

And where are on Earth are you getting THAT information? It is NOT as easy as getting a haircut in any way shape or form.

Another NSer posted on another abortion thread his experiance about having to take his gf to go get one and what they went through. I have to agree with his conclusion that until you stand there, until you are in that position, you have no clue what is going on, what is going through their head, and what they are feeling. You don't know and you can't know. I don't even want to begin to try to say I know.

Only they and God knows. And as He said, judge not unless ye be judged.

So saying it is done on the fly on a moments lark is very wrong and hurtful to those who do go through that. If you want to be Christian, then comfort those and help them and try to know them.

That was the great thing about Jesus, He ALWAYS knew the other's heart and was not only forgave, but comforted them. Saying that they are now damned to hellfire or are un-Christian is about as far from his example as I can come up with.

you misunderstand him. If you read his earier posts you would know that was not what he meant.

What he is saying is if you have an abortion and you relish it, then you are damned to the fires of hell.

Now if a woman relishes getting abortions, (and there are women who do), why would you want to defend them.

Its like those women, they have sex everyday, get knocked up and get an abortion like every month. We have to call it as it is, those women are malicious and going to hell.
Its not the same for the girl where its like the condom broke or something or where something goes wrong with the pregnancy.

Women who get abortions need to be divided into two groups: the malicious and those who get one because they don't have a choice.
It is the former that we cast righteous judgement against. Forgiveness and undertand is always available for the latter. If they come to God and repent of having the abortion and feel guilty bout it that is.

you misunderstand him. If you read his earier posts you would know that was not what he meant.

What he is saying is if you have an abortion and you relish it, then you are damned to the fires of hell.

Now if a woman relishes getting abortions, (and there are women who do), why would you want to defend them.

Its like those women, they have sex everyday, get knocked up and get an abortion like every month. We have to call it as it is, those women are malicious and going to hell.
Its not the same for the girl where its like the condom broke or something or where something goes wrong with the pregnancy.

Women who get abortions need to be divided into two groups: the malicious and those who get one because they don't have a choice.
It is the former that we cast righteous judgement against. Forgiveness and undertand is always available for the latter. If they come to God and repent of having the abortion and feel guilty bout it that is.
Can you show me that such women exist? I hear about them as a reason why abortions should be banned, but I have yet to see such people produced who state they relish having abortions.

On a physical note though, I doubt you could physically manage to get pregnant every month and have an abortion every month. The body would wear itself out if that was the case.

Can you show me that such women exist? I hear about them as a reason why abortions should be banned, but I have yet to see such people produced who state they relish having abortions.

Why ruin hysteria with mere facts?

On a physical note though, I doubt you could physically manage to get pregnant every month and have an abortion every month. The body would wear itself out if that was the case.

If it were possible in the first place. (Which I doubt, but I was never very good at biology :()

The next fundamental of what it is to be Christian is going to be a strong rebuke for some people. But if you are not making a claim to be christian, it does not apply to you though you are welcome to comment on it.

Why ruin hysteria with mere facts?



If it were possible in the first place. (Which I doubt, but I was never very good at biology :()
Are either of you Christians? If not none of this applies to you. If so, then you are in danger of damnation.
So are you Christian or non Christian?

Are either of you Christians? If not none of this applies to you. If so, then you are in danger of damnation.
So are you Christian or non Christian?
For myself, yes, I am. I will wait and see if I agree with you on if the next part damns me or not.

Are either of you Christians? If not none of this applies to you. If so, then you are in danger of damnation.
So are you Christian or non Christian?

I'm a Catholic-Atheist




(well agnostic, but Catholic-atheist has a nicer ring to it).

Next fundamantal:

Matthew 5:

27. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


This text attacks the very heart of something that is far far too common today.
If you marry a woman that is divorced, for any reason other than fornication, you are both guilty of adultery.

If you look at a women and have sexual thought about her. If you have posters of scantily clad women on your walls, and you are married, you are guilty of adultery.

If you have an online relationship that is close, and you are married, you are guilty of adultery.


If you look upon a married woman with lustful thoughts, you are guilty of adultery.


It is your job to get yourself out situations where you know will commit such sins, or you will be in danger of being cut off from heaven.

And you can for yourself, in Matthew 5 that those were the words of Jesus.

For myself, yes, I am. I will wait and see if I agree with you on if the next part damns me or not.
then you cannot the position you hold on abortion. It is very contrary to what it is to be a christian. A christian must love the person but condemn the sin.

I'm a Catholic-Atheist




(well agnostic, but Catholic-atheist has a nicer ring to it).
catholic athiest? Does that mean you believe in God but you don't believe in God?

If you are in a job and there is a really attractive woman that works at the same place, and you know you've been having thoughts about her and you know you are being tempted to point where you would committ adultery with her, it is the command of God that you ask for a job relocation or, if that is not possible, that you quit and get a different job.
As it is written, flee temptation.

Also, I should have said this in the last post, if you are attracted to friends girlfriend, (applies vice versa for the genders so women should think they are exempt) and you've been doing stuff with them, that also is adultery.

Not only that, but you've also put yourself in situation described in an ealier post where God will not hear any of your prayers.

then you cannot the position you hold on abortion. It is very contrary to what it is to be a christian. A christian must love the person but condemn the sin.
And you have yet to show where that is stated as sinful.

My position, I think, is very Christian. I cannot know the other's heart. Until I know, I cannot judge. Christ himself saw all hearts, but I can't and He also noted that those who commit evil in His name do so for Satan. Those who do good in Satan's name do so for him.

In other words, intent matters (your pointing out of Mathew 5 back this point up). Since I cannot know, I cannot condem or hate what I do not know.

Which was my point of trying to comfort and come to know people and understand why it was done.

Which is why I cannot say abortion is sinful because the sin depends upon the intent and the reason behind that action.

If you are in a job and there is a really attractive woman that works at the same place, and you know you've been having thoughts about her and you know you are being tempted to point where you would committ adultery with her, it is the command of God that you ask for a job relocation or, if that is not possible, that you quit and get a different job.
As it is written, flee temptation.

Also, I should have said this in the last post, if you are attracted to friends girlfriend, (applies vice versa for the genders so women should think they are exempt) and you've been doing stuff with them, that also is adultery.

Not only that, but you've also put yourself in situation described in an ealier post where God will not hear any of your prayers.
Perhaps the better way would be to take a few cold showers and get your hormones under control, ne? Deal with the oposit gender as a person and not as a sex object and you won't have these problems.

And you have yet to show where that is stated as sinful.

My position, I think, is very Christian. I cannot know the other's heart. Until I know, I cannot judge. Christ himself saw all hearts, but I can't and He also noted that those who commit evil in His name do so for Satan. Those who do good in Satan's name do so for him.

In other words, intent matters (your pointing out of Mathew 5 back this point up). Since I cannot know, I cannot condem or hate what I do not know.

Which was my point of trying to comfort and come to know people and understand why it was done.

Which is why I cannot say abortion is sinful because the sin depends upon the intent and the reason behind that action.

I agree with you except where you say abortion is not a sin. We must not judge the person you are right. But that does not mean we condone the sin.
As for why they did it, as I noted earlier, that is none of your business, its none my business, it between her, her boyfriend, and God. No one other than those 3 have a need to know why she had to have one.

Edit:
Why does it seem like we're saying almost the same thing?

Perhaps the better way would be to take a few cold showers and get your hormones under control, ne? Deal with the oposit gender as a person and not as a sex object and you won't have these problems.
One must be careful with such stereotypes. Those who engage in adulterous affairs are usually not the "must have sex every day" or the "women are created only for sex" types. The ones who fall into the sin of adultery are often the ones who do treat the women as people. Who are you most likely to be tempted to engage in an affair with? The person who treats you like an object and sexually harrasses you or the one who treats you with respect and is very caring and is always trying ways to help you? Which is the more tempting?

Likewise which is more tempting:
the girl who is a real bitch to you or the girl who is very nice and very attractive?

Edit:
Why does it seem like we're saying almost the same thing?
Because we about are, we're just disagreeing on if the act itself is sinful or if the sin if found within the intent. Since I, morally speaking, do not believe in moral absolutes I cannot cast ANYTHING as a sin unless I know the motovation of those what done it (To mangle Brit English for fun).

Is killing ALWAYS wrong? Depends.
Theft? Depends
Lying? Depends
Wanting? Depends

There's so many depends out there (not the Depends product) that I am forced to look at the motovation of people in order to decide.

So to me, if the heart is evil, sinful, the act becomes so.
If the heart is good, then I must ask further to decide because the act might become one of virtue.

Likewise which is more tempting:
the girl who is a real bitch to you or the girl who is very nice and very attractive?
Considering the couples I have seen I'm tempted to answer bitch, but you have made your point.

I would argue however that if you look at a woman and can ONLY think about how attractive she is, you need to get yourself under control. If you can't, you have other problems going on.