NationStates Jolt Archive

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

Well said.

Did anyone remember to remove the nails after they cut him down? That'd make somebody cry, fer sure.

And isn't it always those little things we forget, like putting the degradable block of fish-food in the aquarium before heading away on holiday, removing nails from corspes, etc.?

The world today is not worse than 2000 years ago, when there were barbarians skinning people alive, slavery in many nations, people dying of infections & simple cold, and the repressive Roman / Chinese / Persian empires.

Hmm, I prefer Krishna for a mythic character, and he, well, wouldn't give a damn. Karma yoga (holy indifference) being a road to moksha and all that...

The world today is not worse than 2000 years ago, when there were barbarians skinning people alive, slavery in many nations, people dying of infections & simple cold, and the repressive Roman / Chinese / Persian empires.

I'm not suggesting the world is worse or better. Personally, since I'm a Christian I believe he died for our sins, so I and others are, in fact, better off for him having lived. It's not the point. How would you feel if you became a leader and you taught people tolerance and love and peace and then died (assume you are still aware) and then some (a lot of, but not all) people twisted your message to make it an excuse to hate and destroy?

I'm sorry I can't accept those assumptions.

but other than that you're right.

It's more to do with mankind than anything else after all we can find many things to fight over and don't need the religious excuses but they are such an easy reason to explain why we hate our neighbours aren't they?

Human history is a sad state.

Athiest says ---- Nice way to put it

Hmm, I prefer Krishna for a mythic character, and he, well, wouldn't give a damn. Karma yoga (holy indifference) being a road to moksha and all that...

How is that on-topic? Or is so important that you get the chance to point out that you don't believe in Jesus?

Also, lies make baby jesus cry. The poor guy's got to be suffering from dehydration and low blood salt by now.

OK, I'll respond properly now. I'm going to say that Jesus wouldn't be crying, based on two distinct perspectives of Christianity. Firstly, the old "you're going to Hell if you do this, this and this" perspective. In that instance, all the people who committed the genocide, the acts of horrendous prejudice, the ignorance-fuelled hatred of people...basically, all the tremendous arseholes of ths world - they would go to hell. Sod their death-bed repentance, they wouldn't mean it mostly (sort of a hollow promise) and even if they did, that means they have to have truly changed and could be forgiven - with time.

The other perspective, the ole C of E type approach ("Well, you were a very naughty boy weren't you? Now run along, you little scamp"). In this instance, Jesus would be immensely forgiving, because that is what he does best. The people aforementioned as 'Arseholes' would get up there and Jesus would just be like "OK, so you were horrific down there, but I know you thought you were doing good things. Since you can't be evil up here (basically by definition), I'm going to forgive you".

Of course, both of these ideas are probably complete bull, since I'm agnostic and so I believe you can't prove or disprove any deity's existence, hence I've never specifically studied the moral approaches of Christianity. Well, that and I'm a lazy sod who prefers to make his own morals and live as I feel benefits/presents the least resistance to mankind's advancement towards some form of enlightenment.

It is a strange belief humanity has that the period they live in is worse off and/or the foundations of civil life is crumbling. You see it throughout the history books. And yet we still progress.

What your questioning is natural for some reason. I actually believe humanity is naturally pessimistic.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

*Claps*

The world today is not worse than 2000 years ago, when there were barbarians skinning people alive, slavery in many nations, people dying of infections & simple cold, and the repressive Roman / Chinese / Persian empires.

Certainly not worse, but anyone who's seen Darfur, Afghanistan, or North Korea knows that it could be a hell of a lot better. The slow spread of civil liberties has been good, as have inventions in medicine. However, human nature is uncurable. Most of the world is a hellhole, was a hellhole, and will be a hellhole in the future.

How is that on-topic?

Mythical characters thread.

Or is so important that you get the chance to point out that you don't believe in Jesus?

It is so important to see that "baby Jeebus cries because he loves us, he does" is awfully pointless. Karma yoga is very poignant in that case, in pointing out the human hubris that is at the root of such an assumption.

I'm sorry I can't accept those assumptions.

but other than that you're right.

It's more to do with mankind than anything else after all we can find many things to fight over and don't need the religious excuses but they are such an easy reason to explain why we hate our neighbours aren't they?

But the point is that people are fighting over religion. Christians believe that Christ is the son of God. Some read his teachings from a book called the New Testament and then take "turn the other cheek" and "judge not" to mean unless of course you don't agree with how a person loves, looks or thinks, in which case burn a cross in their lawn or hang 'em from the highest tree.

If you get offered a bunch of virgins if you kill the infidel then I can understand how you can think that way, but this is one I just can't understand.

The world today is not worse than 2000 years ago, when there were barbarians skinning people alive, slavery in many nations, people dying of infections & simple cold, and the repressive Roman / Chinese / Persian empires.

Yep, but it's not better, either..... I think that would have been one of Jesus' intentions

I can't believe that (assuming Christian beliefs) Jesus would be happy with the way he has been used and twisted into justification for so much hatred and bigotry with all his core beliefs being ignored.

Mythical characters thread.



It is so important to see that "baby Jeebus cries because he loves us, he does" is awfully pointless. Karma yoga is very poignant in that case, in pointing out the human hubris that is at the root of such an assumption.

I'm with you Fass.
I think you're well on topic. I like to think that karma works. It's a balance thing

I have great respect for Jesus. It's his fan clubs that annoy me. :p

Mythical characters thread.



It is so important to see that "baby Jeebus cries because he loves us, he does" is awfully pointless. Karma yoga is very poignant in that case, in pointing out the human hubris that is at the root of such an assumption.

So basically, like many fanatical Christians, believing differently than you is threatening to you so you have to come in and make snide remarks? Fine, we understand each other. The thread doesn't try to convince anyone of anything. It only asks if one were to assume that Christ existed and is as the New Testament says he is, how could his name be invoked when committing atrocities that go against his teachings.

If I was asking the same of Buddha, coming and talking about Christ would be misplaced as well. Please stick to the topic. I have no need for flamebaiting.

It is a strange belief humanity has that the period they live in is worse off and/or the foundations of civil life is crumbling. You see it throughout the history books. And yet we still progress.

What your questioning is natural for some reason. I actually believe humanity is naturally pessimistic.

Yes, many of us are mini-LaRochefoucaulds.

But the point is that people are fighting over religion. Christians believe that Christ is the son of God. Some read his teachings from a book called the New Testament and then take "turn the other cheek" and "judge not" to mean unless of course you don't agree with how a person loves, looks or thinks, in which case burn a cross in their lawn or hang 'em from the highest tree.

If you get offered a bunch of virgins if you kill the infidel then I can understand how you can think that way, but this is one I just can't understand.
I'm not sure I understand you.
We, in the UK, can beat the crap out of each other over which football team we support. people get killed. these are not religious people.
My point. religion is not required for us to brutalise each other. It's just a VERY good excuse. You can see that by the way bishops are pulled out to support every war we fight.

I'll go with karma. If I'm bad I suffer for it in the long run.

I'm not sure I understand you.
We, in the UK, can beat the crap out of each other over which football team we support. people get killed. these are not religious people.
My point. religion is not required for us to brutalise each other. It's just a VERY good excuse. You can see that by the way bishops are pulled out to support every war we fight.

I'll go with karma. If I'm bad I suffer for it in the long run.

I think that's Jocabia's point to some extent: religion is used as an excuse for violence when Jesus preached against it.

So basically, like many fanatical Christians, believing differently than you is threatening to you so you have to come in and make snide remarks? Fine, we understand each other. The thread doesn't try to convince anyone of anything. It only asks if one were to assume that Christ existed and is as the New Testament says he is, how could his name be invoked when committing atrocities that go against his teachings.

If I was asking the same of Buddha, coming and talking about Christ would be misplaced as well.

If you did the same with Buddha (so not Hinduism, by the way), it would be even more ridiculous than this anthropomorphism of your omniscient and omnipotent deity. Buddha reached Nirvana by not attaching himself to this world, so asking such a question, if Buddha cries for us, is just silly.

It is silly about Christ as well, since Christ is supposed to be the same as this omniscient god/ghost. The notions of him crying over something he is to have known all along is, well, a pointless assumption by you through which you demean your own deity.

Please stick to the topic. I have no need for flamebaiting.

If you see flamebaiting it will be your own invention.

I have great respect for Jesus. It's his fan clubs that annoy me. :p

Agreed, though the church teaches his life all wrong. The man had no mystical powers of anything of the sort. He just had some good ideas.

I like to think that karma works. It's a balance thing

you can think all you want, karma doesn't work. I be nice to people all day long, and what happens? my truck gets broken into and my shit stolen. Fuck karma.

you can think all you want, karma doesn't work. I be nice to people all day long, and what happens? my truck gets broken into and my shit stolen. Fuck karma.

Karma spans your different incarnations. You had bad Karma since before that happened, and that's why it happened.

Karma spans your different incarnations. You had bad Karma since before that happened, and that's why it happened.

that's funny, in one post you're saying not to believe in a "mythical creature": Jesus Christ, and in the next you're saying karma exists... why believe in something else that could be just as "mythical" as JC?

you can think all you want, karma doesn't work. I be nice to people all day long, and what happens? my truck gets broken into and my shit stolen. Fuck karma.
(1) Double-post.
(2) That may be true, but I do like the general concept of karma. I do want to believe that those who do "good" are rewarded, and those who do "evil" are punished.

"They'll get theirs eventually... and I hope I'm there."-"Eventually", Pink.

My Karma ran over your Dogma. :)

that's funny, in one post you're saying not to believe in a "mythical creature": Jesus Christ, and in the next you're saying karma exists... why believe in something else that could be just as "mythical" as JC?

That was an explanation to your obvious misunderstanding of the concept of karma and how it works, not a declaration of faith. I haven't urged the disbelief in Christ in this thread, either, just argued for the silliness in the assumption that an omniscient deity would cry over something it already, as per definition of omniscience, must know.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

The anti-gay amendment wouldn't make him cry because homosexuality is frowned on in the Bible, but the others I agree with.

Has he been around for like, 2000 years? Don't you think time has hardened him just a little bit?

The anti-gay amendment wouldn't make him cry because homosexuality is frowned on in the Bible, but the others I agree with.

Can you point out to me where Jesus said that we should deny rights to gays? Can you point out to me where Jesus taught that it was your place to judge or to punish sinners? Where Jesus taught that, not where the Old Testament says it. The Old Testament also said "an eye for an eye". Jesus didn't exactly agree with the Old Testament on more than a couple of things.

The point of Jesus' teaching was that we need to love our enemy (and everyone else), follow the "be attitudes", and to try to help people without killing them. Holy wars, genocide, etc. aren't what he wanted. But I don't think that he would want gay acts to be allowed or to allow people to do other harmful, degrading things to themselves. The point of "love our enemy" is to do what is best for him/her, and tolerance isn't the way to go about that. What we need to do is to let people know that they need Jesus, and what will happen when they die without him. But we need to not kill them and still love them (biblical sense of love) if they accept or not. Love the sinner hate the sin.

Assuming you met Jesus in heaven, he prolly would cry. He was a bit of a hippie, wasn't he?

Anyway. Saying the world haven't improved since 2000 years ago is not exactly demonstrating staggering intellect. Very very few people on this earth haven't significantly improved their living conditions. Sure, the majority of the people on earth don't have a pot to piss in, but as far as science has been able to discover, even they were worse off 2000 years ago.

Seeing as this thread clearly states it's making a hell of a lot of assumptions, why do people feel the need to argue against Christianity here? Hijacking for fun?

On a related note: I often hope Jesus turns out to be a 50' chainsaw-weilding militant dyke. Oh how I would love to see that :D

The point of Jesus' teaching was that we need to love our enemy (and everyone else), follow the "be attitudes", and to try to help people without killing them. Holy wars, genocide, etc. aren't what he wanted. But I don't think that he would want gay acts to be allowed or to allow people to do other harmful, degrading things to themselves. The point of "love our enemy" is to do what is best for him/her, and tolerance isn't the way to go about that. What we need to do is to let people know that they need Jesus, and what will happen when they die without him. But we need to not kill them and still love them (biblical sense of love) if they accept or not. Love the sinner hate the sin.

False. Jesus didn't want us to hurt people. He didn't want us to encourage people to hurt each other or themselves. He didn't want us to hate or to judge. But we are hurting gays by denying them rights. We are encouraging intolerance and the bashing of gays by saying that discrimination is acceptable. Accepting that people are gay does not encourage gay acts, it just accepts that they happen and the people involved deserve to be protected by the law as much as anyone else. The law makes no judgement of the act itself. Nor should you, in my opinion. If Jesus believes punishment is in order, then it will be done. Not by you. Not by me. Not by the law.

If Jesus is crying, it's because he came to Earth to save us. He cleansed us of our sins by dying on the cross, he gave us the Ten Commandmets to try and follow and his holy words of wisdom as described in the Holy Bible. And for what? For some people to be disobedient and desrespectful towards him. He'd be crying because he'd be feeling that his crusifixion for many was in vain. Praise GOD for giving us the ultimate sacrifice in his son Jesus. Amen!

If Jesus is crying, it's because he came to Earth to save us. He cleansed us of our sins by dying on the cross, he gave us the Ten Commandmets to try and follow and his holy words of wisdom as described in the Holy Bible. And for what? For some people to be disobedient and desrespectful towards him. He'd be crying because he'd be feeling that his crusifixion for many was in vain. Praise GOD for giving us the ultimate sacrifice in his son Jesus. Amen!

AMEN! to that one. And to the post above, if you give gays the protection under law than you are giving them the right to do what they want, there by encourging it.

Look, this is a human society. Of course people want to help others become better. I do not promote homosexuallity, I do not feel that others should be forced to accept the beliefs as being right, just, or anything but wrong. If we were governed by morality and not by secularism then I would say without a doubt that gays should not only be denied gay rights but should also be educated in religion as part of an attempt to break the habit and become more worthy of the Lord. This is not a moral government, we live in a secular government that is more concerned with law and freedom over morality.

AMEN! to that one. And to the post above, if you give gays the protection under law than you are giving them the right to do what they want, there by encourging it.

See you in hell buddy. Three cheers for senseless biggotry.

So by oppressing people, you're helping them? How so? People have free will according to your religion. Stands to reason people will use that free will and do whatever the fuck they feel like.
Would you like to fuck someone of your own sex? Would you like to if you saw a married homo couple?

If not, then in what way do you imagine people will feel encouraged to perform homosexual acts?

By the way, the "See you in Hell" bit was pointed at your user name. That would be taking your imaginary buddy's name in vain, wouldn't it?

JC would cry because such a small part of a persons life (sex) takes up so much damn thread space. What fresh new hell is this? How does my curling up at night with the woman I love really affect your lives to the point you feel the need to include being gay in every single xian thread. Honestly? In a world where every few minuties someone is rapped, murdered, maimed, beaten, killed by a drunk, shot, robbed, humiliated, fired, diagnosed with an incurable disease, and generally shat upon, why is my sleeping with a woman such a big deal? Are you looking in my window? (and if you are, maybe I should start charging, wink). My day: wake up, eat breakfast, work out, pack lunch, go to work, deal with people in retail, go home, swear at traffic, eat dinner, watch tv, go to bed, if I'm lucky - get lucky, sleep, do it all over agian. Yes, I am an evil, evil, sinner. Damn me to the bowels of hell.
So how dare you tell me over and over and over agian that I should be educated and change my ways and denied the right to love my spouse. How dare you. Encourage me? Encourage me to what? What am I doing that affects your life!?! Does my having sex with a man make your life better, 'cause if I'm not having sex with you, why the hell should you care? Because I'll tell you, when talk flies about denying rights and forbidding this and that, and learning my proper place in the world, that does affect my life. So when your spouse of 10 years lies dying in the hospital and you are allowed to see them and call them husband/wife, remember that I can't! Because you won't let me!

well, that was bitter and fun. Lets do this agian next thread, shall we.

well said, jocabia.

yes, if jesus were alive i think that he would be distraught about the corruption/perversion of his message in many scenarios. thus backing up my saying that i love what jesus had to say, but i think lots of his followers have messed it up...


but the joking cynic in me just has to say this: dead men don't cry.


(i'm not even going to get into the sex and homophobia here... al;kdfja)

Yeah, God gives us the freedom to do as we please as a people. If we please to try to correct the problem of homosexuality then he will not intervene. The free will argument can not be taken as absolutely true because we do not give free will to children(they are not responsible enough) or to criminals(they have shown their tendancy to cause us harm). God does give free will to those groups, but we as people can not. Ultimately, I do not see the homosexual peoples as a legitimate group that can be prone to bigotry any more than devil-worshippers which very few actually defend. Anyway I do not support many other crimes as well and homosexuallity often receives a lot of attention because it is not illegal, yet it is immoral. We as members of a society need to recognize the danger of reckless freedom. What one member does in our society ultimately reflects on us all to a certain extent.

because it is not illegal, yet it is immoral.

What one member does in our society ultimately reflects on us all to a certain extent.

Illegal in many places still. Just hard to enfoce because it's behind closed doors.

Agian, why does my having sex affect society? And please remember we are talking healthy relationships here. Even Hets have unsafe sex practices.

I never said that I agreed with unsafe heterosexual practices. What you do affects those around you in the fact that they can not support or condone your actions without incurring a moral breach of their own. To allow you to do what they consider wrong is that sort of moral breach. Ultimately your actions affect those around you because you are part of society, your beliefs will affect others simply because you exist as part of this society. After all defending your ideas of homosexuality is attempting to influence others.

See you in hell buddy. Three cheers for senseless biggotry.

So by oppressing people, you're helping them? How so? People have free will according to your religion. Stands to reason people will use that free will and do whatever the fuck they feel like.
Would you like to fuck someone of your own sex? Would you like to if you saw a married homo couple?

If not, then in what way do you imagine people will feel encouraged to perform homosexual acts?

By the way, the "See you in Hell" bit was pointed at your user name. That would be taking your imaginary buddy's name in vain, wouldn't it?

people would feel encouraged because if their way of life, homosexuality, became law they would feel that there would be no barriers in place so they could do what they wanted without fear of punishment.

Is God laughing?

Is God laughing?

I know I would be if I were in it's place.

I never said that I agreed with unsafe heterosexual practices. What you do affects those around you in the fact that they can not support or condone your actions without incurring a moral breach of their own. To allow you to do what they consider wrong is that sort of moral breach. Ultimately your actions affect those around you because you are part of society, your beliefs will affect others simply because you exist as part of this society. After all defending your ideas of homosexuality is attempting to influence others.
Your nemerous points, good as they may be, are however, fundamentally flawed. You fail because all your arguments come from a faulty foundation. You argue that immorality by the individual effects society at large, but you make the mistake of assuming homosexuality is immoral, ergo your points are moot.
Is God laughing?
This reminds me of a Jack Handey quote. "I hope life isn't really one big joke, 'cause I don't get it."

Look, I will admit that a flaw in my argument is that I have not yet defended why it is immoral.(It does include unsafe sexual practices, it is usually against the morality of sexuality AKA the whole abstinence until marriage thing and homosexuals often have many partners, it does not build anything like children and as such only exists to serve hedonistic pleasure). Now of course I do not claim that all hetero sex is good or even better than homo, I just claim that sex practiced correctly is within a marriage that bears children, if you do not wish to have children then why get married and have sex?

Because, believe it or not, sex isn't just for making babies, at least in the views of many other people? And because marriage provide many benefits(mainly legal ones) beyond raising children?

If Jesus is crying, it's because of people like you who don't even CONSIDER the fact that their view isn't the only one that people think is correct.

Look, I will admit that a flaw in my argument is that I have not yet defended why it is immoral.(It does include unsafe sexual practices, it is usually against the morality of sexuality AKA the whole abstinence until marriage thing and homosexuals often have many partners, it does not build anything like children and as such only exists to serve hedonistic pleasure). Now of course I do not claim that all hetero sex is good or even better than homo, I just claim that sex practiced correctly is within a marriage that bears children, if you do not wish to have children then why get married and have sex?

At no point in this explanation did you actually say anything against homosexuality. According to you, promiscuity, premarital sex, unsafe sexual practices, pure hedonism, and sex without the potential for procreation are immoral or otherwise bad. I can at least somewhat agree with you on two of those, can accept and understand another two, and find one utterly baffling. (If nonprocreative sex is immoral, should married couples never touch each other again after the wife reaches menopause? Should people who are for whatever reason infertile be barred from marrying?) But NONE of those criticisms (except for the nonprocreative sex, although not lack of procreation) can be said to be absolutely applicable to all homosexual relationships, and thus are not valid arguments against homosexuality itself.

And to answer your last question...possibly because you love your spouse and want to express that love to him/her physically as well as verbally?

I am not saying that people should only have sex when they want to have children but of course the emotional aspects of a marriage are the most important and sex really is just needed to make sure a marriage lasts and is loving(it is an expression of love) and does not damage children. The nonprocreative sex thing sounds more extreme than how I mean it. As well, I know that most of my arguments are generic. They also apply to hetero sex.

Besides, part of my argument is that marriage is designed to have children.

But the point is that people are fighting over religion. Christians believe that Christ is the son of God. Some read his teachings from a book called the New Testament and then take "turn the other cheek" and "judge not" to mean unless of course you don't agree with how a person loves, looks or thinks, in which case burn a cross in their lawn or hang 'em from the highest tree. .

I agree wholeheartedly.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account."

The Man who said those things above is horrified at the way His other words have been used to justify hate.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

If we do not judge, we will not be judged. If we are harsh in our judgments, so will He be in judgment of us. If we are merciful, so will He be.

The Man who said that is furious that some of His followers have twisted His words to justify their hatred and mistreatment of people with whom they disagree.



*****
Jocabia, I've got to leave this thread. I've riled myself all up and I need to calm down. Suffice it to say I more than agree with you.

Besides, part of my argument is that marriage is designed to have children.

So my husband and I shouldn't have bothered to get married because we don't plan to have children?

Ok ok, I do not really care enough to continue arguing, I know that I do not feel like arguing the gay marriage thing. As well I do perceive children as an important part of any marriage and I wonder why you do not want any. But anyway good bye, good luck, be happy but please do not be gay unless you feel it is absolutely necessary.

Originally Posted by Holyawesomeness
Besides, part of my argument is that marriage is designed to have children.
Even the Catholic Church doesn't profess that anymore.
In our marriage preparation courses, they taught us that even though children are the preferred way for a couple to be fruitful... some couples that can't have children, or don't feel competent enough / confident enough, or want to use their energy in other good deeds, can find another meaning to their union (such as social development, charity, hard work + generosity, working for the people / for their health and well-being, church work, ...)

If we do not judge, we will not be judged. If we are harsh in our judgments, so will He be in judgment of us. If we are merciful, so will He be.

Are you saying that Christians should let slide any immoral or evil behavior? Surely God would not have given us a conscience and an analytical brain if we weren't supposed to use them.

As well I do perceive children as an important part of any marriage and I wonder why you do not want any.


Marriage is about spending the rest of your life with the person you love and are committed to supporting, not about making babies. As to why we don't plan on having children:

I think people become parents far too lightheartedly today. Nobody has any business deciding "I think I'd like a baby." It's human life and deserves more consideration than that. If a person can't honestly say that creating a human life that will depend on him/herself completely is her/his most deserate wish, s/he isn't really parent material. Neither my husand nor myself can say that having a child is our most desperate wish. If that child isn't our most desperate wish, it won't be our most precious priority. (That's not to advocate terminating an unexpected pregnancy, that's just not advocating choosing to bring a baby into this world based on an urge.)
Being a parent is a huge responsibility; if you don't know you'll be the best parent EVER, you shouldn't have kids. You can't screw up the lives of children never conceived.
Having children and being an inadequate parent is a horrible decision to make.
Both of us have high profile, demanding jobs. Even if I were to quit and be a stay at home Mother, my husband is assured to be gone at least 75-80 hours per week, and all weekend. That's not a particularly good environment to choose for a child, one who doesn't yet exist.
I don't think that I'd be a very good mother; I'm not very patient, I'm not always kind, I hold a grudge, I have high expectations. Not exactly Mother of the year material, eh?

Are you saying that Christians should let slide any immoral or evil behavior? Surely God would not have given us a conscience and an analytical brain if we weren't supposed to use them.

I'm saying that we should use our consciences and analytical brains to avoid sinning. We are not to use them to judge the actions of people who have not asked our opinions. I'd argue that God sees that as His job if it is to be done at all.

As I said before, this topic is one that spurs me to anger. Before I behave poorly, I'm leaving the thread. I'm using my conscience and analytical brain to ensure that I do nothing of which I need be ashamed.

I am also a Christian. Yes, I do think he would be crying. I was brought up Catholic and am now a rogue nondenominational Christian. I mean, the Inquisition?! Where does anyone get off doing anything like that. Burning "witches". Does that mean freaks would burn Wiccans now?

The corruption... Most religions are hypocritical, and political. What kind of religion moves child molesters from place to place...? Most have done things in the name of Christ, or Allah, or whoever it may be, that go directly against the teachings of Christ or Allah. I think it was the Circle Jerks who sang "Killing for Jesus". They were right on target.

However, when it comes to the bible, I think people take it too literally. I think much of it is probably misquoted (Remember, humans wrote it... they could have put their own spin on anything just to assure that in the future, humanity would play their way.)

Some people take parables and stories and think they are the truth, such as the Garden of Eden, and Creationism. We all should know we came from primordial ooze.

However, it is my belief that God created the big bang and what existed prior to that. Now here we are.

Creationism in the bible is an allegory, not a truth. I believe much of the bible is an allegory, and much of it may be false, because humans wrote it.

I also do not believe homosexuality is wrong. God created these people with different brains. (There are many studies and scans that show there is a difference between gay and straight men's brains.) I don't think he would have done so had he wanted them to suffer.

Yeah, Jesus would be crying all right....

Besides, part of my argument is that marriage is designed to have children.


I'm married. We are not having children. Sometimes having children is selfish.

Well, I'm a Catholic, and I think that:

The Inquisition was an immoral act that violated the tenets of Christianity due to its brutality and use of torture. Instead, they should have fought dogmas that were considered heretical by living up to their moral standards and won by example, not by force.

The Bible is not literal. It is the Word of God, but was put in to human terms in order to allow people of its time to fully understand it. As Galileo said "the Bible teaches people how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"

Anyone who condones things like child molestation for the sake of their image is not a Christian, but simply evil. Same applies to those who kill "for their God". They are not religious people, but again evil.

Parables follow the same idea as in the OT: They put the Word of God in to human terms so as to be easily understood. They must be interpreted to see the true meaning.

I'm married. We are not having children. Sometimes having children is selfish.

Paul argues in favor of marriage without children in Romans and 1 Corinthians as equally virtuous to having children, because it means that the married can devote themselves to God's work more intensely.

People have brough this up already, but... I don't know if you guys are aware of what the coming of the Messiah, as said in the old testament means. His coming signals the end for all evil, misery, and angst in the world.... Now don't tell me that's what happened. And what's with the change in agenda between the two testaments? The god in the old testament is a strict and vengeful one, whereas the new one turns the other cheek and just says "let it be". And then you have the whole Vatican, which I don't understand at all. Not in one of Jesus' sermons or anywhere in the Torah or the new testament is there a single statement saying that we always have to have the holiest person elected at all times to cleave the will of any that do not share his views. A great book on this is "The Secret Archives of the Vatican" which deals with the tumultuous history of therein and shows it for what it really is- a power ploy, nothing less and nothing more. Kinda like the kids that sell their own candy out of the charity boxes. They get what they want, but they something to hide behind. I'm sorry for getting into all this, but it just pretty much makes ME want to cry... If Jesus did indeed try to enrich the world, he failed. What followed him was (so far) 2000 years of genocide and hatred on a scale unmatched. And sadly enough, he brought nothing new in morals to the table. His original message is also lost to us- do not think that the first bible was a random assembly of all accounts of his life. It has been, from his initial proposed ascent as a God by certain key figures, been guided and shaped to benefit them. It's a goddamn tragedy, but also a lesson. And to this day, we haven't fully learned it.

Well, I'm a Catholic, and I think that:

The Inquisition was an immoral act that violated the tenets of Christianity due to its brutality and use of torture. Instead, they should have fought dogmas that were considered heretical by living up to their moral standards and won by example, not by force.

The Bible is not literal. It is the Word of God, but was put in to human terms in order to allow people of its time to fully understand it. As Galileo said "the Bible teaches people how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"

Anyone who condones things like child molestation for the sake of their image is not a Christian, but simply evil. Same applies to those who kill "for their God". They are not religious people, but again evil.

Parables follow the same idea as in the OT: They put the Word of God in to human terms so as to be easily understood. They must be interpreted to see the true meaning.

Wow! It's nice to find someone who thinks a bit like me! :) I've angered some Jehovah's Witnesses intensly, to the point that they refuse to discuss with me anymore. :p

Originally posted by Vetalia:
The Bible is not literal. It is the Word of God, but was put in to human terms in order to allow people of its time to fully understand it.

The old testament is, and it has some amazing stuff in it. If any of you want, I can post an incredible article by an ex-NASA guy who ties in the description of the six days GOd created the world in into science and resolves the two using Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

People have brough this up already, but... I don't know if you guys are aware of what the coming of the Messiah, as said in the old testament means. His coming signals the end for all evil, misery, and angst in the world.... Now don't tell me that's what happened. And what's with the change in agenda between the two testaments? The god in the old testament is a strict and vengeful one, whereas the new one turns the other cheek and just says "let it be". And then you have the whole Vatican, which I don't understand at all. Not in one of Jesus' sermons or anywhere in the Torah or the new testament is there a single statement saying that we always have to have the holiest person elected at all times to cleave the will of any that do not share his views. A great book on this is "The Secret Archives of the Vatican" which deals with the tumultuous history of therein and shows it for what it really is- a power ploy, nothing less and nothing more. Kinda like the kids that sell their own candy out of the charity boxes. They get what they want, but they something to hide behind. I'm sorry for getting into all this, but it just pretty much makes ME want to cry... If Jesus did indeed try to enrich the world, he failed. What followed him was (so far) 2000 years of genocide and hatred on a scale unmatched. And sadly enough, he brought nothing new in morals to the table. His original message is also lost to us- do not think that the first bible was a random assembly of all accounts of his life. It has been, from his initial proposed ascent as a God by certain key figures, been guided and shaped to benefit them. It's a goddamn tragedy, but also a lesson. And to this day, we haven't fully learned it.

Your ascertation doesn't apply to everybody. How come you can believe that the coming of the Messiah is going to happen because the world is a mess and there are geological and weather changes, as well as political? These all have logical explanations if you look into them.

The human species will become extinct eventually due to bacteria and viruses that are uncontrollable. Humans are but a blip in cosmic time. We're NOTHING compared to the dinosaurs. The Messiah isn't going to come here. We're going to become extinct prior to that.

Wow! It's nice to find someone who thinks a bit like me! :) I've angered some Jehovah's Witnesses intensly, to the point that they refuse to discuss with me anymore. :p

I've done some apologetics work. I know what you mean about the JW's all too well. However, all of the Mormons I've debated have been quite polite and listening.

The old testament is, and it has some amazing stuff in it. If any of you want, I can post an incredible article by an ex-NASA guy who ties in the description of the six days GOd created the world in into science and resolves the two using Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

I would like to see that. If you could find a link, I'd be very interested. :)

Originally posted by Vetalia:

The Inquisition was an immoral act that violated the tenets of Christianity due to its brutality and use of torture. Instead, they should have fought dogmas that were considered heretical by living up to their moral standards and won by example, not by force.

Another disturbing thing I've found through almost all history I've studied is that the church is painted as only having done the Inquisition. The church has a bloodier history than any nation in the world. It is filled with more genocide than anyone would believe, including its own persecution for about 500 years. Do not think that it has a peaceful history. Popes were not even popes because they were holy. It was a political position disguised as a spiritual one. Popes contended with kings and emperors at every step. The number of assasinations, burnings, crucifictions, sect exterminations is incredible!

Here's a snappy tidbit. Why does the church not allow priests to marry and copulate? You might think it's to preserve their holiness or some other gibberish. Bull, priests could be and were married for over 1000 years! The reason it had to stop was because when bishops appointed to a monastery or church would pass away their land would then pass down to their children. What would happen is these families would eventually claim them for themselves. Not allowing them to marry was jsut a way of consolidating church property, and in history, the catholic church is the largest landowner in history!

I don't remember Christ even giving a speech about how the church should be set up and organized, or whether there should bea church at all. I though the temples were supposed to be in your heart! and guess what, unsurprisingly countless sects were wiped out, because even though they were sworn to poverty, they carried his supposed love with them everywhere and could pray anywhere! The church felt the power slipping through its fingers, so it adopted Francis of Assissi as their puppet, and after centuries of eliminating these poverty sects they adopted one as their own- a puppet for their will. Sick...

This article is by Dr. Gerald Shroeder, a former MIT nuclear physicist , member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Committee, and now a staff member of Aish HaTorah College in Jerusalem:

We have a clock that begins with Adam, and the six days are separate from this clock. The Bible has two clocks.



That might seem like a modern rationalization, if it were not for the fact that Talmudic commentaries 1500 years ago, bring this information down. In the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 29:1), an expansion of the Talmud, all the Sages agree that Rosh Hashana commemorates the soul of Adam, and that the Six Days of Genesis are separate. Now 1500 years ago, when this information was first recorded, it wasn't because one of the Sages like Hillel was talking to his 10-year-old son who said, "Daddy, you can't believe it. We went to a museum today, and learned all about a billions-of-years-old universe," and Hillel says, "Oh, I better change the Bible, let's keep the six days separate." That wasn't what was happening.



You have to put yourself in the mind frame of 1500 years ago, when people traveled by donkeys and we didn't have electricity or even zippers. Why were the Six Days taken out of the calendar? At the time, there was no need to make them separate.



The reason they were taken out is because time is described differently in those Six Days of Genesis. "There was evening and morning" is an exotic, bizarre, unusual way of describing time.



Once you come from Adam, the flow of time is totally in human terms. Adam and Eve live 130 years before having children! Seth lives 105 years before having children, etc. From Adam forward, the flow of time is totally human in concept. But prior to that time, it's an abstract concept: "Evening and morning." It's as if you're looking down on events from a viewpoint that is not intimately related to them.



Looking deeper into the text.



In trying to understand the flow of time here, you have to remember that the entire Six Days is described in 31 sentences. The Six Days of Genesis, which have given people so many headaches in trying to understand science vis-?-vis the Bible are confined to 31 sentences! At MIT, in the Hayden library, we had about 50,000 books that deal with the development of the universe: cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, paleontology, archaeology, the high-energy physics of creation. Up the river at Harvard, at the Weiger library, they probably have 200,000 books on these same topics. The Bible gives us 31 sentences. Don't expect that by a simple reading of those sentence, you'll know every detail that is held within the text. It's obvious that we have to dig deeper to get the information out.



The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that G-d couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days? No problem.



So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. No one was out there digging up ancient fossils. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.



Natural history and human history.





There are early Jewish sources that tell us that the calendar is in two-parts (even predating Leviticus Rabba which goes back almost 1500 years and says it explicitly). In the closing speech that Moses makes to the people, he says if you want to see the fingerprint of G-d in the universe, "consider the days of old, the years of the many generations" (Deut. 32:7) Nachmanides, in the name of Kabbalah, says, "Why does Moses break the calendar into two parts - 'The days of old, and the years of the many generations?' Because, 'Consider the days of old' is the Six Days of Genesis. 'The years of the many generations' is all the time from Adam forward."



Moses says you can see G-d's fingerprint on the universe in one of two ways. Look at the phenomenon of the Six Days, and the development of a universe which is mind-boggling. Or if that doesn't impress you, then just consider society from Adam forward - the phenomenon of human history. Either way, you will find the imprint of G-d.



I recently met in Jerusalem with Professor Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize winning physicist. We were talking science, obviously. And as the conversation went on, I said, "What about spirituality, Leon?" And he said to me, "Schroeder, I'll talk science with you, but as far as spirituality, speak to the people across the street, the theologians." But then he continued, and he said, "But I do find something spooky about the people of Israel coming back to the Land of Israel."



Interesting. The first part of Moses' statement, "Consider the days of old" - about the Six Days of Genesis - that didn't impress Prof. Lederman. But the "Years of the many generations" - human history - that impressed him. Prof. Lederman found nothing spooky about the Eskimos eating fish at the Arctic circle. And he found nothing spooky about Greeks eating Musika in Athens. But he finds something real spooky about Jews eating falafel on Jaffa Street. Because it shouldn't have happened. It doesn't make sense historically that the Jews would come back to the Land of Israel. Yet that's what happened.



And that's one of the functions of the Jewish People in the world. To act as a demonstration. We don't want everyone to be Jewish in the world, just to understand that there is some monkey business going on with history that makes it not all just random. That there's some direction to the flow of history. And the world has seen it through us. It's not by chance that Israel is on the front page of the New York Times more than anyone else.







What is a "day?"



Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5700-plus years, we must add to that "plus six days."



A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "1000 years in Your (G-d's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.



The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word - "choshech" - means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.



Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe.



Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.



But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.



Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.



Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that G-d's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly. They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded in the Six Days. But it's not included directly in the text. Otherwise you'd have creation every other sentence!



The Torah wants you to be amazed by this flow of order, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.



The creation of time.



Each day of creation is numbered. Yet there is discontinuity in the way the days are numbered. The verse says: "There is evening and morning, Day One." But the second day doesn't say "evening and morning, Day Two." Rather, it says "evening and morning, a second day." And the Torah continues with this pattern: "Evening and morning, a third day... a fourth day... a fifth day... the sixth day." Only on the first day does the text use a different form: not "first day," but "Day One" ("Yom Echad"). Many English translations that make the mistake of writing "a first day." That's because editors want things to be nice and consistent. But they throw out the cosmic message in the text! Because there is a qualitative difference, as Nachmanides says, between "one" and "first." One is absolute; first is comparative.



Nachmanides explains that on Day One, time was created. That's a phenomenal insight. Time was created. I can understand creating matter, even space. But time? How do you create time? You can't grab time. You don't even see it. You can see space, you can see matter, you can feel energy, you can see light energy. I understand a creation there. But the creation of time? Eight hundred years ago, Nachmanides attained this insight from the Torah's use of the phrase, "Day One." And that's exactly what Einstein taught us in the Laws of Relativity: that there was a creation, not just of space and matter, but of time itself.



Einstein's Law of Relativity.



We look at the universe, and say, "How old is the universe? Looking back in time, the universe is about 15 billion years old." That's our view of time. But what is the Bible's view of time? How does it see time? Maybe it sees time differently. And that makes a big difference. Albert Einstein taught us that Big Bang cosmology brings not just space and matter into existence, but that time is part of the nitty gritty. Time is a dimension. Time is affected by your view of time. How you see time depends on where you're viewing it. A minute on the moon goes faster than a minute on the Earth. A minute on the sun goes slower. Time on the sun is actually stretched out so that if you could put a clock on the sun, it would tick more slowly. It's a small difference, but it's measurable and measured. If you could ripen oranges on the Sun, they would take longer to ripen. Why? Because time goes more slowly. Would you feel it going more slowly? No, because your biology would be part of the system. If you were living on the Sun, your heart would beat more slowly. Wherever you are, your biology is in synch with the local time.



If you could look from one system to another, you would see time very differently. Because depending on factors like gravity and velocity, you will perceive time in a way that is very different.



Here's an example: One evening we were sitting around the dinner table, and my 11-year-old daughter asked, "How you could have dinosaurs? How you could have billions of years scientifically - and thousands of years Biblically at the same time? So I told her to imagine a planet where time is so stretched out that while we live out two years on Earth, only three minutes will go by on that planet. Now, those places actually exist, they are observed. It would be hard to live there with their conditions, and you couldn't get to them either, but in mental experiments you can do it. Two years are going to go by on Earth, three minutes are going to go by on the planet. So my daughter says, "Great! Send me to the planet. I'll spend three minutes there. I'll do two years worth of homework. I'll come back home, no homework for two years."



Nice try. Assuming she was age 11 when she left, and her friends were 11. She spends three minutes on the planet and then comes home. (The travel time takes no time.) How old is she when she gets back? Eleven years and 3 minutes. And her friends are 13. Because she lived out 3 minutes while we lived out 2 years. Her friends aged from 11 years to 13 years, while she's 11 years and 3 minutes.



Had she looked down on Earth from that planet, her perception of Earth time would be that everybody was moving very quickly. Whereas if we looked up, she'd be moving very slowly.



Which is correct? Is it three years? Or three minutes? The answer is both. They're both happening at the same time. That's the legacy of Albert Einstein. It so happens there literally billions of locations in the universe, where if you could put a clock at that location, it would tick so slowly, that from our perspective (if we could last that long) 15 billion years would go by... but the clock at that remote location would tick out six days. Nobody disputes this data.



Time travel and the Big Bang.



But how does this help to explain the Bible? Because anyway the Talmud and commentators seem to say that Six Days of Genesis were regular 24-hour periods!



Let's look a bit deeper. The classical Jewish sources say that before the beginning, we don't really know what there is. We can't tell what predates the universe. The Midrash asks the question: Why does the Bible begin with the letter Bet? Because Bet (which is written like a backwards C) is closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction. Hence we can't know what comes before - only after. The first letter is a Bet - closed in all directions and only open in the forward direction.



Nachmanides the Kabbalist expands the statement. He says that although the days are 24 hours each, they contain "kol yemot ha-olam" - all the ages and all the secrets of the world.



Nachmanides says that before the universe, there was nothing... but then suddenly the entire creation appeared as a minuscule speck. He gives a dimension for the speck: something very tiny like the size of a grain of mustard. And he says that is the only physical creation. There was no other physical creation; all other creations were spiritual. The Nefesh (the soul of animal life) and the Neshama (the soul of human life) are spiritual creations. There's only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck. The speck is all there was. Anything else was G-d. In that speck was all the raw material that would be used for making everything else. Nachmanides describes the substance as "dak me'od, ein bo mamash" - very thin, no substance to it. And as this speck expanded out, this substance - so thin that it has no essence - turned into matter as we know it.



Nachmanides further writes: "Misheyesh, yitfos bo zman" - from the moment that matter formed from this substance-less substance, time grabs hold. Not "begins." Time is created at the beginning. But time "grabs hold." When matter condenses, congeals, coalesces, out of this substance so thin it has no essence - that's when the Biblical clock starts.



Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.



Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy - light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays - all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A miniscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.



Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective. Einstein proved that time varies from place to place in the universe, and that time varies from perspective to perspective in the universe. The Bible says there is "evening and morning Day One".



Now if the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses and Mount Sinai - long after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, millions of days already passed. And since there was a lot of time with which to compare Day One, it would have said "A First Day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the First Day with which to compare it. You could say on the second day, "what happened on the first day." But you could not say on the first day, "what happened on the first day" because "first" implies comparison - an existing series. And there was no existing series. Day One was all there was.



Even if the Torah was seeing time from Adam, the text would have said "a first day", because by its own statement there are six days. The Torah says "Day One" because the Torah is looking forward from the beginning. And it says, how old is the universe? Six Days. We'll just take time up until Adam. Six Days. We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But every scientist knows, that when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we never say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates that we exist in. That's Einstein's view of relativity.



The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. But since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time.



Imagine in your mind going back billions of years ago to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light, and every second it's going to pulse. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. It shoots the light out, and then billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish, and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light is imprinted (printing information on light is called fiber optics - sending information by light), "I'm sending you a pulse every second." And then a second goes by and the next pulse is sent.



Now light travels 300 million meters per second. So the two light pulses are separated by 300 million meters at the beginning. Now they travel through space for billions of years, and they're going to reach the Earth billions of years later. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. That's the cosmology of the universe. And that mean it's expanding into an empty space outside the universe. There's only the universe. There is no space outside the universe. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses go through billions of years of travelling, and the universe is stretching, and space is stretching, what's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses really get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we say, "Wow - a pulse!" And written on it is "I'm sending you a pulse every second." You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive another second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because depending on how much time this pulse of light has traveled through space, will determine the amount of stretching that has occurred. That's standard cosmology.



15 billion or six days?



Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct.



What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.



The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.



Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.



The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.



Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.



(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)



The calculations come out to be as follows:



•The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.

•The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.

•The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.

•The fourth day - one billion years.

•The fifth day - one-half billion years.

•The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.





When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?



But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

Originally posted by Hyperslackovicznia:

Your ascertation doesn't apply to everybody. How come you can believe that the coming of the Messiah is going to happen because the world is a mess and there are geological and weather changes, as well as political? These all have logical explanations if you look into them.

The human species will become extinct eventually due to bacteria and viruses that are uncontrollable. Humans are but a blip in cosmic time. We're NOTHING compared to the dinosaurs. The Messiah isn't going to come here. We're going to become extinct prior to that.

Isn't it cryptic that us being extinct in a way fulfills the Messiah's mission? We truly will no longer suffer or feud. Sometimes the old testament speaks in allegory... And while I am not particularily religious, when you look at the promised judaic and kabbalistic signs that hail the End of Days, we're getting very close...

Another disturbing thing I've found through almost all history I've studied is that the church is painted as only having done the Inquisition. The church has a bloodier history than any nation in the world. It is filled with more genocide than anyone would believe, including its own persecution for about 500 years. Do not think that it has a peaceful history. Popes were not even popes because they were holy. It was a political position disguised as a spiritual one. Popes contended with kings and emperors at every step. The number of assasinations, burnings, crucifictions, sect exterminations is incredible!

This is a classic example of how the state corrupted the Church. It lost it moral vision and became embedded in politics, corruption, and greed. The end result was war, suffering, and unspeakably evil acts that were no more devotion to God than the most evil crimes. The Papacy should have emulated Peter, who devoted himself to helping others and spreading the Gospel through example.

Originally Posted by Vetalia:

This is a classic example of how the state corrupted the Church. It lost it moral vision and became embedded in politics, corruption, and greed. The end result was war, suffering, and unspeakably evil acts that were no more devotion to God than the most evil crimes. The Papacy should have emulated Peter, who devoted himself to helping others and spreading the Gospel through example.

The Church was created corrupt. It was never any other way. The apostolic message is what you are referring to, and it was lost, suppressed, and exterminated when emulated. Jesus became a pawn of international politics.

States have always used any pretext available to create hatred in their population, to justifiy their agressions, or to subjugate other nations. If it's not this religion, then it will be another religion, or racism, or clashing ideologies (Sparte versus Athens), greed following by conquest & plunder, paranoia in front of a competing state (Rome versus Carthage), the need for enemies/wars (Rome versus Persia), and so on.

If you plan to judge any religion, you can't judge the states or even individual actions. you can only judge it through its true, honest followers. And these persons are difficult to find, because usually they don't make much noise.

Originally posted by Sarkasis:
If you plan to judge any religion, you can't judge the states or even individual actions. you can only judge it through its true, honest followers. And these persons are difficult to find, because usually they don't make much noise.

Beautifully said, and no doubt true. I am merely pointing out that Christianity today is not Christianity in Christ's time.

How about that article though? Isn't that something?

The Church was created corrupt. It was never any other way. The apostolic message is what you are referring to, and it was lost, suppressed, and exterminated when emulated. Jesus became a pawn of international politics.

Really, the corruption began after Constantine made it official. Whenever any ideology becomes mandated, however noble, it becomes corrupted. So you are correct in arguing that the Church was corrupted, but only after Constantine. That's when politics entered the Church, with predicatble consequences.

Today, it is different. The Church has tried to bring itself back to the origins of Christianity, but the results are yet to be totally seen.

Maybe so- let's hope for the best.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"


**claps**
Bravo!!
You have said it far better than I ever could!

History lesson in early xianity...weeeeeee:
Early xianity saw no need to write anything down. Afterall, the people who lived it were still alive and oral history was doing its thing. Besides that, the kingdom of heaven was at hand and the world was ending anyway, so why write it down (note- this view is JC as an apocraphal messiah. The dead will e reserected and the ritesous will form a new world in paradise thereby finding salvation. This was imminent)
Folks who lived it started to die and the world didn't end....better codify this puppy in writting so you get Paul and John, and Jude, and James....these are letters telling xians how to be good xians. In doing this offices of the church were constructed with the bishop ("overseer") being top dog.
After this the early church concerned itself with the stamping out of various herisies like the marcionites, gnostics and so on.
By 367 the connonical bible is set in stone by Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria.
in 325 the Niccene Confession sets the Creeds that creates the Arian Controversy over the Trinity. The Eucharist is set, clergy is created elected by council of elders.
Now since Constantine converts in 312 you can say it all went to shite after him, but even before him the debates over the new religion were settled not with the words of JC but through councils and creeds, and once a creed was passed you were either with us, or agianst us.
By Augastines time around the 400's the church had simply filled in the power void left over from Rome where church offices filled in for the senete.
Ok, I'm done. Get out a sheet of paper for the quiz. :)

What one member does in our society ultimately reflects on us all to a certain extent.

The same could be said for anti-gay hateful bigots. what they do reflects on us all, too. And not in a good way.

people would feel encouraged because if their way of life, homosexuality, became law they would feel that there would be no barriers in place so they could do what they wanted without fear of punishment.


And why should there BE any punishment, in civil law, and on this Earth...for homosexual behavior? Because it makes YOU uncomfortable? Well, tough shit, buddy.

Maybe you do something that someone ELSE doesn't like, and maybe they think YOU should be punished for it. Like spreading hatred and intolerance, for example.

Ok ok, I do not really care enough to continue arguing, I know that I do not feel like arguing the gay marriage thing. As well I do perceive children as an important part of any marriage and I wonder why you do not want any. But anyway good bye, good luck, be happy but please do not be gay unless you feel it is absolutely necessary.

Why wonder? Many, like me, do not want children. I personally am glad as hell I'm sterile...and celibate, I might add.

Why would someone not want children? Well, maybe they do not feel up to the responsibility of being parents, either emotionally, or financially...or maybe they just don't want the loss of freedom that comes with having children.

There are lots of reasons why some couples, and some people...do not want children. And it's perfectly valid to not want them. In fact, the greater crime, in my opinion, would be to force or coerce people who do not want children into having them. How'd you like to be raised by a parent who you knew didn't really want you?

It isn't like the human race is in any danger of extinction if some people and couples choose not to reproduce.

Are you saying that Christians should let slide any immoral or evil behavior? Surely God would not have given us a conscience and an analytical brain if we weren't supposed to use them.

What he is saying is that you should not take it upon yourself to judge or punish such behavior. Leave that to God or Jesus, as, if what you believe is true, we shall all have to give an accounting for ourselves. You can choose to disassociate yourself with people you believe are committing immoral acts or "sin" all you want, without judging or punishing them for the behavior.

My instinct tells me that it isn't so much that you are worried that homosexual behavior offends God or Jesus so much as you are worried that it offends YOU.

My instinct also tells me you are rather weak of your own faith...and are not at all sure those scary, evil sinning homosexuals will be punished in the end, and thus you feel the need to make sure that they DO get punsihed...in the here and now...and not for offending God or Jesus...but for offending YOU!

Do I win the cigar?

No, I know you'll never publicaly cop to it...but I bet I'm closer to the mark than you'll ever publicly admit. But be honest with your own self, in the privacy of your own mind...and see if I am not more correct than wrong in my instincts.

I know, you will publicly deny, and decry...my words...but, inwardly, I think you know them to be true.

I saw this on a T-shirt

Front:
Jesus is coming back


Back:
and boy is He pissed!

He didn't cry when the people he was trying to save 2000 years back ignored his message and killed him. Why should he cry the second time around?

Really, the corruption began after Constantine made it official. Whenever any ideology becomes mandated, however noble, it becomes corrupted. So you are correct in arguing that the Church was corrupted, but only after Constantine. That's when politics entered the Church, with predicatble consequences.

Today, it is different. The Church has tried to bring itself back to the origins of Christianity, but the results are yet to be totally seen.Just a different type of corruption when Constantine co-opted it. The big thing that most religious people have no concept of is that there never was a single accepted doctrine of belief that existed even when Jesus was alive. Doctrinal arguments have been going on since the earliest followers of Jesus decided after his death to make him divine, and they'll be going on for the next couple thousand years, I imagine. Read up on some history of the early church and you'll find dozens of christian churches, each with their own spin on some doctrinal matter, mostly about just how divine Jesus was and how much of a trinity there was. It's really fascinating.

He didn't cry when the people he was trying to save 2000 years back ignored his message and killed him. Why should he cry the second time around?

But he did cry though.

Luke 19:41
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

41As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it

What he is saying is that you should not take it upon yourself to judge or punish such behavior. Leave that to God or Jesus, as, if what you believe is true, we shall all have to give an accounting for ourselves. You can choose to disassociate yourself with people you believe are committing immoral acts or "sin" all you want, without judging or punishing them for the behavior.

My instinct tells me that it isn't so much that you are worried that homosexual behavior offends God or Jesus so much as you are worried that it offends YOU.

My instinct also tells me you are rather weak of your own faith...and are not at all sure those scary, evil sinning homosexuals will be punished in the end, and thus you feel the need to make sure that they DO get punsihed...in the here and now...and not for offending God or Jesus...but for offending YOU!

Do I win the cigar?

No, I know you'll never publicaly cop to it...but I bet I'm closer to the mark than you'll ever publicly admit. But be honest with your own self, in the privacy of your own mind...and see if I am not more correct than wrong in my instincts.

I know, you will publicly deny, and decry...my words...but, inwardly, I think you know them to be true.

That is exactly right. Nicely put.

high blood preasure makes jesus cry

AMEN! to that one. And to the post above, if you give gays the protection under law than you are giving them the right to do what they want, there by encourging it.


Again, is your hold on heterosexuality so flimsy that the fact that you can't marry someone of the same sex is the only thing keeping you from switching teams? Otherwise, what difference could allowing them equal protection under the law make? The law also protects your right to freely practice Buddhism and has in America for two hundred years and, somehow, Christianity survived. Your claim that allowing same-sex marriage encourages homosexuality is like saying that giving minorities the vote, encourages them to be minorities.

I think we should make a different forum for discussion on gay rights.

Just a different type of corruption when Constantine co-opted it. The big thing that most religious people have no concept of is that there never was a single accepted doctrine of belief that existed even when Jesus was alive. Doctrinal arguments have been going on since the earliest followers of Jesus decided after his death to make him divine, and they'll be going on for the next couple thousand years, I imagine. Read up on some history of the early church and you'll find dozens of christian churches, each with their own spin on some doctrinal matter, mostly about just how divine Jesus was and how much of a trinity there was. It's really fascinating.

Well, "heresy" (I'm Catholic but hate the term), was around from almost the beginning of the Church. Some were really dangerous to it, like Simon Magus, but many just had different interpreatations. However, it became a situation where the biggest and strongest church could repress the other movements and absorb followers. It really was a war between these various interpretations and one that led to the culture of violence which sprang from heresy during the Middle Ages.

people would feel encouraged because if their way of life, homosexuality, became law they would feel that there would be no barriers in place so they could do what they wanted without fear of punishment.

Strange that you think homosexuality is a mortal sin and, yet you think that removing the rule of law on earth will allow them to commit this 'sin' without fear or punishment. Last I checked, punishing sin is not your job or the job of the government. The law also doesn't punish for worshipping a false idol.

Isn't it cryptic that us being extinct in a way fulfills the Messiah's mission? We truly will no longer suffer or feud. Sometimes the old testament speaks in allegory... And while I am not particularily religious, when you look at the promised judaic and kabbalistic signs that hail the End of Days, we're getting very close...


If you believe those promised signs...

Strange that you think homosexuality is a mortal sin and, yet you think that removing the rule of law on earth will allow them to commit this 'sin' without fear or punishment. Last I checked, punishing sin is not your job or the job of the government. The law also doesn't punish for worshipping a false idol.

That depends on which law/laws you follow. And i'm not voting for anarchy here i'm just saying that if you put it into law they will feel encouraged to do what they wish if you don't put limits on it. Basicly a goverment sanction "Here go do whatever we don't care because we don't legislate morality ."

That depends on which law/laws you follow. And i'm not voting for anarchy here i'm just saying that if you put it into law they will feel encouraged to do what they wish if you don't put limits on it. Basicly a goverment sanction "Here go do whatever we don't care because we don't legislate morality ."

We already don't legislate morality. It's not the job of the government to do it. Nobody is legalizing homosexuality. It's already legal. Same-sex marriage only gives rights to people already in a same-sex relationship. It makes sure that one partner will have rights to protect, make decision for, and collect benefits from their partner's estate in the even of a tragedy. You're trying to legislate morality. You're trying to deny rights to people born with a brain that works differently than yours.

We already don't legislate morality. It's not the job of the government to do it. Nobody is legalizing homosexuality. It's already legal. Same-sex marriage only gives rights to people already in a same-sex relationship. It makes sure that one partner will have rights to protect, make decision for, and collect benefits from their partner's estate in the even of a tragedy. You're trying to legislate morality. You're trying to deny rights to people born with a brain that works differently than yours.

Actually that different brain thing is a lie! Homosexuality is a choice and if you don't believe me maybe this will convince you:

It has been argued through the ages, long before science was ever involved, that homosexuality is merely a choice. Many people state that gays only have homosexual relations because they choose to do so. Others profess that homosexuality is not a choice and due to the societal stigma which is associated with homosexuality very few would consciously choose a homosexual lifestyle and the discrimination that accompanies it.

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Tahir also points out in his article that the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs supported the idea of homosexuality as a choice. In a report distributed by them in 1981 they stated, "There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could change their sexual orientation. Because some homosexual groups maintain contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more deplorable is that this myth may also be accepted by some physicians... The physician who is not alert to the orientation of the homosexual patient may not challenge the belief in sexual irreversibility and arrange for appropriate referral." Once again, Tahir supports the decision that homosexuality is a choice and that with proper medical attention there can be a cure.

souce:
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

Homosexuality is a choice and if you don't believe me maybe this will convince you.
*snip*

All of that was fed to you at a fundamentalist Christian youth rally, wasn't it? I got the same info, in 1992 and accepted it then, before I began thinking for myself and rejected much of my pentecostal upbringing. I'm still a Christian, just a more thoughtful, analytical and critical one.

Homosexuality is not a choice. The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association and the National Institutes of Health all agree.


What Is Sexual Orientation?

Sexual Orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual or affectional attraction to another person. It is easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female) and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for feminine and masculine behavior).

Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).

Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.


Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable.

However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.

What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?

Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.

The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias.

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

No. Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself,is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals and society had biased information. In the past the studies of gay, lesbian and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?

Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.

Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.

Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?

Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out", has been found to be strongly related to psychological adjustment—the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.

Why Is the "Coming Out" Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?

For some gay and bisexual people the coming out process is difficult, for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation as a child or adolescent, which is not uncommon. And, depending on their families and where they live, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about homosexuality. Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bias and stereotypes. They may also fear being rejected by family, friends,co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known. Unfortunately, gay, lesbian and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid 1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who took part in the study and more than one-fourth of all gay men who participated had been the victim of a hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults, half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression from name-calling to physical violence.

What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination the Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Experience?

Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well—often as a friend or co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are prejudices that are not grounded in actual experiences but are based on stereotypes and prejudice.

Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination is very important, just as it is for other minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual orientation as a "hate crime" and 10 U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Why is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?

Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice. Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering and seeking to understand their sexuality—whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access to such information will make more people gay have no validity—information about homosexuality does not make someone gay or straight.

Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?

No. This is a commonly held myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is it is a preventable disease through the use of safe sex practices and by not using drugs.

Where Can I Find More Information About Homosexuality?

APA Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns Program
750 First Street, NE. Washington, DC 20002
Email: LGBC

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
2320 17th St. Washington, DC 20009 (202) 332-6483
Email: NGLTF

Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
1726 M Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036 (202) 467-8180
Email: PFLAG


Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
130 W 42nd St., Ste. 350 New York, NY 10036 (212)-819-9770
Email: SIECUS

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

The government has no reason to falsely represent the research. There is no "gay lobby" trying to force the AMA or APA to releasing such research; in fact many Christian groups have spent a lot of money trying to supress such information. The government, the AMA and APA have still announced it. To the extent that psychological research can be accurate, it is.

It seems that neither one of us will change our veiwpoints so let's agree to disagree ok? That being said i have question for you...

1. Since you say your a christian How can you be in support of homosexuality when the bible clearly condems it?

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Actually that different brain thing is a lie! Homosexuality is a choice and if you don't believe me maybe this will convince you:

It has been argued through the ages, long before science was ever involved, that homosexuality is merely a choice. Many people state that gays only have homosexual relations because they choose to do so. Others profess that homosexuality is not a choice and due to the societal stigma which is associated with homosexuality very few would consciously choose a homosexual lifestyle and the discrimination that accompanies it.

Some state that simply due to the genetic makeup of the human race it is very unlikely that homosexuality would be anything other than a choice. In An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation, by Dr. Tahir I jaz, M.D., he states, "Of all animals, human beings are the most genetically indeterminate. In the words of Dr. Joseph Wortis, Department of Psychiatry, State University of New York: 'no complex high-level behavior of the human species can be reduced to genetic endowment, not language, not house building and not sexual behavior.' Preferential and exclusive homosexuality is not naturally found in any infrahuman mammalian species and it would be odd for such behavior in humans to be genetically determined." It is Dr. Tahir's opinion that homosexuality is completely a choice as it is not possible for it to be genetically determined. He further cites various accounts of leading psychologists and psychiatrists, such as Masters and Johnson, Dieber, Barnhouse, Socarides, Cappon, Hadden, Ribinstein and Leif, who have reported very high rates of success in curing individuals of their homosexual tendencies. Tahir does not believe that individuals could be helped if homosexuality were indeed genetic -- just as you would not be able to cure someone of his or her race or gender.

Socarides, who has been successful in reportedly curing gays of their homosexuality, also agreed with Tahir. In an excerpt taken from his article, Homosexuality: Basic Concepts and Psychodynamics, Socarides states, "Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. There is no connection between sexual instinct and the choice of a sexual object. Such an object is learned, acquired behavior, there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex." Socarides is very blunt in his assertion that homosexuality is specifically a choice. He completely disagrees with the genetic arguments for homosexuality.

Tahir also points out in his article that the American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs supported the idea of homosexuality as a choice. In a report distributed by them in 1981 they stated, "There are some homosexuals who would like to and probably could change their sexual orientation. Because some homosexual groups maintain contrary to the bulk of scientific evidence that preferential or exclusive homosexuality can never be changed, these people may be discouraged from seeking adequate psychiatric consultation. What is more deplorable is that this myth may also be accepted by some physicians... The physician who is not alert to the orientation of the homosexual patient may not challenge the belief in sexual irreversibility and arrange for appropriate referral." Once again, Tahir supports the decision that homosexuality is a choice and that with proper medical attention there can be a cure.

souce:
http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psychobiology_site_backups/homosexuality-debate/choice.html

Great. Can you cite the medical and scientific sources that show that the brain topology of a homesexual male generally resembles a heterosexual male? Can you cite any peer-reviewed medical and scientific sources that agree with you? Also, excellent job ignoring the actually substance of my post.

It seems that neither one of us will change our veiwpoints so let's agree to disagree ok? That being said i have question for you...

1. Since you say your a christian How can you be in support of homosexuality when the bible clearly condems it?

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Great quote. Fortunately, I don't read the bible out of context. I could take one part of your posts and make it sound like you were saying just about anything. Particularly if your posts were hundreds upon hundreds of pages long. Also, I don't support homosexuality, I don't deny homosexuality and I don't engage in homosexuality. I am heterosexual and therefore have nothing to say about how homosexuals live their life so long as it doesn't affect me. What I do very much believe and support is equal rights for all people so long as they don't violate the rights of others.

Leviticus 18:22
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society.

22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

You chose the NIV specifically because it has been over-translated, and often misrepresents the original text. Using the NRSV, which is the translation used for scholarly discourse:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The general audience of this was heterosexual. God was addressing the heterosexual men. He was telling them that if they chose to engage in homosexual acts, it would be an abomination.

God wasn't addressing the homosexuals. If He had been, He would have told them that to engage in heterosexual acts would have been an abomination.

In any case, even if I believed homosexuality to be a sin, I'd still feel that it was God's job to judge and punish, not ours. And as long as we live on earth, two men should be allowed to marry, or two women. Any judgment necessary will be meted out by God.

(It should be noted that I'm a heterosexual married woman.)

*********
Did your parents burn your clothes after you had chicken pox?

I'm saying that we should use our consciences and analytical brains to avoid sinning. We are not to use them to judge the actions of people who have not asked our opinions. I'd argue that God sees that as His job if it is to be done at all.

As I said before, this topic is one that spurs me to anger. Before I behave poorly, I'm leaving the thread. I'm using my conscience and analytical brain to ensure that I do nothing of which I need be ashamed.

*Gives him a prize*

*Gives him a prize*

her. I'm a her.

(Doesn't quoting Louisa May Alcott in purple and teal, and political compass in pink give me away? Or does it just make me look like a gay man? :D )

her. I'm a her.

(Doesn't quoting Louisa May Alcott in purple and teal, and political compass in pink give me away? Or does it just make me look like a gay man? :D )

Dang, I'm usually more careful that that, ma'am ;-) Sorry.

Dang, I'm usually more careful that that, ma'am ;-) Sorry.

It's okay. I'm actually amused. That's at least the second time I've been mistaken for a guy. I'm not in the slightest ashamed of being female, but I'm going to take it as a compliment. (Better that than get annoyed by it, you know?)

(Also, I think it's human nature to picture people that are just screen names as like yourself, so I tend to picture people as women until I know otherwise, so I can understand why I've been mistaken for male by two men.)

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

I guess that depends on your view of Jesus. You can view him as a compassionate person, like your description, or you can view him as the more militant and doctrinal person, such as when he was in the Temple in Jerusalem.

The most important thing to remember, in my opinion, is that despite what we do we are only human and Jesus knows this because he too was human. He knows that we are not perfect and that no matter what we will sin, even in his name will we sin. Therefore, as long as we recognise this and ask for his forgiveness we will be forgiven and accepted into Heaven, no matter who we are.

I guess that depends on your view of Jesus. You can view him as a compassionate person, like your description, or you can view him as the more militant and doctrinal person, such as when he was in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Actually, I think that it's fairly easy to reconcile the Jesus of the temple in Jerusalem with a Jesus who is horrified at the way His message has been twisted. People cry for more reasons than grief; anger, horror, frustration.

The Jesus of the temple was furious. He was angry. He was so frustrated at the bastardization of what His Father's temple had become that He threw stuff. That's the same Jesus that would be furious, angry, frustrated and crying at the bastardization of His teachings.

I don't think there's any dichotomy going on. Jesus was compassionate, kind, loving but He was unable to tolerate the molestation of His Father's temple, the place to worship Yahweh turned into purely a marketplace. He taught the moneychangers the only way they could be taught. Notice that He harmed none of them, He only tossed their money. He raised His voice, but He didn't resort to actual violence. He was still the kind, compassionate loving Son of God, He was just reacting strongly to the sins of the people who represented His Father.

Actually, I think that it's fairly easy to reconcile the Jesus of the temple in Jerusalem with a Jesus who is horrified at the way His message has been twisted. People cry for more reasons than grief; anger, horror, frustration.

The Jesus of the temple was furious. He was angry. He was so frustrated at the bastardization of what His Father's temple had become that He threw stuff. That's the same Jesus that would be furious, angry, frustrated and crying at the bastardization of His teachings.

I don't think there's any dichotomy going on. Jesus was compassionate, kind, loving but He was unable to tolerate the molestation of His Father's temple, the place to worship Yahweh turned into purely a marketplace. He taught the moneychangers the only way they could be taught. Notice that He harmed none of them, He only tossed their money. He raised His voice, but He didn't resort to actual violence. He was still the kind, compassionate loving Son of God, He was just reacting strongly to the sins of the people who represented His Father.

Okay, I guess it also depends on whether you believe that His message has been bastardized at all.

Okay, I guess it also depends on whether you believe that His message has been bastardized at all.

I think it only depends on whether or not one recognizes this. ;)

I think it only depends on whether or not one recognizes this. ;)

Lol, in todays society that is true I suppose.

You chose the NIV specifically because it has been over-translated, and often misrepresents the original text. Using the NRSV, which is the translation used for scholarly discourse:



The general audience of this was heterosexual. God was addressing the heterosexual men. He was telling them that if they chose to engage in homosexual acts, it would be an abomination.

God wasn't addressing the homosexuals. If He had been, He would have told them that to engage in heterosexual acts would have been an abomination.

In any case, even if I believed homosexuality to be a sin, I'd still feel that it was God's job to judge and punish, not ours. And as long as we live on earth, two men should be allowed to marry, or two women. Any judgment necessary will be meted out by God.

(It should be noted that I'm a heterosexual married woman.)

*********
Did your parents burn your clothes after you had chicken pox?

I didn't choose the NIV for that reason, it's just what my computer uses as it's default choice.As for your "theory" for lack of a better word, God was talking to everyone in the crowd not just a specific group.

I didn't choose the NIV for that reason, it's just what my computer uses as it's default choice.As for your "theory" for lack of a better word, God was talking to everyone in the crowd not just a specific group.

So he was telling women not to lay with men? That's a strange twist.

yes

So he was telling women not to lay with men? That's a strange twist.

Not if we get to watch.This is sarcasm for those of you who dont get it.

no, he was telling them(the isrealites) not to engage in homosexual activity. He made it specific to the men because at the time, the men ruled and the women stayed silent in the background.

no, he was telling them(the isrealites) not to engage in homosexual activity. He made it specific to the men because at the time, the men ruled and the women stayed silent in the background.

oh right... then it's alright for women to be homosexual....

no, he was telling them(the isrealites) not to engage in homosexual activity. He made it specific to the men because at the time, the men ruled and the women stayed silent in the background.

Can you show any evidence that there were homosexuals in the crowd? Can you show this was directed to only the men and all men? Did you know the original language said boy not man? I suspect the answer to all of these questions is no. Prove me wrong.

Can you show any evidence that there were homosexuals in the crowd? Can you show this was directed to only the men and all men? Did you know the original language said boy not man? I suspect the answer to all of these questions is no. Prove me wrong.

Of course he can't. He's having a knee-jerk reaction because he thinks homosexuals are "icky" and he can't bring himself to openly say so, and thus be labelled, accurately, as homophobic...so he uses God as an excuse for his prejudice. After all, who can argue with God...right? Why else do you think every despot, every bigot, every self-righteous asshole in human history always claimed God sided with him...or her? Because it is a convenient shield.

I really hate it when people misuse religion to hurt others.

Of course he can't. He's having a knee-jerk reaction because he thinks homosexuals are "icky" and he can't bring himself to openly say so, and thus be labelled, accurately, as homophobic...so he uses God as an excuse for his prejudice. After all, who can argue with God...right? Why else do you think every despot, every bigot, every self-righteous asshole in human history always claimed God sided with him...or her? Because it is a convenient shield.

I really hate it when people misuse religion to hurt others.

I don't think that they are "Icky" I just believe that what they are doing is immoral and they should repent of their ways.

I don't think that they are "Icky" I just believe that what they are doing is immoral and they should repent of their ways.

Well, I bet YOU do things that are immoral, and don't repent of your ways either. So why are you so concerned about homosexuals? that's what I don't get. So many of you folks are SO CONCERNED about homosexuals, and make SUCH A HUGE ISSUE about it...but you ignore your own immoral, unethical, and sinful behaviors, and don't tell me you don't have any because that is bullshit and we both know it. there was only one all-perfect being to walk this Earth and it sure as shit wasn't you...or me, for that matter.

None of us are perfect. There is no heirarchy of sin. Sin is sin is sin. therefore, your sins are as grievous as mine are. So why not worry about your own, and quit worrying about mine? As your own Bible says, "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye."

I mean...look, you obviously don't like homosexuals. Fine. No one said you had to like them. So why can't you just leave them the hell alone? What the hell did they ever do to YOU?

Well, I bet YOU do things that are immoral, and don't repent of your ways either. So why are you so concerned about homosexuals? that's what I don't get. So many of you folks are SO CONCERNED about homosexuals, and make SUCH A HUGE ISSUE about it...but you ignore your own immoral, unethical, and sinful behaviors, and don't tell me you don't have any because that is bullshit and we both know it. there was only one all-perfect being to walk this Earth and it sure as shit wasn't you...or me, for that matter.

None of us are perfect. There is no heirarchy of sin. Sin is sin is sin. therefore, your sins are as grievous as mine are. So why not worry about your own, and quit worrying about mine? As your own Bible says, "Worry about the plank in your own eye, before you worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye."

I mean...look, you obviously don't like homosexuals. Fine. No one said you had to like them. So why can't you just leave them the hell alone? What the hell did they ever do to YOU?

I never said that i was perfect far from it! To qoute paul "Chief of sinners though i be." As for your second and third paragraphs we can't leave them alone, because we as christians have a mission:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This would include spreading the message to homosexuals, for them to realize that they are sinners and can only get forgiven by the blood of Christ.

I never said that i was perfect far from it! To qoute paul "Chief of sinners though i be." As for your second and third paragraphs we can't leave them alone, because we as christians have a mission:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This would include spreading the message to homosexuals, for them to realize that they are sinners and can only get forgiven by the blood of Christ.

Where does it say ostracize them and put them on the outskirts of society like we used to do to lepers? How does that teach them? Where does it say they should be denied rights? Don't worry. I have plenty of time. Take your time in finding those chapters and verses.

Where does it say ostracize them and put them on the outskirts of society like we used to do to lepers? How does that teach them? Where does it say they should be denied rights? Don't worry. I have plenty of time. Take your time in finding those chapters and verses.

I never said ostracize them, love the sinner hate the sin. But since you asked here's a verse.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



I'll post more later.

I never said ostracize them, love the sinner hate the sin. But since you asked here's a verse.

Leviticus 20:13 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.



I'll post more later.
Also, many believe that is was intended to mean that women were second class citizens and to lie with a man as with a woman is an insult to the other man. Also, a more literal translation says, Men, do not lie with a man in a woman's bed. The point is regardless of what it might of meant. This is thrown with many other laws I'm sure you don't even consider following.

We're going back to the old Testament rules created by Isreal that Jesus threw out? OK. So the death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbath as well. Homosexuality and gathering wood on the Sabbath day, exactly equal.

Numbers 15
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

A little education - http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

Jesus lifted the laws of Moses. The Bible, in fact, warns against keeping these laws.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

I agree in principle with the intent of this post. Christ is most definitely heartbroken at the way we humans have abused and misused each other in the name of God, of course the same is true of the abuse that is done for other reasons as well. It pains Him to see any part of His creation suffer as He sufferred the guilt of each of those abuses when He died for us. So, He knows both the pain of the abuser and the abused. It was the weight of that emotional pain that killed Him so quickly instead of a long drawn out death that would have lasted several days.

However, the day we get to Heaven, according to scripture, will be one of rejoicing rather than sorrow. It will be filled with angelic hosts singing, the singing of the redeem and the joyful greating of all of heaven. The crying will be mostly done by that point I suspect, though the "strange act" of the post millenial "Lake of Fire" into which Death, Hades and the unrepentant wicked will be cast may still cause Him a sorrow as well.

Also, many believe that is was intended to mean that women were second class citizens and to lie with a man as with a woman is an insult to the other man. Also, a more literal translation says, Men, do not lie with a man in a woman's bed. The point is regardless of what it might of meant. This is thrown with many other laws I'm sure you don't even consider following.

We're going back to the old Testament rules created by Isreal that Jesus threw out? OK. So the death penalty for gathering sticks on the Sabbath as well. Homosexuality and gathering wood on the Sabbath day, exactly equal.

Numbers 15
32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.

A little education - http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

Jesus lifted the laws of Moses. The Bible, in fact, warns against keeping these laws.

Actually what it warns against is veiwing keeping those laws as the means of one's salvation, rather than complete and total dependence on Christ for salvation. However, Christ Himself said that not "one jot or one tittle would pass from the law" and that those who love Him would "keep His commandments".

I'm not suggesting that anyone but God stands in the place of judge and meeting out the penalties of the law is also in His hands. Only those who accept Christ's sacrifice in their stead are no longer bound under the penalty of the law. Fortunately, He made that available to all mankind, so none need miss out.

Hey that was a good first post.

Actually what it warns against is veiwing keeping those laws as the means of one's salvation, rather than complete and total dependence on Christ for salvation. However, Christ Himself said that not "one jot or one tittle would pass from the law" and that those who love Him would "keep His commandments".

I'm not suggesting that anyone but God stands in the place of judge and meeting out the penalties of the law is also in His hands. Only those who accept Christ's sacrifice in their stead are no longer bound under the penalty of the law. Fortunately, He made that available to all mankind, so none need miss out.

I'm not referring to the commandments. Where is homosexuality mentioned in the commandments? I'm referring to the laws of Moses put before the Jews, like washing your hands, not impersonating a preist and not gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. The latter two were punishable by death. Jesus most definitely rejected these laws as the laws of man. Jesus took the burden of these laws unto himself and lifted them as a burden on man.

I'm not referring to the commandments. Where is homosexuality mentioned in the commandments? I'm referring to the laws of Moses put before the Jews, like washing your hands, not impersonating a preist and not gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. The latter two were punishable by death. Jesus most definitely rejected these laws as the laws of man. Jesus took the burden of these laws unto himself and lifted them as a burden on man.

Have you considered that the Sabbath is one of the Big Ten? Also, given that marriage can only biblically be completed in the way God ordained in Eden between a man and a woman, homosexual practice would be a violation of the eighth commandment. In either case, it is not my place to judge or condemn any individual. That is between he/she and God.

It is true that the cerimonial law, many of the washings and the whole sacrifical system was done away with, because type had met antitype and the example of the sacrifices was now live out in reality by the Son of God. Most of the laws that Christ condemned, however, were not even contained in the scriptures, but were, rather, additions and traditions made by uninspired authors that were never intended by God to be part of religious practice.

Have you considered that the Sabbath is one of the Big Ten? Also, given that marriage can only biblically be completed in the way God ordained in Eden between a man and a woman, homosexual practice would be a violation of the eighth commandment. In either case, it is not my place to judge or condemn any individual. That is between he/she and God.

It is true that the cerimonial law, many of the washings and the whole sacrifical system was done away with, because type had met antitype and the example of the sacrifices was now live out in reality by the Son of God. Most of the laws that Christ condemned, however, were not even contained in the scriptures, but were, rather, additions and traditions made by uninspired authors that were never intended by God to be part of religious practice.
One, God didn't number the commandments and who is talking affects which commandment is the eighth, but I assume you're referring to adultery (which only refers to people who ARE married). Two, honor the sabbath does not mean don't pick up sticks on the sabbath and I think you know that. It says don't labor, but most would not consider that to mean don't cook a meal or gather firewood or wipe down your counter or a million other things. Three, there are not TEN commandments. Ten was a number chosen because we have ten fingers and ten toes and people identify with that number. Same reason the bill of rights has ten and our number system is based on ten.

One, God didn't number the commandments and who is talking affects which commandment is the eighth, but I assume you're referring to adultery (which only refers to people who ARE married). Two, honor the sabbath does not mean don't pick up sticks on the sabbath and I think you know that. It says don't labor, but most would not consider that to mean don't cook a meal or gather firewood or wipe down your counter or a million other things. Three, there are not TEN commandments. Ten was a number chosen because we have ten fingers and ten toes and people identify with that number. Same reason the bill of rights has ten and our number system is based on ten.

Interestingly enough, the commandments that the Jewish faith holds as having been given on Mt. Sinai are not the same as those that the Christian faith holds as having been given on Mt. Sinai. I've seen some Jewish people rather offended when someone tries to put up the 10 Commandments and claims that it is an affirmation of both Jewish and Christian faith.

...Personally, since I'm a Christian I believe he died for our sins...


i think he already knew how bad humanity was since he had to die for our sins....

I agree. Christians shouldn't persecute others.

Interestingly enough, the commandments that the Jewish faith holds as having been given on Mt. Sinai are not the same as those that the Christian faith holds as having been given on Mt. Sinai. I've seen some Jewish people rather offended when someone tries to put up the 10 Commandments and claims that it is an affirmation of both Jewish and Christian faith.

Or even that it's an affirmation of the faith of all Christians.

One, God didn't number the commandments and who is talking affects which commandment is the eighth, but I assume you're referring to adultery (which only refers to people who ARE married). Two, honor the sabbath does not mean don't pick up sticks on the sabbath and I think you know that. It says don't labor, but most would not consider that to mean don't cook a meal or gather firewood or wipe down your counter or a million other things. Three, there are not TEN commandments. Ten was a number chosen because we have ten fingers and ten toes and people identify with that number. Same reason the bill of rights has ten and our number system is based on ten.

Well, there are certainly more than Ten Commandments given in the Bible, however, that to which I was referring you interpreted correctly. As for the issue of adultry, having a sexual relationship outside of marriage is also expressly forbidden in commandments other than "the big ten", though the penalties very depending on circumstances.

As for the Sabbath, the picking up of sticks or the other things you mention probably can be see in some circumstances as a violation of the commandment and in other cases not. It is more or less a matter of motivation and individual conviction of the Spirit.

Yes, you are right. The baby jeebus is crying and so are all of his little wizards.

Well, there are certainly more than Ten Commandments given in the Bible, however, that to which I was referring you interpreted correctly. As for the issue of adultry, having a sexual relationship outside of marriage is also expressly forbidden in commandments other than "the big ten", though the penalties very depending on circumstances.

There are no BIG TEN. You accused them of adultery and as they are not married you cannot accuse them of any such thing. Do they fornicate? Oh, most likely. Much like all the heterosexuals are doing as well. I choose not to judge either one.

God created men who are attracted to other men and women who are attracted to other women. WE deny them the right to enter into marriage and because of this you can make the argument they will go to hell. It would be amusing if not so sad. I have no doubt that you are not given the task of judging these individuals and the one who has been given this task knows the truth. Convincing you doesn't serve anyone.

As for the Sabbath, the picking up of sticks or the other things you mention probably can be see in some circumstances as a violation of the commandment and in other cases not. It is more or less a matter of motivation and individual conviction of the Spirit.
Uh-huh. Well, if you don't mind, the next time I see someone gathering wood on a Saturday, I think I'll let it slide rather than stoning them to death.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Remove the plank in your own eye before attempting to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Uh-huh. Well, if you don't mind, the next time I see someone gathering wood on a Saturday, I think I'll let it slide rather than stoning them to death.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Remove the plank in your own eye before attempting to remove the speck of dust from the eye of your brother.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Okay, did I not state that judging any individuals behavior was God's place not mine? Did I ever promote stoning anyone for any reason or judging anyone for that matter? There does come a point where it is necessary to call sin by its right name, but even then Christ said that we should treat even our enemies or our fellow sinners with the same love He displayed.

Also, something to consider, Christ Himself said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20 NKJV

Okay, did I not state that judging any individuals behavior was God's place not mine? Did I ever promote stoning anyone for any reason or judging anyone for that matter? There does come a point where it is necessary to call sin by its right name, but even then Christ said that we should treat even our enemies or our fellow sinners with the same love He displayed.

Also, something to consider, Christ Himself said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:17-20 NKJV
He was referring to holding the commandments and not the laws of Moses. You agreed. Why are you making that argument? I already said we still hold the commandments but not the laws of Moses.

He was referring to holding the commandments and not the laws of Moses. You agreed. Why are you making that argument? I already said we still hold the commandments but not the laws of Moses.

But wouldn't the commandments fall under the law of Moses?,They were all given by God afterall.

He was referring to holding the commandments and not the laws of Moses. You agreed. Why are you making that argument? I already said we still hold the commandments but not the laws of Moses.

Because you're arguing against keeping the Sabbath, part of which may well include "not picking up sticks" at least under some circumstances, and seemingly contrary to the commandment about adultery as well. Further, His comment says nothing about doing away with the "Laws of Moses", but rather defends the Law and the Prophets a.k.a. the OT. Granted, it is clear that the cerimonial/sacrificial law ceased to have relavence as a practice at the cross, but I don't read anywhere that the rest of the Mosaic laws were done away with, only that they are not a means to salvation in and of themselves, not that they ever were...

Because you're arguing against keeping the Sabbath, part of which may well include "not picking up sticks" at least under some circumstances, and seemingly contrary to the commandment about adultery as well. Further, His comment says nothing about doing away with the "Laws of Moses", but rather defends the Law and the Prophets a.k.a. the OT. Granted, it is clear that the cerimonial/sacrificial law ceased to have relavence as a practice at the cross, but I don't read anywhere that the rest of the Mosaic laws were done away with, only that they are not a means to salvation in and of themselves, not that they ever were...

So you're saying that I can't cook on the sabbath? And I'm contrary to the command on Adultery because I know the definition of the word. It was not about fornication, it was about adultery. It appears that you are the one with difficulty with the commandments, not I.

OK, the rest of Mosaic laws are still held? Well, then I guess I'm going to hell. I don't have a beard. I don't always wash my hands before I eat. Many of my meals are not kosher.

I posted a link on this. Did you read? I know you're going to say yes, but did you actually read it? It explains it very well, I don't feel like I should have to regurgitate what is already well-written.

False. Jesus didn't want us to hurt people. He didn't want us to encourage people to hurt each other or themselves. He didn't want us to hate or to judge. But we are hurting gays by denying them rights. We are encouraging intolerance and the bashing of gays by saying that discrimination is acceptable. Accepting that people are gay does not encourage gay acts, it just accepts that they happen and the people involved deserve to be protected by the law as much as anyone else. The law makes no judgement of the act itself. Nor should you, in my opinion. If Jesus believes punishment is in order, then it will be done. Not by you. Not by me. Not by the law.
The Bible does condemn homosexuals in the new testament.

So you're saying that I can't cook on the sabbath? And I'm contrary to the command on Adultery because I know the definition of the word. It was not about fornication, it was about adultery. It appears that you are the one with difficulty with the commandments, not I.

OK, the rest of Mosaic laws are still held? Well, then I guess I'm going to hell. I don't have a beard. I don't always wash my hands before I eat. Many of my meals are not kosher.

I posted a link on this. Did you read? I know you're going to say yes, but did you actually read it? It explains it very well, I don't feel like I should have to regurgitate what is already well-written.

Again, it isn't my place to throw stones as I am far from perfect myself. I never said anything about anyone going to hell. The only thing I saying is that throwing out all of the Mosaic law is a position that is very difficult to defend from a scriptural perspective at least on the basis of the words of Christ.

It is true that the early chruch (James' counsel regarding Peter and Paul and the conversion of the Gentiles) appears to have done away with the majority of the Jewish traditional laws and some of the Mosaic law may well have been included, but even then it was only for Gentile converts and it is also unclear as to exactly which portions of Mosaic law were laid aside. I just think we need to be careful in approaching the issue of removing ongoing validity from any portion of scripture.

As for the 8th commandment issue, point taken, though homosexual behavior is clearly not condoned anywhere in scripture and is a violation of the God designed order of marriage...

The Bible does condemn homosexuals in the new testament.

Good, I'll let the bible do it and keep my opinions of their actions to myself. I don't see how accusations and attacks bring people to the word.

Again, it isn't my place to throw stones as I am far from perfect myself. I never said anything about anyone going to hell. The only thing I saying is that throwing out all of the Mosaic law is a position that is very difficult to defend from a scriptural perspective at least on the basis of the words of Christ.

It is true that the early chruch (James' counsel regarding Peter and Paul and the conversion of the Gentiles) appears to have done away with the majority of the Jewish traditional laws and some of the Mosaic law may well have been included, but even then it was only for Gentile converts and it is also unclear as to exactly which portions of Mosaic law were laid aside. I just think we need to be careful in approaching the issue of removing ongoing validity from any portion of scripture.

As for the 8th commandment issue, point taken, though homosexual behavior is clearly not condoned anywhere in scripture and is a violation of the God designed order of marriage...

They also threw out the gospel of Thomas. I am very suspect of the church and it's treatment of the bible. The word of the lord is written on my heart. I listen to that before all else. That word keeps on the straight and narrow path (no pun intended) and allows me to be an example as best I am capable of doing. I believe this is Jesus' wish for all of us.

They also threw out the gospel of Thomas. I am very suspect of the church and it's treatment of the bible. The word of the lord is written on my heart. I listen to that before all else. That word keeps on the straight and narrow path (no pun intended) and allows me to be an example as best I am capable of doing. I believe this is Jesus' wish for all of us.


Even though the the Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim 3:16 or the example of Christ in meeting each of Lucifer's temptations with "it is written"? It is true that the covenant mentioned in Jerimiah that says God would write His laws on our hearts that is later repeated in Hebrews is of huge significance, but based on the word of Christ Himself, they never do away with the Law and the Prophets, they just make them a part of us, written in our inmost being, not to be abrogated and ignored, but to be part and parcel with every part of our lives out of a loving response to what Christ has done for us.

RUFUS

[God] still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, but especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

BETHANY

Having beliefs isn't good?

RUFUS

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant. That was one thing the Man hated - still life. He wanted everyone to be as enthralled with living as He was. Maybe it had something to do with knowing when He was going to die. but Christ had this vitality that I've never encountered in another person since. You know what I'm saving?

BETHANY

He was big on life?

RUFUS

It was more than that. He was the only person I ever knew who never engaged in that most ancient of life-affirming activities.

BETHANY

Sex.

RUFUS

Debate. That's the only way people know how to reaffirm that they're alive - by debating. In all it's forms. People spend their whole lives debating: we fight about who's right and who's wrong, we fight ourselves, we fight each other, we fight death, we fight over beliefs, we fight over fights. We believe that to stop debating - in any fashion -is to stop living and give up. People say that life's a struggle, but it's not. Life is living. I'm even guilty of it myself, the way I go on about Christ's ethnicity, fighting for the truth to come out. And I'm dead. Even in death, the only way I know how to live is through debate. That's sad, isn't it?

BETHAHY

Not if you believe it's important for people to know.

RUFUS

A belief's a dangerous thing, Bethany. People die for it. People kill for it. The whole of existence is in jeopardy right now because of the Catholic Belief structure regarding this plenary indulgence bullshit. And whether they know it or not, Bartleby and Loki are exploiting that belief, and if they're successful, you, me. all of this... ends in a heartbeat.

(beat)

All over a belief.

-DS-
http://bigbrassballs.blogspot.com

If he's not crying I'm getting a refund on my Jesus voodoo doll, complete with spear and realistic crown of thorns.©

He is bawling so hard it's sad.

I've noticed something over the years:
First, everyone hated the Christians.
So then the Christians decided to hate everyone.

Even though the the Bible says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," 2 Tim 3:16 or the example of Christ in meeting each of Lucifer's temptations with "it is written"? It is true that the covenant mentioned in Jerimiah that says God would write His laws on our hearts that is later repeated in Hebrews is of huge significance, but based on the word of Christ Himself, they never do away with the Law and the Prophets, they just make them a part of us, written in our inmost being, not to be abrogated and ignored, but to be part and parcel with every part of our lives out of a loving response to what Christ has done for us.

You cannot deny that some of those laws were discarded. You can't be certain which (based strictly on biblical writings alone) any more than I can. I also know that there are dozens of interpretations of the bible out there, but only one on my heart. I choose the one that is only interpreted by me and the lord if you don't mind. That one hasn't been abridged, translated, change to give power to the church, nothing has been left out.

As far as it is written, Jesus usually referred to things that are, will be or were as having been written (like there is some giant book with all the happenings of the universe in it, from beginning to end, and it was written when the world was new). "It is written" does no literally mean there is some book on earth that you can pick up. Much like he says that when you take Jesus unto your heart your name is written in the book of life.

As far as that letter, if all scripture is inspired why is the gospel of Thomas not included in the Bible? Have you read it? Do you agree with it?

Again, I am suspect of a bible that gave so much power to the church (and with documents compiled by the church and held only by the church) when Jesus clearly believed that our relationship with God is through a personal connection to him. Jesus made it clear that he replaced the high priests, yet upon creating the church a new high priest was created, the Pope. I reject the idea of the high priest because my savior told me to do so. Therefore I am not preached to by men, but by Jesus himself through my heart. I do not rely on the writings of man before my connection with God. Most importantly, unlike what many claim is written in the Bible, nothing that is written on my heart is in contradiction to that which I learn about the world. If the Bible said the world was flat and I see that the world is round, I know the Bible is wrong and not God or the world.

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

"I like Jesus' style, but his followers were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting things that ruins it for me." -- John Lennon

If you don't stand for something, you'll likely fall for anything... One should be wary of the one who has no teacher above his own heart...

Galatians 4 16-20
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!

Jesus forewarned us of being bad servants, that we are not of this earth, that we are here as servants. We are not to want the 'earth' but to want the Father and Heaven. We are here to spread the word, not be of the world, for the world will behave badly...

Luke 20:14-16
"But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!"

Revelation 19:19
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army.

You teach what you like, but you seem to have forgotten that not all spirits in the world are good spirits and you need to test them against the scripture (but you have dismissed the scripture and made your own dreams and wishes your guide and map). Be suspicious of that:

Mark 9 42-50
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire.

"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

Well put. The only way to avoid this trap is this: live your own life and accept that there are other religions. Stay out of politics and follow this rule: love thy neighbor as thy self. Don't interfere with other's lives unless you are absolutely helping them. Any form of killing or harm, unless in direct self defense of self, family, or country is WRONG. Don't think you know the bible and what it says. Follow the Ten Commandments, follow the Golden Rule, and butt out unless you really are making the world a better place (donating to charaties and missionaries to help people. Don't try to convert to "save", it'll just create more problems. let them live their own lives)

i think christians made a mistake, taking a brilliant idea from jesus of tolerance and love and brotherhood and turning it into a religion. a religion that grows repressive and controlling. all religions are just consuming and conforming... thats why i dislike a relgion. you shouldnt live your life for a religion, you should live it for yourself, and those you care about.

anyway, i thought what you said was really good. you're right...

If you don't stand for something, you'll likely fall for anything... One should be wary of the one who has no teacher above his own heart...

Galatians 4 16-20
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may be zealous for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always and not just when I am with you. My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!

Interesting that you did not include the entire passage. No need to wonder why.

Galations 4: 6-7 6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba,[a] Father." 7So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

What do you know? It says, Jesus is brought into our hearts. Certainly, you're not suggesting that when I listen to the word of God as Jesus put it into my heart that I can be led astray. Like I said, Jesus has been taken into my heart.

Jesus forewarned us of being bad servants, that we are not of this earth, that we are here as servants. We are not to want the 'earth' but to want the Father and Heaven. We are here to spread the word, not be of the world, for the world will behave badly...

Ha. And which of us do you think people are more likely to be open to listen to? Which of us will more adequately spread the word? The one of us that condemns and accuses or the one of us that asks people to visit with Jesus in their hearts and read what is written there? Jesus wanted us to live a life that is an example to others. To do before we speak. You seem to have confused this. Your method and style of debate speaks so loudly that people can hardly hear your words. Hitler was a very engaging speaker, but what he taught was clearly wrong. If people would have judged him by his actions rather than his words, there would have been no WWII.

Luke 20:14-16
"But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

"What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!"

Did you intend to choose sources that support your point or are you just choosing at random? We weren't talking about Sin. We were talking about how to read the word. We were talking about how to go about teaching the word and bringing the word to others. I don't have to proselytize because people ask me of my beliefs.

Revelation 19:19
19Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against the rider on the horse and his army.

You teach what you like, but you seem to have forgotten that not all spirits in the world are good spirits and you need to test them against the scripture (but you have dismissed the scripture and made your own dreams and wishes your guide and map). Be suspicious of that:

The scripture doesn't even agree with the scripture. I look at the life that Jesus lived and listen to the lessons of my heart. Those two things go together. Are you suggesting that once I've taken the lord into my heart, truly taken him in, that I can be lost? I don't discard the scriptures. I read them critically as we were intended to. I recognize that i am not reading them in the original language and that they have been under the control of and translated by the Catholic Church and this makes it suspect. I recognize that canonical works were not included in the Bible because "the church" didn't like what they had to say. I recognize that if the Bible says the world is flat and I can see that it is round, that something is wrong with the Bible I am reading; it is not something wrong with the teachings of Jesus and it does not dispute his divinity.

Revelation 3:5 I will not erase his name from the book of life.

My name is written. I have no fear of being lost.

Mark 9 42-50
"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.' Everyone will be salted with fire.

"Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other."

You are choosing at random. What does Mark 9 have to do with it? Again, we weren't talking about Sin. We were talking about how to read the word.

One should be wary of a man who puts the words men put on paper above the words Jesus Christ put on his heart. Do you follow the Gospel of Thomas? It's inspired work the church refused to put in the bible. The bible can be misinterpreted. The bible can cut and pasted and taken out of context. My heart cannot be fooled. My heart belongs to Jesus. Certainly, you aren't suggesting the Jesus would lead me astray. The danger my friend is when we believe we can force people to follow the word. This is not our job. The danger is when people use the name Jesus to excuse hate. The danger is when people use the name Jesus to justify pride and judgement. Jesus advocated none of these things.

Beware of pride, son. Pride drives us to lie. Pride drives us to judge. Pride drives us to condemn. Most importantly -
Matthew 7:1-5 1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

You cannot deny that some of those laws were discarded. You can't be certain which (based strictly on biblical writings alone) any more than I can. I also know that there are dozens of interpretations of the bible out there, but only one on my heart. I choose the one that is only interpreted by me and the lord if you don't mind. That one hasn't been abridged, translated, change to give power to the church, nothing has been left out.

As far as it is written, Jesus usually referred to things that are, will be or were as having been written (like there is some giant book with all the happenings of the universe in it, from beginning to end, and it was written when the world was new). "It is written" does no literally mean there is some book on earth that you can pick up. Much like he says that when you take Jesus unto your heart your name is written in the book of life.

As far as that letter, if all scripture is inspired why is the gospel of Thomas not included in the Bible? Have you read it? Do you agree with it?

Again, I am suspect of a bible that gave so much power to the church (and with documents compiled by the church and held only by the church) when Jesus clearly believed that our relationship with God is through a personal connection to him. Jesus made it clear that he replaced the high priests, yet upon creating the church a new high priest was created, the Pope. I reject the idea of the high priest because my savior told me to do so. Therefore I am not preached to by men, but by Jesus himself through my heart. I do not rely on the writings of man before my connection with God. Most importantly, unlike what many claim is written in the Bible, nothing that is written on my heart is in contradiction to that which I learn about the world. If the Bible said the world was flat and I see that the world is round, I know the Bible is wrong and not God or the world.

http://www.bbie.org/english/Study09TheWorkofJesus/0905JesusAndLawOfMoses.html

Every time Jesus used the phrase, "it is written", He directly qouted OT scripture, I think that is a pretty clear precident.

I challenge you to find anything that gives "the chruch" or the Pope any kind of authority in the Bible. In fact, the Bible talks about the "priesthood" of all believes and that Christ is the only High Priest that still ministers on our behalf (see the book of Hebrews). You are correct about our relationship with Christ being of paramount importance, but given His own reliance on scripture and His admonishment to the people of His day to be faithful to the scripture, I am more suspect of my own possibility to misinterpret my feelings and ideas, than I am of the validity of scripture. Certainly, I can misinterpret that as well which is why I ask for divine guidance any time I read it. I agree with you that it is better to obey God than man, but I view the Bible as divinely inspired and a letter from God to humanity. Listening to another man's interpretation of what scripture means is something I do with a fair amount of skepticism, but denying the validity of scripture itself, is to deny that which testifies of Christ.

Every time Jesus used the phrase, "it is written", He directly qouted OT scripture, I think that is a pretty clear precident.

I challenge you to find anything that gives "the chruch" or the Pope any kind of authority in the Bible. In fact, the Bible talks about the "priesthood" of all believes and that Christ is the only High Priest that still ministers on our behalf (see the book of Hebrews). You are correct about our relationship with Christ being of paramount importance, but given His own reliance on scripture and His admonishment to the people of His day to be faithful to the scripture, I am more suspect of my own possibility to misinterpret my feelings and ideas, than I am of the validity of scripture. Certainly, I can misinterpret that as well which is why I ask for divine guidance any time I read it. I agree with you that it is better to obey God than man, but I view the Bible as divinely inspired and a letter from God to humanity. Listening to another man's interpretation of what scripture means is something I do with a fair amount of skepticism, but denying the validity of scripture itself, is to deny that which testifies of Christ.

We all ask for divine guidance when we read the scriptures and I suspect they asked for divine guidance when they interpreted the scriptures. And yet somehow, we don't all come to the same interpretations, even the scholars that spend their lives on this stuff. I trust in my relationship with God. You can do as you like.

To question the validity of the scripture is to do no such thing. Christ is a historical figure and even without the Bible we can find evidence of what Christ said and did. However, the New Testament was not written when Jesus was alive or even within a hundred years of his death so to pretend like questioning the bible is somehow rejecting Christ is like saying that rejecting a book written about Martin Luther King is rejecting the very book that promotes him. The book is flawed and the Church made it so. Some canonical writings were rejected, by the church. Many ridiculous translations have been released, by the church. I can't read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, can you? If you can't than you have to listen to another man's interpretation of the scripture, and like you said, it should be done with a fair amount of skepticism.

the New Testament was not written when Jesus was alive or even within a hundred years of his death

Thats not true

John's Gospel for example has been found quoted in works written by Papias and Irenaeus, who both wrote their works in the mid to late 1st Century (most likely AD 70-90) thus given that Jesus died in aproximatley AD 30-35 and these works quoted John's Gospel we can assume the gospels were around pretty soon after Jesus's death. And then on the 24th December in 1994 the director of the institute of basic epistomological research (Dr Carsten Peter Thiede) released to the press scentific evidence that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have avilable (which is on display at present in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford) was written between 30-60 AD. The study can be found along with more infomation in his book "Eyewitness to Jesus"

Is Jesus crying?

Well, last I knew someone had nailed him to a tree and shoved a spear through him. I'd cry if that happened to me.

Thats not true

John's Gospel for example has been found quoted in works written by Papias and Irenaeus, who both wrote their works in the mid to late 1st Century (most likely AD 70-90) thus given that Jesus died in aproximatley AD 30-35 and these works quoted John's Gospel we can assume the gospels were around pretty soon after Jesus's death. And then on the 24th December in 1994 the director of the institute of basic epistomological research (Dr Carsten Peter Thiede) released to the press scentific evidence that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have avilable (which is on display at present in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford) was written between 30-60 AD. The study can be found along with more infomation in his book "Eyewitness to Jesus"

Change that to some of the New Testament. It certainly was not compiled anywhere near to Jesus' lifetime.

We all ask for divine guidance when we read the scriptures and I suspect they asked for divine guidance when they interpreted the scriptures. And yet somehow, we don't all come to the same interpretations, even the scholars that spend their lives on this stuff. I trust in my relationship with God. You can do as you like.

To question the validity of the scripture is to do no such thing. Christ is a historical figure and even without the Bible we can find evidence of what Christ said and did. However, the New Testament was not written when Jesus was alive or even within a hundred years of his death so to pretend like questioning the bible is somehow rejecting Christ is like saying that rejecting a book written about Martin Luther King is rejecting the very book that promotes him. The book is flawed and the Church made it so. Some canonical writings were rejected, by the church. Many ridiculous translations have been released, by the church. I can't read Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, can you? If you can't than you have to listen to another man's interpretation of the scripture, and like you said, it should be done with a fair amount of skepticism.

While, I can't read Greek or Hebrew, I do have a study bible that has the Greek and Hebrew text along with dictionary that I use from time to time, particularly when looking at passages I find to be confusing.

Incidentally, the majority of the NT was written between 10 and 60 years after Christ's death, though a few of the Pauline epsitles may fall outside that time frame.

Without the Bible you have no direct revelation upon which to basis your faith other than the belief that your impressions are divinely inspired. I'll grant that many of them probably are, but I also know to a certainty that you, like myself and everyother human in existance, are sinful, containing a naturally selfish nature that is very likely to bend impressions and ideas in any such way as makes life and your experience more appealing to yourself. We all do that. The thing about scripture is that it provides an objective (I'm using that word in a less than completely literal sense as proving "objectivity" is something outside the relm of human capacity) framework for ones faith. Without that basis, a given set of beliefs has little more credibility than the whims and fancies of fallen man. As a fallen man, I prefer to follow Christ's "it is written" example than to trust my own fallible perceptions.

As you said, that is certainly a personal choice and you are entitled to your's. It just isn't a position I could adopt in good conscience, if you can, that is between you and God.

As you said, that is certainly a personal choice and you are entitled to your's. It just isn't a position I could adopt in good conscience, if you can, that is between you and God.

Right back at you.

Right back at you.

Oh, I thought of a question, that may or may not have relavence to this conversation... do you believe that the Devil, Satan, Lucifer exists as a literal being? If so, what capacity to interact with humanity does he/she/it have?

If the answers are no and none, its irrelevant, but if the answer is yes and some, I'd like to explore that a little if you're game... :)

Oh, I thought of a question, that may or may not have relavence to this conversation... do you believe that the Devil, Satan, Lucifer exists as a literal being? If so, what capacity to interact with humanity does he/she/it have?

If the answers are no and none, its irrelevant, but if the answer is yes and some, I'd like to explore that a little if you're game... :)

The answer is no, I believe he was made the embodiment of evil in order to make certain concepts easier to understand. I do believe evil and temptation exists.

Though, I really want to say yes and some in order to explore. I'm game. Let's hear what you have to say and I'll try to help you explore the concepts provided I'm not on exactly the same page as you are.

I'd also like to say after interacting with other Christians in other threads, I'm impressed with your adherance to your faith without judging others. Certainly, true faith allows us to have faith that all that is, was and will be is going to be judged, and not by either of us.

Oh, I thought of a question, that may or may not have relavence to this conversation... do you believe that the Devil, Satan, Lucifer exists as a literal being? If so, what capacity to interact with humanity does he/she/it have?

If the answers are no and none, its irrelevant, but if the answer is yes and some, I'd like to explore that a little if you're game... :)

I believe that the devil exists as a literal being and that it/he/she has the same capacity as God to interact with humanity.

I believe that the devil exists as a literal being and that it/he/she has the same capacity as God to interact with humanity.

But at the same time, Satan is controlled by God, correct?

I believe that the devil exists as a literal being and that it/he/she has the same capacity as God to interact with humanity.

Satan is omnipotent? I'd like to see the biblical support for this.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

Oh, I dunno. He also said that in order to be his disciple, you must hate and abandon your entire family (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 14:26). Don't even so much as address your father as "Father" (Matthew 23:9) and if he dies, leave his burial to others (Matthew 8:21,22; Luke 9:59,60) - you've more important things to attend to. His stated mission on earth was to destroy families (Matthew 10:34-36; Luke 12:49-53).

It seems to me his work here is done. What exactly should he be crying about?

The answer is no, I believe he was made the embodiment of evil in order to make certain concepts easier to understand. I do believe evil and temptation exists.

Though, I really want to say yes and some in order to explore. I'm game. Let's hear what you have to say and I'll try to help you explore the concepts provided I'm not on exactly the same page as you are.

I'd also like to say after interacting with other Christians in other threads, I'm impressed with your adherance to your faith without judging others. Certainly, true faith allows us to have faith that all that is, was and will be is going to be judged, and not by either of us.

My comment would be that if the Devil exists and has the capicity to interact with humanity, it makes the scriptures even more important as there would be someone out there actively seeking to confuse people into believing in false impressions etc. and that the scripture provides a significant safe guard in that it provides something to test one's feelings and impressions against...

Satan is omnipotent? I'd like to see the biblical support for this.

There isn't. Saying Satan and God are equally powerful is dualism and violates the first commandment because it means you believe in two gods, good and evil. It's total contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Oh, I dunno. He also said that in order to be his disciple, you must hate and abandon your entire family (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29,30; Luke 14:26).

Wow, you don't really like to twist things don't you? Nice strawman.

Mark 19:29 28Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

He wasn't suggesting abandonment, he was saying that if you do this you will not have a family (much like a priest doesn't). The disciples were unmarried and celibate. He was asking for a commitment.

Mark 10:29-30 (and I'll add 31 for context) 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What does this have to do with what you said. This passage is to say that you are in that God even loves the sparrow and even if you are persecuted by men, you will be loved by God.

Luke 14:26 26 If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

This is a problem of translation. In the original language there were not degrees. There was no word for like or dislike. "Hate", the Greek miseo, was often used to mean love less. What he means is that you must love and commit to Jesus and the Lord above all else. This is why translating and ancient language to English is such a problem. Our grammatic structures are completely different.

None of these passages support your point.

Don't even so much as address your father as "Father" (Matthew 23:9)

Again, nice job taking it out of context.

Matthew 23:1-12 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2"The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you--but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

In 9 he was most likely referring to a second in the Jewish hierarchy after the Nasi/President. He was stating that there would be no 'Second' on earth. You have completely misinterpreted the passage by not understanding the culture.

and if he dies, leave his burial to others (Matthew 8:21,22; Luke 9:59,60) you've more important things to attend to.

Matthew 8:21-22 21Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." 22And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

Luke 9:59-60 59To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." 60And Jesus[g] said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

In the Jewish tradition, you were forgiven your duties to administer to the dead. It was common for people to delay the call to perform duties by extending the 'dead' to mean people who were elderly so they would often avoid observance for years while blaming it on the elderly. It is widely held that this man was referring to an elderly father and not to his actually dead father, and Jesus was denying that this should be considered an acceptable excuse any longer. He basically said your father will be cared for the spiritually dead (this use of dead had a different meaning) that have been left behind, having nothing more important to do.

More importantly, the entire passage is about Jesus trying to make it clear what it meant to be a disciple. He was telling them that the life of a disciple was a hard one and should not be lead by one who is looking back at his old life, that one must choose to push the plow or to be left behind, that you can't have one foot in the water and one on land. In other words, there was no room for hemming and hawing or uncertainty.

His stated mission on earth was to destroy families (Matthew 10:34-36; Luke 12:49-53).

Matthew 10:34-36 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

Luke 12:49-53 49I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Again, you're misinterpreting it. It is much like Martin Luther King saying that he has turned brother against brother. What was meant was "You will be persecuted for your beliefs. In some cases, your own family members will turn you into the authorites to be punished or killed. In other words, your faith will be used as a sword and the pointy end is facing you." He is warning them that they must be secure in their faith even when they are confronted by those that would destroy them. He is NOT suggesting that those who follow him should turn on their brothers.

It seems to me his work here is done. What exactly should he be crying about?

You take much out of context. There is a difference between understanding sacrifice and that some will try to persecute you for your beliefs and causing division and hatred. When feminists are called feminazis because people don't like their message is it the feminists who are divisive or the accusers?

To more accurately understand the message let's quote a little more Matthew since you enjoy Matthew so much.

Matthew 5:43-48 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus asked his disciples to be ambassadors of peace even when others seek to divide and destroy. Do you not see the difference? Make an argument for your interpretation of the bible, but please do so with context and background rather than specious claims and strawmen.

Matthew 5:43-48 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus asked his disciples to be ambassadors of peace even when others seek to divide and destroy. Do you not see the difference? Make an argument for your interpretation of the bible, but please do so with context and background rather than specious claims and strawmen.

As a Christian, I think you are confusing yourself with just half the message. Yes you are to love your enemies, but you will make enemies by preaching his words... Both the first and the second parts are true and both are equally true.

You can not proselytize without offending someone, but if you don't proselytize you are not sharing the hope of salvation. We have been directed to cast his seeds for the harvest, we are clearly told to share the gospel, not just go around being nice to everyone. It makes no sense to just go around being nice and plowing everyone’s fields form them, making a place for other seeds (not the gospel) to have a good place to grow. Which to me seems to be what you are saying when you say only half of the message, let's go be nice to everyone and let them do whatever they want.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that the only way people can be washed clean, and made presentable for salvation, is with the blood of Christ? You think they might earn salvation by being nice to each other like your example for them?

As a Christian, I think you are confusing yourself with just half the message. Yes you are to love your enemies, but you will make enemies by preaching his words... Both the first and the second parts are true and both are equally true.

I, in fact, made that point. You did read the entire post, yes? People like the strawman today.

There is a difference between understanding sacrifice and that some will try to persecute you for your beliefs and causing division and hatred. When feminists are called feminazis because people don't like their message is it the feminists who are divisive or the accusers?

Jesus asked his disciples to be ambassadors of peace even when others seek to divide and destroy. Do you not see the difference?

If I preach peace and some become violent upon hearing my message this doesn't suggest that message is any less one of peace.

You can not proselytize without offending someone, but if you don't proselytize you are not sharing the hope of salvation. We have been directed to cast his seeds for the harvest, we are clearly told to share the gospel, not just go around being nice to everyone. It makes no sense to just go around being nice and plowing everyone’s fields form them, making a place for other seeds (not the gospel) to have a good place to grow. Which to me seems to be what you are saying when you say only half of the message, let's go be nice to everyone and let them do whatever they want.

Interesting. You ignore that I included the entire message and then you make an argument that using only half the message is wrong. Who are you arguing with here? Reading comprehension is a life skill.

You're right that some will be offended simply by hearing the words. But you can lead people to the Lord without judging or mistreating them (as so many are wont to do). I don't suggest we 'let them do whatever they want'. I suggest that people are going to do what they do and forcing them to stop will not bring them to the faith but chase them away from it. I'm not endorsing sin. I'm saying it's not my place to judge. Your sin, his sin, her sin is all between the sinner and the Lord. I suggest that being nice to people and open to what they have to say makes them open to what I have to say and thus increases their ability to hear the message.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that the only way people can be washed clean, and made presentable for salvation, is with the blood of Christ? You think they might earn salvation by being nice to each other like your example for them?
Ha. That's amusing. So the only way I can believe the word is if I follow YOUR way. Good to know. Strange how I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere in the Bible. I believe that the Jesus Christ is the savior and that he wanted us to spread love and compassion rather hatred, judgement and condemnation. It would be funny, if not so sad, that you find somehow who follows the golden rule to not be a true Christian. What I would not want done to me - an abridgement of my right to free thought, an abridgement to my free will, have a person tell me what to believe without hearing what I have to say. I simply follow the summary Jesus gave us of the laws.

Matthew 7:12 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

My comment would be that if the Devil exists and has the capicity to interact with humanity, it makes the scriptures even more important as there would be someone out there actively seeking to confuse people into believing in false impressions etc. and that the scripture provides a significant safe guard in that it provides something to test one's feelings and impressions against...

If Satan has the ability to manipulate, could he not manipulate the translator? Could he not manipulate the church? And if I have faith in the Lord and Jesus Christ as my savior, aren't I protected from the deceiver? So would the translator and the church if they have faith, but I cannot have confidence in their faith as I cannot see inside their hearts, so I must trust in my faith. This is specifically why I teach people to find Jesus first and an understanding of the way becomes much clearer upon first acknowledging the role of Jesus Christ in your life.

I, however, understand that we are all fallible and that my beliefs could be wrong, as yours could be or GL's or anyone else's. I accept that I am only human and I have faith that I will be judged with this in mind. I believe our path is a narrow one, specifically designed by God for the individual and Jesus is there to guide us along it. He will no more guide you in the same way he guides me than MapQuest would guide you from Chicago to LA in the same way it would guide me from Miami to Houston.

-You did read the entire post, yes? People like the strawman today.

- Who are you arguing with here? Reading comprehension is a life skill.

- Ha. That's amusing. So the only way I can believe the word is if I follow YOUR way. Good to know. Strange how I didn't see your name mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

- It would be funny, if not so sad, that you find somehow who follows the golden rule to not be a true Christian.

Wow… You make a lot of speeches of acceptance and peace in your post, but you don't talk the talk yourself.

Sorry I interrupted, please feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled bickering and gnashing of teeth.

Wow… You make a lot of speeches of acceptance and peace in your post, but you don't talk the talk yourself.

Sorry I interrupted, please feel free to go back to your regularly scheduled bickering and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not a pacifist. I'm not required to accept it when you attack me. I'm sorry if disputing your claims offends you in some way, but it's generally how it works on a forum.

I call them like I see them. You changed my argument and then argued against that. That's a strawman.

You suggested I'm not a Christian for following and preaching the Golden Rule. I suggested I find that sad. I do.

You suggested that I can't be a Christian if I don't do things your way and I called you on it.

If I'd attacked someone and then found out that I'd failed to use even basic logic skills in that attack, I think I would apologize rather than follow with more accusations.

I've never taught any Christian or non-Christian to be accepting of attacks on them, particularly when those attacks are made by presenting half-truths with the purpose of misleading others.

Oh, I thought of a question, that may or may not have relavence to this conversation... do you believe that the Devil, Satan, Lucifer exists as a literal being? If so, what capacity to interact with humanity does he/she/it have?

If the answers are no and none, its irrelevant, but if the answer is yes and some, I'd like to explore that a little if you're game... :)

Are we bickering and gnashing teeth? I've found you to be quite civil. I hope you've found me to be the same.

- I'm not a pacifist. I'm not required to accept it when you attack me.

- That's a strawman.

- You suggested I'm not a Christian for following and preaching the Golden Rule.

- You suggested that I can't be a Christian if I don't do things your way and I called you on it.

- If I'd attacked someone and then found out that I'd failed to use even basic logic skills in that attack, I think I would apologize rather than follow with more accusations.


You are a very angry person aren't you?

*raises hands, backs out of the thread slowly*

LMAO ~ unbelievable, maybe in about ten years you could re-read my first post and realize that you were never attack... Oh my gosh... That's kind of scary actually that you reacted like that ...

Me ~> :) Well, I wonder if you've fully considered the varing degrees of what you are talking about, maybe you think that way because of this reason, blah blah blah...


You ~> :mp5: DIE your gravy sucking pig! don't you DARE attack ME!



LOL :eek: :D

You are a very angry person aren't you?

*raises hands, backs out of the thread slowly*

LMAO ~ unbelievable, maybe in about ten years you could re-read my first post and realize that you were never attack... Oh my gosh... That's kind of scary actually that you reacted like that ...

Me ~> :) Well, I wonder if you've fully considered the varing degrees of what you are talking about, maybe you think that way because of this reason, blah blah blah...

You ~> :mp5: DIE your gravy sucking pig! don't you DARE attack ME!

LOL :eek: :D

Hmmm... excercises in hyperbole is it. I didn't attack you. I refuted what you said. Again, if you view that as an attack you're going to feel attacked a lot on this forum. Most people are going to correct you when you misrepresent their beliefs.

I suspect that you don’t really believe that the only way people can be washed clean, and made presentable for salvation, is with the blood of Christ? You think they might earn salvation by being nice to each other like your example for them?

You accused me of not believing the central idea to Christianity and you claim that's the equivalent of "Well, I wonder if you've fully considered the varing degrees of what you are talking about." It's good to see it's not just my posts you misrepresent.

Most amusing is how you keep suggesting that I'm the one getting upset here. I'm amused if anything.

EDIT: Actually, someone reminded me that I should thank you for mellowing. This time I'm only not a good Christian for believing in treating people like I wish to be treated. Last time I was a hateful bigot because I believe in religious freedom.

You've been influenced, at a slow pace to be sure, by endless years of education and “freedom of (from) religion” indoctrination. You've come to think of 'freedom of thought' as your ultimate aspiration and the inevitable conclusion of society itself. Perhaps you never attended a religious institution for any period of time, perhaps you were forced to attend for years and you despised it with a deep and well reason hatred, but either way, you've come to the conclusion that religious ideas and practices are backwards and or a hindrance to modern man and modern societies ability to get to your imagined ideal. But you've become overly judgmental and in this regard, a the truth is that you may have in fact become closed minded to this subject matter, bigoted and stereotyping religious activity as something that should be discouraged…

I think I'm breaking you. Awesome. Maybe next time I'll just be a guy who you disagree with.

Mark 10:29-30 (and I'll add 31 for context) 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny[d]? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

What does this have to do with what you said. This passage is to say that you are in that God even loves the sparrow and even if you are persecuted by men, you will be loved by God.

Um, actually, you were quoting Matthew 10:29-31. Following is Mark 10:29,30, which is what I listed:

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

You know, more of that abandonment stuff. And no, he wasn't just talking about not getting married and having a family of your own, because he was advocating abandoning your parents and siblings as well.

Matthew 10:34-36 34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

Luke 12:49-53 49I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Again, you're misinterpreting it. It is much like Martin Luther King saying that he has turned brother against brother. What was meant was "You will be persecuted for your beliefs. In some cases, your own family members will turn you into the authorites to be punished or killed. In other words, your faith will be used as a sword and the pointy end is facing you." He is warning them that they must be secure in their faith even when they are confronted by those that would destroy them. He is NOT suggesting that those who follow him should turn on their brothers.

Not really - if you read his words, he specifically said that destroying families is what he came for, and he couldn't wait to get started on it. Of course, at the time he was trying to make it look like he was the fulfillment of prophecy - it seems he was quite fond of doing that:

Micah 7:1-7 Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

Note that Micah was referring to a time when there are no good or upright men left - in fact, the best of them is like a brier and the most upright is like a thorn hedge. So what does that make Jesus, who is right there in the thick of things, creating all this havoc and apparently enjoying his work?

Not really - if you read his words, he specifically said that destroying families is what he came for, and he couldn't wait to get started on it. Of course, at the time he was trying to make it look like he was the fulfillment of prophecy - it seems he was quite fond of doing that:

You distort the text of a document you don't believe in to confirm that you shouldn't believe in it. You are taking it out both literary and historical context. The message of the passages you quoted are quite clear when not misrepresented as you've intentionally done. He was warning his people that division was an inevitable result. When early civil rights leaders and feminists went to work, they were responsible for much division. This hardly suggests that divisiveness was their purpose. They were bringing dramatic growth and dramatic growth of a nation often rends families.

Micah 7:1-7 Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grapegleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the firstripe fruit. The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is as a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

Note that Micah was referring to a time when there are no good or upright men left - in fact, the best of them is like a brier and the most upright is like a thorn hedge. So what does that make Jesus, who is right there in the thick of things, creating all this havoc and apparently enjoying his work?

As many are often wont to do, Micah was speaking in hyperbole. He uses extreme analogies to explain how dire the situation is. He was complaining about the Godlessness of Isreal. Yet, in the end he expresses his faith that they will be delivered which is why he tells the enemies not to rejoice. This isn't prophesy. He is talking about the current time. More importantly, it expresses the very reason Jesus came. He came to a corrupt and Godless Isreal where judges would outwardly appear to be good men while their every movement was wicked. How is the wickedness of Isreal in the time of Micah a reflection on Jesus?

Seriously, you're going to have to do much better than this if you expect to be convincing. If you're going to lift yourself up as a scholar perhaps you could educate some of our fellow forumites as to the context of some of these statements. What activity is he referring to when he says a man chases his brother with a net? Hint: this isn't an indirect analogy, it's a historical activity that is quite clearly being referred to. Clearly, you studied the context here thoroughly to make sure you are presenting the case for or against the bible accurately, no? The question should be quite easy for religious and non-religious biblical scholars alike. Now, while you're doing this fairly easy search of the net make sure you read the sources of the information. Notice how they introduce historical context into the scriptures. Notice how they introduce cultural context from the time of their writing. You can't expect the bible to stand on it's own, it was written and compiled a couple thousand years ago.

Are we done or would you like to me explain any other passages for you?

Change that to some of the New Testament. It certainly was not compiled anywhere near to Jesus' lifetime.

The New Testement as a whole, proberbly not seeing as Paul was still writing his letters, but the Gospels yes. At least I offered evidence, you just said "No it wasnt". And just to make the point, I will offer the evidence again

John's Gospel for example has been found quoted in works written by Papias and Irenaeus, who both wrote their works in the mid to late 1st Century (most likely AD 70-90) thus given that Jesus died in aproximatley AD 30-35 and these works quoted John's Gospel we can assume the gospels were around pretty soon after Jesus's death. And then on the 24th December in 1994 the director of the institute of basic epistomological research (Dr Carsten Peter Thiede) released to the press scentific evidence that the oldest fragment of Matthews Gospel we have avilable (which is on display at present in Magdalen Colledge in Oxford) was written between 30-60 AD. The study can be found along with more infomation in his book "Eyewitness to Jesus"

Um, actually, you were quoting Matthew 10:29-31. Following is Mark 10:29,30, which is what I listed:

And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

You know, more of that abandonment stuff. And no, he wasn't just talking about not getting married and having a family of your own, because he was advocating abandoning your parents and siblings as well.

You're right. I was in a hurry and I mistyped the name when I was quoting each of the pieces of scripture. I still addressed the passage as most of your passages had a duplicate of a description of the same event/experience.

The point still holds. You're taking it out of the context of the peice. He also mentions that he has no place to lay his head. He was telling his disciples that the life on the road will not be easy. Did you expect that while wandering the lands of Isreal that these men would bring their families along in tow, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children. He was making clear to them what sacrifice they were making and that they would be rewarded for making it. However, leaving home is hardly 'abandoning your parents and siblings'. When I left home to go to college or when I completed college and traveled the country to pursue my career, I didn't realize I was 'abandoning my parents and siblings'. It's quite late there but I suppose I should call and apologize.

The New Testement as a whole, proberbly not seeing as Paul was still writing his letters, but the Gospels yes. At least I offered evidence, you just said "No it wasnt". And just to make the point, I will offer the evidence again

I accepted your evidence. I originally said the New Testament without being specific and I suggested that it be read as 'some of the New Testament' instead. You made your point. A cookie for you. But you misinterpreted my acceptance of the point, so I'm taking it back.

What activity is he referring to when he says a man chases his brother with a net? Hint: this isn't an indirect analogy, it's a historical activity that is quite clearly being referred to.

Like the activity implied here, for example?

Ecclesiastes 9:12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

I guess Micah had foreseen that whole "fishers of men" thingy Jesus had going with his apostles, huh?

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"

Ah, finally a christian that can see through the bullshit screen the rest of the christians put up. You are a rare breed my friend, a rare breed. Welcome to the club. (Note: I was one too, former catholic now atheist.)

Like the activity implied here, for example?

Ecclesiastes 9:12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

I guess Micah had foreseen that whole "fishers of men" thingy Jesus had going with his apostles, huh?

Actually it refers to an ancient form of duel where a man carries a net and a sword and casts a net at the person with whom he is dueling. The opponent tries to make him miss at which point the guy with the net is forced to run around the field trying to fix the net to be cast again. It refers to the man lying in wait for the one with the net to miss. He uses the hyperbole of brother turning against brother in duels. Only he doesn't use the word duels so if you don't look at historical context you won't follow what he's saying. That's just one example. Now, if you simply google for Micah 7 you can learn about it. Feel free to do so. Or I can continue educating you here.

It is very important that you remember that this book was written when there is was a completely different culture. In fact, it was written during many cultures none of which exist today. You are often going to misinterpret the writings if you don't educate yourself on these cultures.

The point still holds. You're taking it out of the context of the peice. He also mentions that he has no place to lay his head. He was telling his disciples that the life on the road will not be easy. Did you expect that while wandering the lands of Isreal that these men would bring their families along in tow, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children. He was making clear to them what sacrifice they were making and that they would be rewarded for making it. However, leaving home is hardly 'abandoning your parents and siblings'. When I left home to go to college or when I completed college and traveled the country to pursue my career, I didn't realize I was 'abandoning my parents and siblings'. It's quite late there but I suppose I should call and apologize.

You've missed my point - deliberately, perhaps? You claimed that he was just talking about not getting married or having children. I'm saying that he was talking about abandoning any family you already had. It didn't matter how much they might depend on you, or how young or elderly they might be - leave 'em all to to the mercy of others - who, by the way, were considered to be "spiritually dead" if they didn't abandon them too!

You've missed my point - deliberately, perhaps? You claimed that he was just talking about not getting married or having children. I'm saying that he was talking about abandoning any family you already had. It didn't matter how much they might depend on you, or how young or elderly they might be - leave 'em all to to the mercy of others - who, by the way, were considered to be "spiritually dead" if they didn't abandon them too!

Again, remember cultural context. The nuclear family is a new concept. People operated in large extended families. They rarely relied on one man like families do today. It was common practice in this culture at this time, for men to be called to leave their families and serve the spiritual leaders of the time. He was saying the difference was that if they answered his call that they would be rewarded in ways the corrupt leaders of the time could not promise. However, it is known that his disciples were unmarried and thus had no children. He was acknowledging that those that followed him were not just giving up their families that already existed but the family they could make.

As far as spiritually dead, the references to the dead was that even if all who could answer the call did, there would always being plenty of spiritually dead to attend to those who needed attending. It was a fairly common suggestion of the time. Again, it's fairly easy to research this stuff if you're interested in actually presenting a balance view.

Actually it refers to an ancient form of duel where a man carries a net and a sword and casts a net at the person with whom he is dueling. The opponent tries to make him miss at which point the guy with the net is forced to run around the field trying to fix the net to be cast again. It refers to the man lying in wait for the one with the net to miss. He uses the hyperbole of brother turning against brother in duels. Only he doesn't use the word duels so if you don't look at historical context you won't follow what he's saying. That's just one example. Now, if you simply google for Micah 7 you can learn about it. Feel free to do so. Or I can continue educating you here.

And do you have an independent source (i.e., non-Christian) that confirms that this form of dueling was practiced prior to the mid-first century CE?

And do you have an independent source (i.e., non-Christian) that confirms that this form of dueling was practiced prior to the mid-first century CE?

You're both being silly...

This type of gladiator is called a Retiarius, they fight with a net and 'Trident' (not sword), they are easy to recognize in ancient pictures because they are the only ones not wearing helmets... Don't know year for it, but it's older than Gladiators which started in Rome during the third century B.C., (elsewhere even earlier).

However, you are both right about the nets... the Retiarius fighting/warrior is supposed to using a fishing net (even if it bacame symbolic, as in, the gladiators never used it for fishing, it still had the shape, claws and weights of the throwing type fishing net) and used a fishing weapon (That’s why a trident - a three pronged spear for grabbing and holding fish).

You go too far, and Jacobia doesn't go far enough. Jesus didn't say you HAD to leave your family, Jesus said, for those that can do this should... Another example was the the rich boy asking how to get to heaven, Jesus said live by the commandments, the boy pushed for more, and so Jesus offered more, said give it all up and come with me... but he didn't want anything to do with that.
:p

You're both being silly...

This type of gladiator is called a Retiarius, they fight with a net and 'Trident' (not sword), they are easy to recognize in ancient pictures because they are the only ones not wearing helmets... Don't know year for it, but it's older than Gladiators which started in Rome during the third century B.C., (elsewhere even earlier).

However, you are both right about the nets... the Retiarius fighting/warrior is supposed to be symbolically using a fishing net and a fishing weapon (That’s why a trident).

You go too far, and Jacobia doesn't go far enough. Jesus didn't say you HAD to leave your family, Jesus said, for those that can do this should... Another example was the the rich boy asking how to get to heaven, Jesus said live by the commandments, the boy pushed for more, and so Jesus offered more, said give it all up and come with me... but he didn't want anything to do with that.
:p

This wasn't a gladiator, it was used for dueling as well. And when dueling they used a short sword.

As far as my interpretation, I know you don't agree with anybody who doesn't wish to force Christianity on people using government help, but I tend to disagree. I believe in freedom of thought (religion). I'm silly like that.

Either way, the type of weapon is a trivial point. The point was without historical context one can't see the intent of the passage.

This wasn't a gladiator, it was used for dueling as well. And when dueling they used a short sword.

As far as my interpretation, I know you don't agree with anybody who doesn't wish to force Christianity on people using government help, but I tend to disagree. I believe in freedom of thought (religion). I'm silly like that.


Where do you think the Gladiators got the idea for that kind of fighting if it wasn't for the dueling?

As to the second part, you are the one that keeps bringing up my beliefs in a discussion instead of talking about the topic at hand ~ it seems you're the one that can't get past ideology with someone else when discussing interpretation, not I.

This type of gladiator is called a Retiarius, they fight with a net and 'Trident' (not sword), they are easy to recognize in ancient pictures because they are the only ones not wearing helmets... Don't know year for it, but it's older than Gladiators which started in Rome during the third century B.C., (elsewhere even earlier).

And as far as I can tell, the Gladiators didn't start using this form of dueling until the middle of the first century CE. I'd like to see an independent source that can verify that it was ever used earlier than this.

However, you are both right about the nets... the Retiarius fighting/warrior is supposed to using a fishing net (even if it bacame symbolic, as in, the gladiators never used it for fishing, it still had the shape, claws and weights of the throwing type fishing net) and used a fishing weapon (That’s why a trident - a three pronged spear for grabbing and holding fish).

And you've got to admit that Jesus's promise to make his apostles "fishers of men" works out extremely well in this context. What do fishers do? They hunt fish, of course - and according to the Ecclesiastes passage, the ancient fishermen did indeed use nets. So what would fishers of men do? They would hunt their fellow man (i.e., "brothers") with a net - would they not? At least, figuratively speaking.

And as far as I can tell, the Gladiators didn't start using this form of dueling until the middle of the first century CE. I'd like to see an independent source that can verify that it was ever used earlier than this.

I am an independant source... :p LOL, Oh okay, never-mind, but jeez, an encyclopedia will have that much information. Type in Retiarius in your search engine... It won't be religious inspired results that will have gladiator information about the spear and net fighters specifically.

EDIT :eek: I did my own search, I can't confirm an earlier date for that type of Roman Gladiator either (damn that Kirk Douglas movie, damn him, damn him ~ for not making an historically accurate Spartacus! :p ) ... However, I know that the fighting tools are older. And it changes nothing about the translation of the net stuff... Interesting. :)




And you've got to admit that Jesus's promise to make his apostles "fishers of men" works out extremely well in this context. What do fishers do? They hunt fish, of course - and according to the Ecclesiastes passage, the ancient fishermen did indeed use nets. So what would fishers of men do? They would hunt their fellow man (i.e., "brothers") with a net - would they not? At least, figuratively speaking.

What do you mean hunt? If you mean to hunt men to convert them to the salvation of the good news, not hunt to kill, then yes I agree, I think it's a great analogy.

What do you mean hunt? If you mean to hunt men to convert them to the salvation of the good news, not hunt to kill, then yes I agree, I think it's a great analogy.

Or how about to ensnare them in idolatry - i.e., to turn them away from the worship of the god of their fathers to worship a man instead?

And as far as I can tell, the Gladiators didn't start using this form of dueling until the middle of the first century CE. I'd like to see an independent source that can verify that it was ever used earlier than this.

Wrong, actually. It just didn't become popular till then. Either way, it wasn't about gladiators. Why? Because gladiating didn't begin 264 BC. Still not old enough.

And you've got to admit that Jesus's promise to make his apostles "fishers of men" works out extremely well in this context. What do fishers do? They hunt fish, of course - and according to the Ecclesiastes passage, the ancient fishermen did indeed use nets. So what would fishers of men do? They would hunt their fellow man (i.e., "brothers") with a net - would they not? At least, figuratively speaking.

Again Micah wasn't complaining about the fact that Isreal was in dire straights. There is no reference to the actions of Jesus in that passage. So the analogy wouldn't make sense the way you're trying to frame it. He is talking about rampant wickedness.

Wrong, actually. It just didn't become popular till then. Either way, it wasn't about gladiators. Why? Because gladiating didn't begin 264 BC. Still not old enough.

Well that's kind of a narrow view of the Gladiator stuff isn't it? The Gladiators may have started in Rome in the 3rd century B.C., but that in no way implies that they hadn't been around for a long time before that. Etruscans are to of had them, and the human sacrifice rituals of fighting to the death go back at least as far as the story of the Iliad and farther.

Are we losing track of the goal of the question here though? Where does the scripture we’ve talked about say anything at all about dueling in the Micah or the Ecclesiastes stuff mentioned here? It talks about men being ensnared (or ensnaring each other) like hunting or fishing, and in Micah, that they are so good at doing evil that they can do it with both hands (split hitters, ambidextrously good with practice) ~ but from what I’m seeing, I’m thinking these are the nets from hunting and fishing, more likely the kind for catching birds for Micah and Fish for Ecclesiastes.

I mentioned Retiarius only because you were talking about men dueling with the use of nets… and I said how those nets were supposed to be fishing nets.


Again Micah wasn't complaining about the fact that Isreal was in dire straights. There is no reference to the actions of Jesus in that passage. So the analogy wouldn't make sense the way you're trying to frame it. He is talking about rampant wickedness.

Although I think there is a message of future redemption in this book, are you talking about the

Ecclesiastes 9:12:
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Passage as well as Micah? Or not?

Well that's kind of a narrow view of the Gladiator stuff isn't it? The Gladiators may have started in Rome in the 3rd century B.C., but that in no way implies that they hadn't been around for a long time before that. Etruscans are to of had them, and the human sacrifice rituals of fighting to the death go back at least as far as the story of the Iliad and farther.

Are we losing track of the goal of the question here though? Where does the scripture we’ve talked about say anything at all about dueling in the Micah or the Ecclesiastes stuff mentioned here? It talks about men being ensnared (or ensnaring each other) like hunting or fishing, and in Micah, that they are so good at doing evil that they can do it with both hands (split hitters, ambidextrously good with practice) ~ but from what I’m seeing, I’m thinking these are the nets from hunting and fishing, more likely the kind for catching birds for Micah and Fish for Ecclesiastes.

I mentioned Retiarius only because you were talking about men dueling with the use of nets… and I said how those nets were supposed to be fishing nets.




Although I think there is a message of future redemption in this book, are you talking about the

Ecclesiastes 9:12:
For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Passage as well as Micah? Or not?

I'm not talking about Ecclesiastes. I don't think the passages are related. Again, my point was that our friend was intentionally misrepresenting the Bible to make the argument against it. The fallacy of the strawman. Yes, if he likes it's possible to interpret the bible in a way that makes it contradictary, but that doesn't make it contradictary. Using cultural and historical context it's relatively easy to avoid contradiction.

I don't count all dueling or ritualistic fighting as gladitorial. I do tend to use a more narrow definition.

I do think they were referencing dueling with a net, but an alternative way of looking at it, wouldn't change the meaning. I was trying to guide him to look at sites that add the context to bible, because he certainly wasn't considering it in his arguments.

I'm not sure exactly what he was on about either, was his intent to say that it's all about 'smash homes and doom and gloom' and nothing else?

I'm not sure exactly what he was on about either, was his intent to say that it's all about 'smash homes and doom and gloom' and nothing else?

He was suggesting that the times Jesus warned that he brought division the was actually craving and enjoying turmoil (like dividing the family), rather than it being a warning that following his teachings would result in persecution and even your family turning you over to the authorities.

Wrong, actually. It just didn't become popular till then. Either way, it wasn't about gladiators. Why? Because gladiating didn't begin 264 BC. Still not old enough.

You are begging the question here. Apparently you have already decided in your mind that the Christian explanation for the meaning of Micah's comments are true - regardless of the dearth of independent sources to support this claim - and therefore you have decided that this type of dueling must be older than gladiating. This is fallacious reasoning if I ever saw it.


Again Micah wasn't complaining about the fact that Isreal was in dire straights. There is no reference to the actions of Jesus in that passage. So the analogy wouldn't make sense the way you're trying to frame it. He is talking about rampant wickedness.

There is no reference to the actions of Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament - but since when has that ever stopped Christians from claiming that Jesus's coming was predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53), referring to such passages as "proof texts"? Well, I've got some "proof texts" for you - how about Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, for starters?

The world today is not worse than 2000 years ago, when there were barbarians skinning people alive, slavery in many nations, people dying of infections & simple cold, and the repressive Roman / Chinese / Persian empires.
yes but those things where not done in his name which i think is the point. I don't believe in god myself btw.

I'm not sure exactly what he was on about either, was his intent to say that it's all about 'smash homes and doom and gloom' and nothing else?

"She" - not "he". Thanks.

Anyway, no - I don't think that Jesus preached only doom and gloom - he wouldn't have been able to gain the following he has today if that had been the case. Look at Hitler - we know now what an evil man he was - that couldn't be clearer, given what we know now. But do you think he was able to rise to power by talking doom and gloom and hate all the time? Of course not! There is a saying that the devil will tell a thousand truths to slip in one lie. Jesus talked a good talk most of the time - but every now and then he managed to slip in a doozie. Christians overlook these anomalies because they don't seem to fit in with what appeared to be his main message. So they come up with interpretations that sound nothing at all like what was actually said originally, and then wonder why the rest of us aren't buying it.

You are begging the question here. Apparently you have already decided in your mind that the Christian explanation for the meaning of Micah's comments are true - regardless of the dearth of independent sources to support this claim - and therefore you have decided that this type of dueling must be older than gladiating. This is fallacious reasoning if I ever saw it.

The Christian explanation does not require that it be a net and sword or that the brothers be dueling. Your explanation doesn't change the meaning. However, to suggest that dueling isn't older than gladiating is to simply ignore the facts. To believe that it's likely that this type of dueling was invented and then immediately became popular is similarly fallacious. The fact is that you simply don't know when this type of dueling began. You only know when it became popular in gladiating. Do you deny this? Find me one independent source that says this type of fighting was INVENTED at that time.

There is no reference to the actions of Jesus anywhere in the Old Testament - but since when has that ever stopped Christians from claiming that Jesus's coming was predicted in the Old Testament (e.g., Isaiah 53), referring to such passages as "proof texts"? Well, I've got some "proof texts" for you - how about Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, for starters?

What's your point? Generally, rather than making sweeping statements, people suggest what they believe about something. You've intentionally avoided that here and elsewhere.

Again, we all agree that given the age of these texts they are open to interpretation. In order to 'disprove' a work, you can't just choose what's easiest for you to make it look bad and run with it. It's quite easy to show how this work would not likely mean what you try make it say. More importantly, it can reasonably be and is interpreted differently. Nobody you're currently addressing holds your interpretation to be true, so who are you arguing with? In order to 'debunk' the work, you'd have to show that my interpretation can't be true, and you can't do that.

The Christian explanation does not require that it be a net and sword or that the brothers be dueling. Your explanation doesn't change the meaning. However, to suggest that dueling isn't older than gladiating is to simply ignore the facts. To believe that it's likely that this type of dueling was invented and then immediately became popular is similarly fallacious. The fact is that you simply don't know when this type of dueling began. You only know when it became popular in gladiating. Do you deny this? Find me one independent source that says this type of fighting was INVENTED at that time.

Here you are using the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. We don't know if it's true or not, so therefore we must conclude that it is true? And you were the one who made the claim that Micah was referring to the type of dueling using a net and a "sword," so I do believe the burden of proof is on you.


What's your point? Generally, rather than making sweeping statements, people suggest what they believe about something. You've intentionally avoided that here and elsewhere.

My point is that I believe Jesus was not all he was represented to be. Now mind you, I don't even necessarily believe that he really existed in the first place - but if he did, then he was just one more cult leader who eventually ended up with a God complex - a fatal malady in those days, I might add. But I think the gospel writers had something more in mind than what meets the eye when they wrote his story - a story which has caused a great deal of grief and misery for the Jews ever since, by the way.

Again, we all agree that given the age of these texts they are open to interpretation. In order to 'disprove' a work, you can't just choose what's easiest for you to make it look bad and run with it. It's quite easy to show how this work would not likely mean what you try make it say. More importantly, it can reasonably be and is interpreted differently. Nobody you're currently addressing holds your interpretation to be true, so who are you arguing with? In order to 'debunk' the work, you'd have to show that my interpretation can't be true, and you can't do that.

And so far you haven't proven it, either - and I'd like to remind you once again - the burden of proof is on you for the claim that you made. An appeal to ignorance won't work here.

Here you are using the fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. We don't know if it's true or not, so therefore we must conclude that it is true? And you were the one who made the claim that Micah was referring to the type of dueling using a net and a "sword," so I do believe the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on me for something that doesn't matter. Forgive me if I won't be distracted by this little piece of information. You don't know he was referring to fishing either, do you? In fact, you really haven't shown how a fishing reference even makes sense. More importantly, it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. As far as my point in bringing it up, I was trying to lead you to sites that incorporate historical and cultural data into the analysis of the passages. You clearly don't care to do that.

My point is that I believe Jesus was not all he was represented to be. Now mind you, I don't even necessarily believe that he really existed in the first place - but if he did, then he was just one more cult leader who eventually ended up with a God complex - a fatal malady in those days, I might add. But I think the gospel writers had something more in mind than what meets the eye when they wrote his story - a story which has caused a great deal of grief and misery for the Jews ever since, by the way.

So you don't believe he existed. And yet, you claim this imaginary person wasn't who people said he was. What's next? Are you going to try and convince children that believe in Santa Claus that he really prefers to eat the heads of mice when he delivers presents. How can you argue that he didn't exist and that when he did exist he had different intentions than people claim? You can't. Your arguments just keep getting worse.

And so far you haven't proven it, either - and I'd like to remind you once again - the burden of proof is on you for the claim that you made. An appeal to ignorance won't work here.

I have the burden of proving what? You came on here and attacked my beliefs. I've debunked your attacks as specious and based on a false premise. I don't care if you hold my beliefs to be true. As I've stated multiple times in multiple threads, I will never try to force my beliefs on someone.

Strange, you did nothing to refute any of my arguments, you just kept attempting to inject new ones that really have nothing to do with the point. An appeal to ignorance? I gave you historical and cultural data that explains the message of the passages and you ignored it. You made claims that can only be made if you don't read the entire bible and you assume it was written today. You don't understand the meaning of the greek word 'hate' and you haven't refuted my explanation of it. You don't understand the meaning of the word 'dead' when Jesus used it to a new disciple and you haven't refuted my explanation of it. You're arguing from a position of Jesus didn't exist AND that somehow he did exist but he must have been what you claim even though historical and cultural documents and the bible don't agree with you. Interesting position.

I'll ask again: Was Martin Luther King a man who relished stirring the shit because he wanted to help people have a better life? Was it him that was divisive or those that wanted to continue to oppress minorities? Were feminists divisive when the requested the right to vote for women? Jesus let people know what the cost ON EARTH would be for following his belief that is directly in opposition what you claim the passages were meant to say. You have not refuted this point.

First off, I'm a Christian. That fact isn't really important though I suspect some will say it is.

For the sake of this thread let's make the assumption that Jesus Christ was born the son of God and died on the cross for our sins. In between, he taught a lot about the way his followers should live and let's assume his teachings are adequately contained in the New Testament. Assuming all this is true, when I die will I meet him and find him crying? I say, YES, but not for the reasons you might suspect. I see these other threads about forcing religious beliefs on people, about denying rights of people, in the name of Jesus Christ and God. How could that not be an offense? Let's just stick with recent history, say the last hundred years. Wars have been fought in his name. Abortion clinics blown up and people killed. Murders have been committed. Hate has been spread. The goal of prejudice forwarded. All in the name of Jesus. Pat Robertson. The KKK. Anti-gay amendment (disguised as pro-family).

Wouldn't Jesus have to be crying?

Jesus, tearfully, "I came here and I taught a new way to worship God. I taught tolerance and love. How could anyone have used that as an excuse to hate? How can anyone think the path to heaven is paved with bigotry and blood?"


I don't believe for a minute he is crying.
I believe he knew what a struggle life would be for us.
I believe Jesus would be celebrating the victories no matter how small they are and like his Father he will see each and everyone of them. No matter how bad things seem, how many screw ups, how much violence there is, that there are more acts of kindness and sacrifice for the good then there are acts of hate.

JMayo

If Satan has the ability to manipulate, could he not manipulate the translator? Could he not manipulate the church? And if I have faith in the Lord and Jesus Christ as my savior, aren't I protected from the deceiver? So would the translator and the church if they have faith, but I cannot have confidence in their faith as I cannot see inside their hearts, so I must trust in my faith. This is specifically why I teach people to find Jesus first and an understanding of the way becomes much clearer upon first acknowledging the role of Jesus Christ in your life.

I, however, understand that we are all fallible and that my beliefs could be wrong, as yours could be or GL's or anyone else's. I accept that I am only human and I have faith that I will be judged with this in mind. I believe our path is a narrow one, specifically designed by God for the individual and Jesus is there to guide us along it. He will no more guide you in the same way he guides me than MapQuest would guide you from Chicago to LA in the same way it would guide me from Miami to Houston.

Was Christ protected from temptation simply because he was God? As for the translation issue, would God not likely protect His own communication to the world?

If the path is a narrow one, and Jesus is the only Way, how can there be multiple ways He would lead us?

What exactly is the "way" that "becomes clearer upon first acknowledging the role of Christ in your life"? If not by the Word, how do you know that acknowledging Christ is the right thing to do to begin with and how do you know what His role is in your life?

I don't believe for a minute he is crying.
I believe he knew what a struggle life would be for us.
I believe Jesus would be celebrating the victories no matter how small they are and like his Father he will see each and everyone of them. No matter how bad things seem, how many screw ups, how much violence there is, that there are more acts of kindness and sacrifice for the good then there are acts of hate.

JMayo Well, I find myself wanting to weep like an Irish statue sometimes, and giggle like a London schoolgirl other times. Incredibly good things happen, as do incredibly bad. I think the essence of Jesus' crushing disappointment is made clear when Peter disowns him for the third time.

Are we bickering and gnashing teeth? I've found you to be quite civil. I hope you've found me to be the same.

I have attempted to do so to the best of my ability and have no complaints about your civility either.

As for the issue that was brought up, I do believe that turning the other cheek and being willing to follow Christ's example in being willing to take the false acquisations of others without becoming offended are important parts of Christianity, though that never negates the responsibility to state and stand (not fight) for the truth even in the face of falsehood and abuse.

Was Christ protected from temptation simply because he was God? As for the translation issue, would God not likely protect His own communication to the world?

No, Jesus wasn't protected from temptation. His coming and resisting temptation was the point.

As far as translation, clearly this is not the case. How many translations are there for the bible, many of which don't agree with each other or past incarnations of the bible?

If the path is a narrow one, and Jesus is the only Way, how can there be multiple ways He would lead us?

Each path is a narrow one. Just as each road is narrow. And each of us need different things to stay on the path. If each of us is travelling to Chicago from different parts of the world how exactly could we all take the same path? Wouldn't we need different amounts of gas and different types of maintenance, particularly if we are driving different vehicles and some of us will be on the trip for a long, long time?
What exactly is the "way" that "becomes clearer upon first acknowledging the role of Christ in your life"? If not by the Word, how do you know that acknowledging Christ is the right thing to do to begin with and how do you know what His role is in your life?
The way is the path you travel in life and how to stay on the narrow road becomes clearer to each individual upon acknowledging the savior. The words of God are written on your heart and all that is necessary is to read them and accept them to be true, they will tell you his role in your life.

I have attempted to do so to the best of my ability and have no complaints about your civility either.

As for the issue that was brought up, I do believe that turning the other cheek and being willing to follow Christ's example in being willing to take the false acquisations of others without becoming offended are important parts of Christianity, though that never negates the responsibility to state and stand (not fight) for the truth even in the face of falsehood and abuse.

I agree with this, even if I falter at times. Clearly, two people can be logical and disagree, but it's so much easier to resist falsehoods when they have no basis in logic. Not talking about anyone here *looks innocent*

No, Jesus wasn't protected from temptation. His coming and resisting temptation was the point.

As far as translation, clearly this is not the case. How many translations are there for the bible, many of which don't agree with each other or past incarnations of the bible?



Each path is a narrow one. Just as each road is narrow. And each of us need different things to stay on the path. If each of us is travelling to Chicago from different parts of the world how exactly could we all take the same path? Wouldn't we need different amounts of gas and different types of maintenance, particularly if we are driving different vehicles and some of us will be on the trip for a long, long time?

The way is the path you travel in life and how to stay on the narrow road becomes clearer to each individual upon acknowledging the savior. The words of God are written on your heart and all that is necessary is to read them and accept them to be true, they will tell you his role in your life.

How do you know that the words of God are written on your heart?

If there are so many different paths, how can Jesus be "the Way"? And, do all roads lead to Rome, so to speak, then? If not, why not and how do you know the difference?

To be honest, I find it hard to find in major theological difference in any of the "literal translations". I have to admit, I'm far more skeptical of paraphrases, but the literal translations tend to be pretty close in meaning.

I agree with this, even if I falter at times. Don't we all.

As for the translation issue, would God not likely protect His own communication to the world?

I think it is a bit dangerous for us to try and assume we know what God would and would not do.

If not by the Word, how do you know that acknowledging Christ is the right thing to do to begin with and how do you know what His role is in your life?

Still by the Word, but by the Word imparted to anyone who asks for it. If you ask for guidance, it is granted.


If there are so many different paths, how can Jesus be "the Way"? And, do all roads lead to Rome, so to speak, then? If not, why not and how do you know the difference?

(a) I don't think Jocabia is suggesting that each individual has different paths (although I could be wrong), but that the paths are different for each individual. We are all different, and will thus be led in a different manner.

(b) You know the difference the same way you know anything spiritual - you pray and ask for the answer. You ask for guidance.

I think it is a bit dangerous for us to try and assume we know what God would and would not do.



Still by the Word, but by the Word imparted to anyone who asks for it. If you ask for guidance, it is granted.



(a) I don't think Jocabia is suggesting that each individual has different paths (although I could be wrong), but that the paths are different for each individual. We are all different, and will thus be led in a different manner.

(b) You know the difference the same way you know anything spiritual - you pray and ask for the answer. You ask for guidance.

First statement, I agree with you and was more or less responding in the speculative manner that I was addressed. I'd say that direct Divine revelation is the best source of information known to man. Unfortunately, the closest thing I have to direct Divine revelation is second, or third or fourth hand... The Bible. I have yet to meet anyone that I was convicted to believe that God had spoken directly to... I find the scripture to be a "more" objective tool than my personal perceptions that can change and waiver easily without something to base them on. Not that salvation is in the Scriptures, just that without them we'd have no idea we needed saving or how to go about being saved.

How do you know that the words of God are written on your heart?

How do you? What's your question? The question could just as easily be how do you know the Bible is the word of God? The bible says that God writes on my heart directly, but my heart doesn't say the the bible is infallible as it is and has been for some time in the hands of man. Thus since both sources agree that my heart has the words of God and only one says the bible is the infallible word of God, well, there you go.

If there are so many different paths, how can Jesus be "the Way"? And, do all roads lead to Rome, so to speak, then? If not, why not and how do you know the difference?

I answered that already. Jesus isn't the path you take in life. Jesus is the guide on the path you take in life. Like I said, how can mapquest be a guide on all those different roads?

We don't know the difference. Jesus does. That's why we need him as a guide.

To be honest, I find it hard to find in major theological difference in any of the "literal translations". I have to admit, I'm far more skeptical of paraphrases, but the literal translations tend to be pretty close in meaning.

Hmmm... really? Depends on what you consider a major theological difference. More importantly, you have not seen that different people can come up with different meanings of the texts if they have the exact same words? How many different versions of Christianity are based on what they believe to be an accurate translation of the text of the bible?

Are you saying that Christians should let slide any immoral or evil behavior? Surely God would not have given us a conscience and an analytical brain if we weren't supposed to use them.

The point, I would think, is that WE OURSELVES should police OURSELVES, and let others choose to live their lives as they choose.

You may not approve of someone's lifestyle. You can still treat that person with respect.

How do you? What's your question? The question could just as easily be how do you know the Bible is the word of God? The bible says that God writes on my heart directly, but my heart doesn't say the the bible is infallible as it is and has been for some time in the hands of man. Thus since both sources agree that my heart has the words of God and only one says the bible is the infallible word of God, well, there you go.


Oh my gosh... The end all of circular self-deception, the argumentation needed to be able to do whatever the heck I want.

I sure hope you never convert anyone because no one has a pure heart (not even the saints as even Jesus quoted scripture to defeat satan's arguments)we are all susceptible to misjudgment. You take the leash off of the mad dog and say, "go and have fun, do whatever your heart desires." It’s not exactly what Jesus did.

You enable the sinner to not even feel guilty. You counter the tool the spirit uses to lead people to choose better next time.

Oh my gosh... The end all of circular self-deception, the argumentation needed to be able to do whatever the heck I want.

I sure hope you never convert anyone because no one has a pure heart (not even the saints as even Jesus quoted scripture to defeat satan's arguments)we are all susceptible to misjudgment. You take the leash off of the mad dog and say, "go and have fun, do whatever your heart desires." It’s not exactly what Jesus did.

You enable the sinner to not even feel guilty. You counter the tool the spirit uses to lead people to choose better next time.

Just as I quote scripture. I said I'm suspect of it, not that I dismiss it altogether. The fact that you hope I would never convert someone is quite telling. It's more important to you that you be right than people find Jesus. I wonder what that says about you as a Christian.

The bible says that my heart has been written on. Who's being deceptive? Have I suggested that one should do whatever their heart desires? Have I suggested that a sinner should not feel guilt or repent? What I do is ask for people to listen to that pure connection to Jesus that we all have available to us once we've asked for it. Do you deny that Jesus speaks to the heart of one who asks him to? Do you suggest that if I ask for guidance from our savior that I can and will be deceived? I find it amazing that it's been suggested that the bible cannot be currupted, but the heart of one whose name is in the book of life can be lost even though in that same bible it says that one whose name is written cannot be lost.

I mean look, you claim to follow the bible, but it's okay to be deceptive (shall I quote you), to oppress people in the name of that bible, denies the importance of the golden rule and to deny that people have a personal connection with Jesus. Forgive me if I try to be the type of Christian who loves the sinner, actually loves the sinner, by recommending to them that they find Christ rather trying to oppress freedom of thought and denying them rights that most would agree are basic. I try to live as Christ did and to convert people by showing them love and understanding.

Luke 7 10-13 10While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

12On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'[a] For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Amazing how much you sound like the Pharisees.

The burden of proof is on me for something that doesn't matter. Forgive me if I won't be distracted by this little piece of information. You don't know he was referring to fishing either, do you? In fact, you really haven't shown how a fishing reference even makes sense. More importantly, it doesn't change the meaning of the passage. As far as my point in bringing it up, I was trying to lead you to sites that incorporate historical and cultural data into the analysis of the passages. You clearly don't care to do that.

If it didn't matter, then why did you bring it up? I only brought up the fact that Jesus was trying to make it look as though he were a fulfillment of prophecy and pointed to Micah as the source of his statement about dividing families. That's when you started in with your little history lesson of what Micah really meant about men hunting their brothers with nets. Now that I'm asking for an independent source to prove your claim, you tell me it is up to me to prove it wrong! When I remind you that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, you tell me that it doesn't matter anyway! Forgive me if I'm a little confused over your debating style.

As for why the fishing net explanation makes sense to me (and I acknowledge that it may never make sense to you - but this is my own take on it), Jesus was forever dropping hints about his "true" identity for people to catch on to (regardless of whether he was created as a fictional character and it was the gospel writers who had him saying these things or if he really lived as a flesh and blood man and said them) - which most never seemed to do. The statement about making his apostles fishers of men fits right in with the Micah passage (from which another of his "hints" had already been taken).

So you don't believe he existed. And yet, you claim this imaginary person wasn't who people said he was. What's next? Are you going to try and convince children that believe in Santa Claus that he really prefers to eat the heads of mice when he delivers presents. How can you argue that he didn't exist and that when he did exist he had different intentions than people claim? You can't. Your arguments just keep getting worse.

What I was trying to convey here was 1) I have my doubts that he ever existed as a single flesh and blood human being; or 2) if he did exist, he was nothing more than your typical cult leader with a God complex. I thought that was clear enough, but perhaps not. Here - let me try again. I can neither prove nor disprove his existence, but I lean a little bit more towards the idea that he was more of a fictional character than anything (about 60/40). The one thing I am personally very certain of is that if he existed, he was not God incarnate (any more than any of the rest of us are), nor was he the "Son of God" (any more than any of the rest of us are sons and daughters of a divine being), he was not born of a virgin, and the stories of the "miracles" he allegedly performed was nothing more than legend-making by the gospel writers. Of course, this is my take on it and I can't prove any of this to you any more than you can prove what you believe to me. This is simply a matter of personal belief.

I have the burden of proving what?

The story about dueling with nets and the claim that this is what Micah was referring to. I'm not saying it couldn't possibly be true, but it sounds like another one of those "fish stories" that Christians tend to spread amongst themselves without ever bothering to confirm the truth of the matter. You were being so arrogant about it that I just had to call you on it - that's all.

You came on here and attacked my beliefs. I've debunked your attacks as specious and based on a false premise. I don't care if you hold my beliefs to be true. As I've stated multiple times in multiple threads, I will never try to force my beliefs on someone.

I really didn't mean to attack your beliefs and I'm glad you don't try to force your beliefs on anyone - I just wanted to show you another side. Christians seem to think that everyone else thinks their "savior" was as wonderful as they think he was. The reality (regarding what everyone thinks of him, I mean) is quite different, though I could see how you might be happier with your head stuck in the sand on that one. Sorry to disillusion you.

Strange, you did nothing to refute any of my arguments, you just kept attempting to inject new ones that really have nothing to do with the point.

My point about Jesus being anti-family was intended to address your concern that Jesus would be crying over the state of the world and how we treat one another today. I'm saying, quite to the contrary, that he would be sitting back and enjoying the show.

An appeal to ignorance? I gave you historical and cultural data that explains the message of the passages and you ignored it.

And I asked you for independent proof to support your claims. This you have so far failed to produce.

You made claims that can only be made if you don't read the entire bible and you assume it was written today.

But I have read the entire bible (I actually attended Seminary classes for one year back in the early 70's), and I'm well aware it wasn't written today, but thanks for the update anyway.

You don't understand the meaning of the greek word 'hate' and you haven't refuted my explanation of it.

Oh come now. Do you seriously believe that that tired old explanation hasn't already been trotted out by every budding apologist on the planet and that I haven't already heard it at least a couple dozen times before? Oh, I understand what you're saying, alright - I just don't buy it. First, I feel that the Jesus presented by the gospel writers was more than capable of expressing himself clearly when he chose to do so. This same Jesus was also presented by the gospel writers as someone who was often at odds with, and even hateful to, his own family. But even if I were to go along with the idea that he only meant that his disciples should love him more than their own families - I still have a couple of problems with that: 1) How dare he place himself above a person's own family? and 2) how would this requirement of his make him different than every other cult leader in the world?

You don't understand the meaning of the word 'dead' when Jesus used it to a new disciple and you haven't refuted my explanation of it.

Of course I haven't refuted it - this has always been crystal clear to me - even without the help of apologists, believe it or not. Or did you think I thought he meant that people who were literally dead must be left to bury their dead? Where did you ever get such a notion? Did you really think that this was ever my point? No. My point was that Jesus considered people who took their family responsibilities seriously as being "spiritually dead," as if abandoning them is somehow ever so much more spiritual. Apparently you are absolutely fine with this, but I have some serious problems with it.

You're arguing from a position of Jesus didn't exist AND that somehow he did exist but he must have been what you claim even though historical and cultural documents and the bible don't agree with you. Interesting position.

I'm sorry you're having such a tough time reading my posts. I'll try to be clearer in the future. I've already covered this above, but please let me know if you're still having trouble understanding my position.

I'll ask again: Was Martin Luther King a man who relished stirring the shit because he wanted to help people have a better life? Was it him that was divisive or those that wanted to continue to oppress minorities?

I think it takes a bit of both traits to achieve the things he did - i.e., one who likes stirring the shit and being the center of attention, as well as one who wants to help the oppressed. If one didn't enjoy all the attention, one would go about it quite differently, wouldn't one? At any rate, I failed to note where MLK said he was God or the Son of God and that people must love him more than their own families and so on.

Were feminists divisive when the requested the right to vote for women?

See my answer regarding MLK.

Jesus let people know what the cost ON EARTH would be for following his belief that is directly in opposition what you claim the passages were meant to say. You have not refuted this point.

There's a huge difference between warning people that if they become your disciple, it may very well cost them everything they have, including their homes and families, and that they must be completely aware of that reality when making their choice, and telling them that they must hate and abandon their families and that your mission on earth is to divide families and you can hardly wait to get started on it. Read Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26 again. Read the words that are there - not the ones you wish were there. I mean, come on - was Jesus really so inept when it came to expressing himself?

If it didn't matter, then why did you bring it up? I only brought up the fact that Jesus was trying to make it look as though he were a fulfillment of prophecy and pointed to Micah as the source of his statement about dividing families. That's when you started in with your little history lesson of what Micah really meant about men hunting their brothers with nets. Now that I'm asking for an independent source to prove your claim, you tell me it is up to me to prove it wrong! When I remind you that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, you tell me that it doesn't matter anyway! Forgive me if I'm a little confused over your debating style.

I know yours. It's called dropping arguments. That's where rather than addressing everything I say you pick one thing you can dispute and you stick with it. My post had a lot of substance and the one thing I cannot substantiate you can't let go. That's the net and sword thing. I never told you to prove me wrong. I suggested that you can't disprove my claim. Again, I told you in so many words why I introduced the argument and that I intentionally picked an argument that didn't matter. I was just trying to get you to look at context. Another point you continue to ignore.

As for why the fishing net explanation makes sense to me (and I acknowledge that it may never make sense to you - but this is my own take on it), Jesus was forever dropping hints about his "true" identity for people to catch on to (regardless of whether he was created as a fictional character and it was the gospel writers who had him saying these things or if he really lived as a flesh and blood man and said them) - which most never seemed to do. The statement about making his apostles fishers of men fits right in with the Micah passage (from which another of his "hints" had already been taken).

So he was prophesied, but he didn't exist. Interesting. Wait, but if I read a little bit further he is enjoying the show from his imaginary throne that doesn't exist.

What I was trying to convey here was 1) I have my doubts that he ever existed as a single flesh and blood human being; or 2) if he did exist, he was nothing more than your typical cult leader with a God complex. I thought that was clear enough, but perhaps not. Here - let me try again. I can neither prove nor disprove his existence, but I lean a little bit more towards the idea that he was more of a fictional character than anything (about 60/40). The one thing I am personally very certain of is that if he existed, he was not God incarnate (any more than any of the rest of us are), nor was he the "Son of God" (any more than any of the rest of us are sons and daughters of a divine being), he was not born of a virgin, and the stories of the "miracles" he allegedly performed was nothing more than legend-making by the gospel writers. Of course, this is my take on it and I can't prove any of this to you any more than you can prove what you believe to me. This is simply a matter of personal belief.

So basically, he doesn't exist, but certainly if he could have existed he couldn't have done what people say he did (remember that there people who didn't believe he was the son of God, Jews, that also believe that he did what he did based on their own histories).

The story about dueling with nets and the claim that this is what Micah was referring to. I'm not saying it couldn't possibly be true, but it sounds like another one of those "fish stories" that Christians tend to spread amongst themselves without ever bothering to confirm the truth of the matter. You were being so arrogant about it that I just had to call you on it - that's all.

Again, dropping arguments. I made it clear why I was asking you to look at this information. You can't let it go. It doesn't matter to the argument, but you continue to press the point. Is that easier than addressing my debunking of your points about the bible?

I really didn't mean to attack your beliefs and I'm glad you don't try to force your beliefs on anyone - I just wanted to show you another side. Christians seem to think that everyone else thinks their "savior" was as wonderful as they think he was. The reality (regarding what everyone thinks of him, I mean) is quite different, though I could see how you might be happier with your head stuck in the sand on that one. Sorry to disillusion you.

Stuck in the sand about what? You think I'm confused about the fact that the majority of people do not actually believe that Jesus Christ was the savior? Based on what evidence do you make that assumption about me? None. Much like many of your arguments.

My point about Jesus being anti-family was intended to address your concern that Jesus would be crying over the state of the world and how we treat one another today. I'm saying, quite to the contrary, that he would be sitting back and enjoying the show.

A point you've failed to support. Unlike you, I've addressed every point you've raised. You've made a point of not addressing my points.

And I asked you for independent proof to support your claims. This you have so far failed to produce.

Independent proof on one claim that I've admitted I can't support. However, it was a side issue. You want to make it central because you can't actually address my points.

But I have read the entire bible (I actually attended Seminary classes for one year back in the early 70's), and I'm well aware it wasn't written today, but thanks for the update anyway.

You're welcome. I'm always here to help.

Oh come now. Do you seriously believe that that tired old explanation hasn't already been trotted out by every budding apologist on the planet and that I haven't already heard it at least a couple dozen times before? Oh, I understand what you're saying, alright - I just don't buy it. First, I feel that the Jesus presented by the gospel writers was more than capable of expressing himself clearly when he chose to do so.

He expressed himself clearly in the language of the time and it was misunderstood in the translation. What evidence do you have that Jesus asked that a Bible be written with a word for word description of his sermons?

This same Jesus was also presented by the gospel writers as someone who was often at odds with, and even hateful to, his own family. But even if I were to go along with the idea that he only meant that his disciples should love him more than their own families - I still have a couple of problems with that: 1) How dare he place himself above a person's own family? and 2) how would this requirement of his make him different than every other cult leader in the world?

You make these assumptions based on him not being the Son of God. If he were truly the savior, how dare he not put himself above every man, woman and child. Your argument is circular and relies on your primary premise.

Of course I haven't refuted it - this has always been crystal clear to me - even without the help of apologists, believe it or not. Or did you think I thought he meant that people who were literally dead must be left to bury their dead?

You mistake which dead I meant. The point is that the dead being buried weren't in fact dead. I gave you the cultural explanation of that. It was common at that time to use the elderly as an excuse to avoid meeting the call and they were referred to in that specific way because there was a rule that attending to the actual dead was an aceptable reason to delay the call. It was eventually expanded to mean attending to anyone who someone claimed might be dying. Jesus was suggest that this was an excuse that might be accepted by Isreal but he knew the difference.

Where did you ever get such a notion? Did you really think that this was ever my point? No. My point was that Jesus considered people who took their family responsibilities seriously as being "spiritually dead," as if abandoning them is somehow ever so much more spiritual.

He didn't say that taking family responsiblities seriously made you spiritually dead. He said made up family duties doesn't somehow excuse you from your spiritual duties. Again, there were tons of made up spiritual duties at this time, so there were tons of excuses that people had readily handy. Jesus said these excuses were not necessary as he wasn't preaching a bunch of duties. He was asking people to spread his word not sacrifice animals or perform any of a million other duties. Again, you've dropped that argument because you can't support it.

Apparently you are absolutely fine with this, but I have some serious problems with it.

I'm absolutely fine with people taking not making excuses to avoid the calling of God. My father has been throwing up every day for as long as I can remember. I'm not kidding. He's a heavy smoker and he throws up every morning when he gets up for work. He piles salt on his food and he never excercises. I have been absolutely sure he had less than five years to live since I was a small child, so has my mother. However, my father does not need attending to. He works full-time twenty-five years later but at that time I could have used my dying father as an excuse.

I'm sorry you're having such a tough time reading my posts. I'll try to be clearer in the future. I've already covered this above, but please let me know if you're still having trouble understanding my position.

Again dropping arguments. However, I'm smiling, because I like it when people are snarky. Please continue. It makes it more fun to continue the conversation.

I think it takes a bit of both traits to achieve the things he did - i.e., one who likes stirring the shit and being the center of attention, as well as one who wants to help the oppressed. If one didn't enjoy all the attention, one would go about it quite differently, wouldn't one? At any rate, I failed to note where MLK said he was God or the Son of God and that people must love him more than their own families and so on.

Nice job dropping the point.

See my answer regarding MLK.

Again dropping the point. You can't see how this could not have been done without people persecuting those who followed.

There's a huge difference between warning people that if they become your disciple, it may very well cost them everything they have, including their homes and families, and that they must be completely aware of that reality when making their choice, and telling them that they must hate and abandon their families and that your mission on earth is to divide families and you can hardly wait to get started on it.

Again, you deny the actual linguistic definition of hate. You deny that he couldn't wait to start saving people even if some would come to persecute them and some of them might even be relatives. Strange? I (admittedly sarcastically) apologized to my parents for abadoning them when I went in the military and my mother thanked me for leaving.

Read Luke 12:49-53 and Luke 14:26 again. Read the words that are there - not the ones you wish were there. I mean, come on - was Jesus really so inept when it came to expressing himself?
Read it without context or any idea of what the actual language meant is another way of wording your point. Understand that I don't believe that the bible was the intent of Jesus or that it was meant to be read without context. I didn't change the words. I incorporated context. Try reading Huckleberry Finn without using the historical context of the time. It would be impossible to properly understand the story. One would think it was a story about a slave and a bigot.

I know yours. It's called dropping arguments. That's where rather than addressing everything I say you pick one thing you can dispute and you stick with it. My post had a lot of substance and the one thing I cannot substantiate you can't let go. That's the net and sword thing. I never told you to prove me wrong. I suggested that you can't disprove my claim. Again, I told you in so many words why I introduced the argument and that I intentionally picked an argument that didn't matter. I was just trying to get you to look at context. Another point you continue to ignore.

If you'll go back and take a look at your last post (previous to this one I'm responding to), I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a point I didn't address. You may not agree with my responses, but I addressed each point.


So he was prophesied, but he didn't exist. Interesting. Wait, but if I read a little bit further he is enjoying the show from his imaginary throne that doesn't exist.

No, I'm not saying he was prophesied. I'm saying that the Jesus created by the gospel writers took Old Testament passages and made them look like prophecies of his coming. But in doing so, he was also leaving clues as to his "true identity" for those who were interested in truth.

So basically, he doesn't exist, but certainly if he could have existed he couldn't have done what people say he did (remember that there people who didn't believe he was the son of God, Jews, that also believe that he did what he did based on their own histories).

Really? Jews believe he walked on water and raised the dead? That's news to me.

Again, dropping arguments. I made it clear why I was asking you to look at this information. You can't let it go. It doesn't matter to the argument, but you continue to press the point. Is that easier than addressing my debunking of your points about the bible?

Historical context - yes, I know - you keep repeating yourself. But if your "historical context" is inaccurate, what good does it do me?

Stuck in the sand about what? You think I'm confused about the fact that the majority of people do not actually believe that Jesus Christ was the savior? Based on what evidence do you make that assumption about me? None. Much like many of your arguments.

Based on the fact that you do not want me to express my opinions about Jesus. Or is this your way of showing your appreciation?

A point you've failed to support. Unlike you, I've addressed every point you've raised. You've made a point of not addressing my points.

I have shown you a number of statements the gospel writers put in Jesus's mouth that were quite anti-family - what more do you want? Did I mention that he rejected his own family and replaced them in his heart with fellow cult members (see Matthew 12:46-50)? How about the fact that he was rude to his own mother (see John 2:2-4 and Luke 2:42-49)? How about the fact that he lied to his own brothers (John 7:8-10)?

Independent proof on one claim that I've admitted I can't support. However, it was a side issue. You want to make it central because you can't actually address my points.

Okay, forget it then. But at least admit that you're simply relying on Christian lore for much of your information regarding historical context.

He expressed himself clearly in the language of the time and it was misunderstood in the translation. What evidence do you have that Jesus asked that a Bible be written with a word for word description of his sermons?

I have no evidence that he ever even existed to ask such a thing. I'm pretty sure Huckleberry Finn never asked to have a story written about him either, but Mark Twain did a much better job of conveying his ideas than the gospel writers did (to also address a later point of yours).

You make these assumptions based on him not being the Son of God. If he were truly the savior, how dare he not put himself above every man, woman and child. Your argument is circular and relies on your primary premise.

No, if he were truly "the savior," he would have pointed to God the entire time, rather than putting himself in God's place (see Isaiah 14:13,14).

You mistake which dead I meant. The point is that the dead being buried weren't in fact dead. I gave you the cultural explanation of that. It was common at that time to use the elderly as an excuse to avoid meeting the call and they were referred to in that specific way because there was a rule that attending to the actual dead was an aceptable reason to delay the call. It was eventually expanded to mean attending to anyone who someone claimed might be dying. Jesus was suggest that this was an excuse that might be accepted by Isreal but he knew the difference.

Ah, that dead. Yes, I've heard that one before as well. So far, you haven't told me much I hadn't already heard elsewhere from other apologists (except for the dueling with nets thingy - I'll admit that was a new one on me). And I'll accept that this is quite possibly the idea the gospel writers intended to convey, however inept they may have been. However, Jesus was still putting himself above God and family, so I still have a problem with it.

He didn't say that taking family responsiblities seriously made you spiritually dead. He said made up family duties doesn't somehow excuse you from your spiritual duties. Again, there were tons of made up spiritual duties at this time, so there were tons of excuses that people had readily handy. Jesus said these excuses were not necessary as he wasn't preaching a bunch of duties. He was asking people to spread his word not sacrifice animals or perform any of a million other duties. Again, you've dropped that argument because you can't support it.

What spiritual duties? The ones that Jesus assigned to them, you mean? Again - there he was putting himself above God and family again.

I'm absolutely fine with people taking not making excuses to avoid the calling of God. My father has been throwing up every day for as long as I can remember. I'm not kidding. He's a heavy smoker and he throws up every morning when he gets up for work. He piles salt on his food and he never excercises. I have been absolutely sure he had less than five years to live since I was a small child, so has my mother. However, my father does not need attending to. He works full-time twenty-five years later but at that time I could have used my dying father as an excuse.

And I suppose that if you had used your "dying father" as an excuse, it would only have meant that you weren't all that into the idea of joining a cult that worshipped a man as God. And who could blame you? But personally, I would have just said it straight up.

Again dropping arguments. However, I'm smiling, because I like it when people are snarky. Please continue. It makes it more fun to continue the conversation.

Oh good - I'm glad you're having fun. Me too. But I really don't understand your comment about dropping arguments. I'll admit that I am very limited on time (I'm due to start work in 4 minutes, and I still haven't washed up my breakfast dishes) - but I am nevertheless trying to address all of your arguments. :confused:

Again dropping the point. You can't see how this could not have been done without people persecuting those who followed.

I did admit that it takes both qualities to achieve what these people achieved - the desire to stir the shit and be the center of attention, as well as the desire to help the oppressed. A different sort of person would have approached it quite differently, but might not have achieved the same results. So gospel-Jesus was a shit stirrer - but he had a real goal as well. Of course, we may not agree on what that goal was...



Again, you deny the actual linguistic definition of hate. You deny that he couldn't wait to start saving people even if some would come to persecute them and some of them might even be relatives. Strange? I (admittedly sarcastically) apologized to my parents for abadoning them when I went in the military and my mother thanked me for leaving.

I don't think he was "saving" anyone. I think he had another goal entirely.


Read it without context or any idea of what the actual language meant is another way of wording your point. Understand that I don't believe that the bible was the intent of Jesus or that it was meant to be read without context. I didn't change the words. I incorporated context. Try reading Huckleberry Finn without using the historical context of the time. It would be impossible to properly understand the story. One would think it was a story about a slave and a bigot.

I already addressed the Huckleberry Finn issue - and now I'm 3 minutes late for work. Until next time.

Did anyone remember to remove the nails after they cut him down? That'd make somebody cry, fer sure.

And isn't it always those little things we forget, like putting the degradable block of fish-food in the aquarium before heading away on holiday, removing nails from corspes, etc.?

Pure blasphemy

*snip*
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have to argue from a position that he existed and said these things or he didn't. You can't take both positions. It's illogical. Pick one. I'll wait.

Oh, and I love your being snarky is trying to have a reasonable conversation and my being snarky is me trying to prevent you from talking about Jesus. I think your arguments are ill-founded but I'm quite willing to continue once you stop trying to hold every position and argue from different positions to address my points.

Just as I quote scripture. I said I'm suspect of it, not that I dismiss it altogether. The fact that you hope I would never convert someone is quite telling. It's more important to you that you be right than people find Jesus. I wonder what that says about you as a Christian.

The bible says that my heart has been written on. Who's being deceptive? Have I suggested that one should do whatever their heart desires? Have I suggested that a sinner should not feel guilt or repent? What I do is ask for people to listen to that pure connection to Jesus that we all have available to us once we've asked for it. Do you deny that Jesus speaks to the heart of one who asks him to? Do you suggest that if I ask for guidance from our savior that I can and will be deceived? I find it amazing that it's been suggested that the bible cannot be currupted, but the heart of one whose name is in the book of life can be lost even though in that same bible it says that one whose name is written cannot be lost.


The very minute you find yourself attending a church or listening to someone preach, and they say that they think we have out-grown our need for scripture, that our hearts can guide us better, is the minute you should leave that congregation or stop listening to that preacher.

You can be a perfectly fine Christian and never read the Bible, lots of people either can’t read it or haven’t had access to the scripture. But to go out into the world, to be a Christian among the world without the scripture is like going into a battle without your armor. Playing a football game without a helmet, your more vulnerable to injury.

It is important that we not just read this book, but that we study it and grind ourselves against it, like a tool that is sharpened on the stone, we do more and better work when we are well maintained. The God of the universe is introduced to us in it and within it’s covers we can become intimate with the Creator. While God used men to write the books, they were "carried along" by His Spirit through the generations.

You can understand God's word, because this is the intent of its Author. God gave you His word and He wants you to understand it. He did not give you His book to hide Himself, but to reveal Himself to you. God has revealed Himself to you because He wants you to know Him. It’s important to remember this, we need to read the Bible because it shows us how God meets our deepest needs today

When we read the Bible, we come face to face with our sin problem and therefore, our need for God. This Bible will separate you from your sins, or your sins will separate you from the Bible.

The Bible reveals our sin problem by stating, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Not only does the Bible state man's problem, it also states the result of our sins: "The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) This death is the spiritual death one will suffer in eternal punishment, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)

The Bible is our daily reminder that Jesus is the only solution to our condition. "Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:27) "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Not only is Jesus Christ our way to the Father and the remission of our sins, He is the way to triumphant living: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

The Bible is designed to lead you to a personal relationship with the Lord. We would not do wrong to think of the Bible is our owner’s manual to life, it is God's book for us to reach fulfillment both here and in the hereafter. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

I think that too many Bible minimizing “spirit’s in my heart” Christians today prescribe to these views and are too easily swayed by new and savvy intellectual-sounding philosophies and theories, or that they, in our high-tech world full of alternative choices and ‘”new” sounding theories, naturalistic-evolutionary-loving-skeptics, are embarrassed and made uncomfortable by the obvious supernatural elements of Scripture. They make excuses for the parts of the scripture that they think is not popular in society today and their pride is hurt when they are accused of being simpletons for choosing to believe scripture even when it's not a choice that makes them popular or well liked. They feel like they need to appease every latest contemporary fad of the moment that is being promoted in society and by the media.

But If we take the passages about prophecies to be symbolic, for example, then why would we take the passages about Christ's deity to be literal? And who decides which literal-sounding passages should be seen as allegory - and why should I trust that person's interpretation, even if it’s my own?

To convert someone to Christianity and then tell them that they can’t trust the Bible but that their own hearts are more reliable than the scripture for knowing God’s will, is like setting them adrift without a paddle, to ride along their river-of-life, unable to steer their own direction because they are tossed about by the currents and whims of the environment that the world throws at them. They might very well make it to the end of the river, but they are inevitably going to be much more worse for the wear than if you would have just given them a paddle to steer by when you cast them off.

Studying the Bible makes it possible for us to be prepared for life’s challenges:
Ephesians 6 10-18
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

The very minute you find yourself attending a church or listening to a someone preach that they think we have out-grown our need for scripture, that our hearts can guide us better, is the minute you should leave that congregation or stop listening to that preacher.

I generally don't listen to preachers. I look at all of Matthew 6, but let's just stick to the appropriate passages.

Matthew 6:5-8 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

I find almost no preachers adhere to this little tidbit. Or most of Matthew 6. I choose to worship with only those that I've gotten to know well enough to know where their heart is, for I hold that the position of the heart is more important than a bible in their hand. What does it profit my soul to be taught by someone who says how important Jesus and the bible are to them while they preach intolerance and hatred, pride and prejudice?

You can be a perfectly fine Christian and never read the Bible, lots of people either can’t read it or haven’t had access to the scripture. But to go out into the world, to be a Christian among the world without the scripture is like going into a battle without your armor. Playing a football game without a helmet, your more vulnerable to injury.

Again, you ignore my point. I read the bible and know it. I've quoted quite a bit of scripture here to you and others. However, I do not read with only one eye. I read with both eyes and a critical mind.

It is important that we not just read this book, but that we study it and grind ourselves against it, like a tool that is sharpened on the stone, we do more and better work when we are well maintained. The God of the universe is introduced to us in it and within it’s covers we can become intimate with the Creator. While God used men to write the books, they were "carried along" by His Spirit through the generations.

The God of the universe was not introduced to me through the Bible. I hold that the God of the universe is written on every rock, on every heart, on every conscious. It takes a hard heart to not hear language that speaks so loudly.

You can understand God's word, because this is the intent of its Author. God gave you His word and He wants you to understand it. He did not give you His book to hide Himself, but to reveal Himself to you. God has revealed Himself to you because He wants you to know Him. It’s important to remember this, we need to read the Bible because it shows us how God meets our deepest needs today

Interesting how so many can read and study this book all their lives and yet not live by it's principles. Interesting how so many can use it as an excuse for hatred and evil. Interesting how so many have used it to divide Christians rather than to help people to learn to hear God screaming at them in their hearts and in nature.

When we read the Bible, we come face to face with our sin problem and therefore, our need for God. This Bible will separate you from your sins, or your sins will separate you from the Bible.

Huh, I've read no such thing in the bible. I was under the impression that Jesus Christ separated us from our sins. Maybe I read it wrong... or YOU did.

The Bible reveals our sin problem by stating, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) Not only does the Bible state man's problem, it also states the result of our sins: "The wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23) This death is the spiritual death one will suffer in eternal punishment, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)

Is the 'me' here, the Bible? To equate the Bible with Jesus Christ or the Lord is blasphemous. To suggest that Bible can save you rather than Jesus Christ is also blasphemous.

The Bible is our daily reminder that Jesus is the only solution to our condition. "Christ in you, the hope of glory." (Colossians 1:27) "For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) Not only is Jesus Christ our way to the Father and the remission of our sins, He is the way to triumphant living: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)

Oh, you get to the heart of the matter two paragraphs later. Jesus is the hope and the glory. Not the bible. "This Bible will separate you from your sins." Wrong. Jesus Christ will separate you from your sins. There is no other way. I didn't learn this from the bible. The bible has confirmed this, but it is not what brought me to the lord.

The Bible is designed to lead you to a personal relationship with the Lord. We would not do wrong to think of the Bible is our owner’s manual to life, it is God's book for us to reach fulfillment both here and in the hereafter. “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4)

I don't hold that the bible is the only means the Lord and Jesus Christ use to speak to us. I do hold at as the only means with which they speak to us that is in the control of other people.

I think that too many Bible minimizing “spirit’s in my heart” Christians today prescribe to these views and are too easily swayed by new and savvy intellectual-sounding philosophies and theories, or that they, in our high-tech world full of alternative choices and ‘”new” sounding theories, naturalistic-evolutionary-loving-skeptics, are embarrassed and made uncomfortable by the obvious supernatural elements of Scripture. They make excuses for the parts of the scripture that they think is not popular in society today and their pride is hurt because they think that they will be thought of as simpletons if they choose the scripture are and the answer over the latest contemporary fad being promoted by society and media.

So you say again that those that chose to embrace their personal relationship with God can be tricked. Interesting. How is it that most of the crimes done against humanity in the name of God and Jesus Christ were done by people who held the Bible to be infallible? Seems like those that hold the Bible as infallible are just as vulnerable as those that hold that their personal relationship with Jesus Christ is infallible. But I can't speak for either group and don't purport to. I can only say that I can feel and hear my connection with Jesus. I can only testify to the purity of that connection and make decisions on who I may accept teachings from by weighing those teachings against the words the Lord gives to my heart.

But If we take the passages about prophecies to be symbolic, for example, then why would we take the passages about Christ's deity to be literal? And who decides which literal-sounding passages should be seen as allegory - and why should I trust that person's interpretation, even if it’s my own?

Not symbolic. They were written by men who didn't have words for what they were seeing. So they must be translated. They were explaining to the best of their ability. Why when they descibe these prophesies are there no words like helicopters and guns, do you think? Do you suppose it's because those words did not exist.

To convert someone to Christianity and then tell them that they can’t trust the Bible but that their own hearts are more reliable than the scripture for knowing God’s will, is like setting them adrift without a paddle, to ride along their river-of-life, unable to steer their own direction because they are tossed about by the currents and whims of the environment that the world throws at them. They might very well make it to the end of the river, but they are inevitably going to be much more worse for the wear than if you would have just given them a paddle to steer by when you cast them off.

Again, you question the guidance of Jesus Christ. Do you worship our savior or the Bible? I encourage people to use the reason and intellect given them by our Lord to analyze the Bible and how it applies to the world around them. Reason and intellect were loving gifts. I encourage them to allow people to excercise their free will in coming to the Lord. This was God's way. Free will was another loving gift. We are here to lead people to Jesus Christ. To force them is to deny all of the gifts that Lord has bestowed us with, including that gift God views as most precious. I choose to not throw these gifts in the dust.

Studying the Bible makes it possible for us to be prepared for life’s challenges:
Ephesians 6 10-18
Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

And here is why I hold some translations to be suspect. This is in direct contradiction to the words of Christ.

Ephesians 6:18 18Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

I wear the belt of truth and hold the shield of faith and sWORD of the Spirit. You hold that the only word is found in print. I suggest that it was intended to mean no such thing.

Luke 6:43-45 43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

It comes after that other little thing I like to quote about not judging others and removing the plank from your eye before the speck of dust from your neighbor.

More importantly I wear the only armor of the Lord that I need. The name of my armor is Jesus Christ. When Jesus Christ and the word he has put on my heart are standing between me and evil, who am I to hold up the Bible as a secondary defense? Where is the faith in that? I do not have two masters.

A little something to leave you with.

Matthew 15:3-9 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[b] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.'"

How do you? What's your question? The question could just as easily be how do you know the Bible is the word of God? The bible says that God writes on my heart directly, but my heart doesn't say the the bible is infallible as it is and has been for some time in the hands of man. Thus since both sources agree that my heart has the words of God and only one says the bible is the infallible word of God, well, there you go.



I answered that already. Jesus isn't the path you take in life. Jesus is the guide on the path you take in life. Like I said, how can mapquest be a guide on all those different roads?

We don't know the difference. Jesus does. That's why we need him as a guide.



Hmmm... really? Depends on what you consider a major theological difference. More importantly, you have not seen that different people can come up with different meanings of the texts if they have the exact same words? How many different versions of Christianity are based on what they believe to be an accurate translation of the text of the bible?

I'll start with the bottom and work my way back up... The coming up of differing versions of Christianity will certainly not be improved by everyone "listening to their hearts" as that tends to get even more divergent than interpretations of scripture. Yes, people read the same portion of scripture differently on occasion. That doesn't make scripture fallible as much as it is further indication that we are fallible.

If you don't know the difference, how can you be sure that it is Jesus that is your Guide?

If you saying that "all those different roads" get you to there, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Jesus said He was the only "Way". That, "no one comes to the Father but by Me." I don't see multiple roads described there...

If you don't believe the bible to be the "Truth", why would you assume that it is correct when it says that God would write His Laws on your heart? Who's to say that isn't one of the fallible portions? In which case maybe your heart contridicts what God really intended to be said...

The question about how do you know whether or not the words of God are written on your heart, is to ask, if you don't have more than one source for the "words of God" what do you verify against. Which ideas, opinions, imaginings, thoughts are the words of God and which aren't. I use scripture to check myself, but with out it, I'm concern that I'm capable of fooling myself into believing things.

Jeremiah 17:9 is a major warning about trusting one's own heart: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Fortunately, the answer is God, but that is one of the reasons why He gave us His Word, so that we would be less likely to be self-deceived. The amazing thing is that He takes this deceptive heart, this heart of stone, that is full of wickedness and gives us a heart of flesh with His Law written on it, but without the Word, we'd never know what His Law was to be written on our hearts. Again, it isn't the means of salvation, Christ and Christ alone is that. The Bible is just the map that leads us to Him. If the map is faulty, everything else is suspect.

I'll start with the bottom and work my way back up... The coming up of differing versions of Christianity will certainly not be improved by everyone "listening to their hearts" as that tends to get even more divergent than interpretations of scripture. Yes, people read the same portion of scripture differently on occasion. That doesn't make scripture fallible as much as it is further indication that we are fallible.

If you don't know the difference, how can you be sure that it is Jesus that is your Guide?

If you saying that "all those different roads" get you to there, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Jesus said He was the only "Way". That, "no one comes to the Father but by Me." I don't see multiple roads described there...

If you don't believe the bible to be the "Truth", why would you assume that it is correct when it says that God would write His Laws on your heart? Who's to say that isn't one of the fallible portions? In which case maybe your heart contridicts what God really intended to be said...

The question about how do you know whether or not the words of God are written on your heart, is to ask, if you don't have more than one source for the "words of God" what do you verify against. Which ideas, opinions, imaginings, thoughts are the words of God and which aren't. I use scripture to check myself, but with out it, I'm concern that I'm capable of fooling myself into believing things.

Jeremiah 17:9 is a major warning about trusting one's own heart: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Fortunately, the answer is God, but that is one of the reasons why He gave us His Word, so that we would be less likely to be self-deceived. The amazing thing is that He takes this deceptive heart, this heart of stone, that is full of wickedness and gives us a heart of flesh with His Law written on it, but without the Word, we'd never know what His Law was to be written on our hearts. Again, it isn't the means of salvation, Christ and Christ alone is that. The Bible is just the map that leads us to Him. If the map is faulty, everything else is suspect.

And yet, you are arguing that people should follow a flawed translation... and you MUST know that it is flawed, surely? Simply by virtue of the fact that Hebrew is such a textured language, compared to our much more prosaic tongue, you must realise that some of the subtlety is lost?

And, didn't Jesus specifically teach AGAINST relying on scripture, and listening to 'experts' and their opinions on what the texts mean?

It seems to me that the less rigourous approach to scripture must be the more 'Christian' approach.

Oh, and, by the way: "If the map is faulty, everything else is suspect"... is probably the first step on the road to Atheism for most Atheists...

Interesting how so many can read and study this book all their lives and yet not live by it's principles. Interesting how so many can use it as an excuse for hatred and evil. Interesting how so many have used it to divide Christians rather than to help people to learn to hear God screaming at them in their hearts and in nature.

Is the 'me' here, the Bible? To equate the Bible with Jesus Christ or the Lord is blasphemous. To suggest that Bible can save you rather than Jesus Christ is also blasphemous.

I don't hold that the bible is the only means the Lord and Jesus Christ use to speak to us. I do hold at as the only means with which they speak to us that is in the control of other people.


First paragraph, knowing scripture alone is not salvation and can't save you by itself and it is terrible that people misuse the scriptures in the abuse of others. This is clearly contrary to Christ's teaching.

Second Paragraph, See John chapt 1, the Word is an extention of Christ, a revelation of who He is in a linguistic form.

Third paragraph, certainly He speaks to us through all creation, but since creation has suffered degradation due to the existance of sin, it is a less clear revelation of God than it once was.

First paragraph, knowing scripture alone is not salvation and can't save you by itself and it is terrible that people misuse the scriptures in the abuse of others. This is clearly contrary to Christ's teaching.

Agreed.

Second Paragraph, See John chapt 1, the Word is an extention of Christ, a revelation of who He is in a linguistic form.

You read it backwards. He is the Word in the flesh. Jesus Christ is my heart. Therefore the word is there also.

Third paragraph, certainly He speaks to us through all creation, but since creation has suffered degradation due to the existance of sin, it is a less clear revelation of God than it once was.

So everything in the world is degraded save the Bible. I hold the only thing degraded is man and his works. The lamb is not degraded. The horse is not degraded. The tree is not degraded. The rock is not degraded. These things cannot sin. This things have not knowledge of good and evil. These things are a purer testimony of God than anything that has ever been in the hands of man. Sin is a working of man. It belongs only to man. It is our burden. Do not try to place it on the whole of creation.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either have to argue from a position that he existed and said these things or he didn't. You can't take both positions. It's illogical. Pick one. I'll wait.

Oh. So I have to pick a position that I admittedly cannot find adequate proof for one way or another, and then stubbornly stick with that one no matter what? I see. Well, since you force me into it, I guess I can't be open-minded on this point. So I'll pick the position that Jesus never existed as a single, flesh-and-blood human being who did all the things the gospel writers wrote about. How's that? Will that work for you?

The gospel writers created a Jesus from Old Testament passages that seemed in some obscure way to point to a future Messiah (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53). Of course, sometimes this meant having to fudge the translations from Hebrew to Greek, or to ignore the context of those passages - but whatever it takes, I guess. But the interesting thing is, they also took some of their material from Old Testament passages that seemed to point to a decidedly different type of character (e.g., Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28). Now what was their purpose in doing this? Were they deliberately trying to present a stumblingblock to those Jews who were ignorant of the scriptures?

Oh. So I have to pick a position that I admittedly cannot find adequate proof for one way or another, and then stubbornly stick with that one no matter what? I see. Well, since you force me into it, I guess I can't be open-minded on this point. So I'll pick the position that Jesus never existed as a single, flesh-and-blood human being who did all the things the gospel writers wrote about. How's that? Will that work for you?

The gospel writers created a Jesus from Old Testament passages that seemed in some obscure way to point to a future Messiah (e.g., Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 53). Of course, sometimes this meant having to fudge the translations from Hebrew to Greek, or to ignore the context of those passages - but whatever it takes, I guess. But the interesting thing is, they also took some of their material from Old Testament passages that seemed to point to a decidedly different type of character (e.g., Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28). Now what was their purpose in doing this? Were they deliberately trying to present a stumblingblock to those Jews who were ignorant of the scriptures?

I'm only asking you to argue from one point. You can't debate one of my points from the position he existed and said A and then debate another one by saying that we're arguing about the Easter Bunny. That's the point I'm making. You can address every point from the both positions or every point from one or the other position but not some from one and other from another.

Ok, so they made up his expoits and who he was to make him fit the definition of the messiah, but they had to fudge some translations? Why would they have to fudge some translations, if they're making him up? How could there be any need whatsoever to make change the part that already existed to fit the made up part? Why not fit the made up part to the part that existed?

Ok, so they made up his expoits and who he was to make him fit the definition of the messiah, but they had to fudge some translations? Why would they have to fudge some translations, if they're making him up? How could there be any need whatsoever to make change the part that already existed to fit the made up part? Why not fit the made up part to the part that existed?

If they hadn't fudged Isaiah 7:14, for example, so that the Hebrew word, "almah" (meaning "young woman") hadn't been mistranslated to "virgin," then they couldn't point to that particular OT "prophecy" as pointing to a son of God born of a virgin (nevermind the fact that Isaiah's prophecy was given as a sign for King Ahaz to assuage his more immediate concerns, and Jesus didn't come along for at least another 700 years). They wanted to retain this Pagan "savior god-man" element in the Christ they were creating, because worship of this being must clearly be idolatry.

Another example is Isaiah 53 - a favorite of Christians, by the way - which actually referred to Israel as the "suffering servant" - not Jesus or even another future Messiah.

By fudging these translations (among other things), they were able to create a Messiah who seemed on the surface of it to fill the bill - at least, until you really looked at what the original prophecies actually said. They didn't intend for everyone to be fooled, after all - the stumblingblock they created was only intended to trip up the spiritually blind.

If they hadn't fudged Isaiah 7:14, for example, so that the Hebrew word, "almah" (meaning "young woman") hadn't been mistranslated to "virgin," then they couldn't point to that particular OT "prophecy" as pointing to a son of God born of a virgin (nevermind the fact that Isaiah's prophecy was given as a sign for King Ahaz to assuage his more immediate concerns, and Jesus didn't come along for at least another 700 years). They wanted to retain this Pagan "savior god-man" element in the Christ they were creating, because worship of this being must clearly be idolatry.

Another example is Isaiah 53 - a favorite of Christians, by the way - which actually referred to Israel as the "suffering servant" - not Jesus or even another future Messiah.

By fudging these translations (among other things), they were able to create a Messiah who seemed on the surface of it to fill the bill - at least, until you really looked at what the original prophecies actually said. They didn't intend for everyone to be fooled, after all - the stumblingblock they created was only intended to trip up the spiritually blind.
I love when people start with a premise and set out to prove it instead of just building a premise from the existing data. EDIT: Yes, I know that many Christians do this as well.

You didn't answer the question. Unless the scripture said he couldn't have been born of a virgin, they could have 'made' him born of a virgin. Being born of a virgin is pretty impressive even if it's not prophesied and if they don't fudge the scripture then they can't get caught. And they need the suffering servant to refer to him either. You suggest they gave a way to prove they were full of crap at no benefit to themselves. In fact, the only one who benefits from such an act is a person who believes what you believe. Would you prefer to answer the question I posed now?

I love when people start with a premise and set out to prove it instead of just building a premise from the existing data. EDIT: Yes, I know that many Christians do this as well.

You didn't answer the question. Unless the scripture said he couldn't have been born of a virgin, they could have 'made' him born of a virgin. Being born of a virgin is pretty impressive even if it's not prophesied and if they don't fudge the scripture then they can't get caught. And they need the suffering servant to refer to him either. You suggest they gave a way to prove they were full of crap at no benefit to themselves. In fact, the only one who benefits from such an act is a person who believes what you believe. Would you prefer to answer the question I posed now?

Okay - I must confess that I'm completely baffled as to what it is you are looking for here. I've told you what my theory is, and I'm well aware it is one you and every Christian on the planet would disagree with. Please clearly state your question so that I might be able to address it.

The idea is that they would create a false Messiah as a stumblingblock to the Jews, to ensnare them in their infamous idolatry (also metaphorically referred to in the OT as "adultery"). In order for it to be counted as a "sin," there had to be enough information for an observant Jew to realize that it was all a load of crap. In the OT, it was made clear that God was not a man or a son of man (see Numbers 23:19), and that there has never been or will be any savior beside him (see Isaiah 43:8-13; Isaiah 45:18-22; Hosea 13:1-4). This alone should have been enough information for them, but the gospel writers left plenty of other clues as well - sometimes I think they must have had a checklist to go by (let's see...the Messiah must be a physical descendant of King David through Solomon - nope; must not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah - yep; so far so good...must rebuild the temple - nope; must be anointed as king, ruling on the throne of David - nope; must bring peace to the world - nope; hey, we're on a roll here!).

As for why they would do it - don't followers of a particular religion just love to make prophecies come true, even if it means forcing the issue? Or more to the point - could they bear it if the prophecies didn't come true? If God promised to send a stumblingblock to the Jews to ensnare them in their idolatry - and that event didn't occur on its own - is it really so surprising that there would be those who would do their best to make it happen?

Okay - I must confess that I'm completely baffled as to what it is you are looking for here. I've told you what my theory is, and I'm well aware it is one you and every Christian on the planet would disagree with. Please clearly state your question so that I might be able to address it.

The idea is that they would create a false Messiah as a stumblingblock to the Jews, to ensnare them in their infamous idolatry (also metaphorically referred to in the OT as "adultery"). In order for it to be counted as a "sin," there had to be enough information for an observant Jew to realize that it was all a load of crap. In the OT, it was made clear that God was not a man or a son of man (see Numbers 23:19), and that there has never been or will be any savior beside him (see Isaiah 43:8-13; Isaiah 45:18-22; Hosea 13:1-4). This alone should have been enough information for them, but the gospel writers left plenty of other clues as well - sometimes I think they must have had a checklist to go by (let's see...the Messiah must be a physical descendant of King David through Solomon - nope; must not be a physical descendant of Jeconiah - yep; so far so good...must rebuild the temple - nope; must be anointed as king, ruling on the throne of David - nope; must bring peace to the world - nope; hey, we're on a roll here!).

As for why they would do it - don't followers of a particular religion just love to make prophecies come true, even if it means forcing the issue? Or more to the point - could they bear it if the prophecies didn't come true? If God promised to send a stumblingblock to the Jews to ensnare them in their idolatry - and that event didn't occur on its own - is it really so surprising that there would be those who would do their best to make it happen?

So Jesus is a massive conspiracy by Jews to weed out the weak of faith and those with an inability to read? And the conspirators put intentional clues to prevent those strong in their faith from falling in the trap? WOW. I'm gonna have to reply with aliens stole Elvis' body and they've cloned an army of Elvis' poised to invade the Earth. My evidence is people keep seeing Elvis. My further evidence is that people keep denying this is true.

I'd reword my question, but you've already answered it. The answer you're expecting me to take is the advantage to them changing the old testament translations to fit their version of the messiah was to intend to be caught by those they didn't want to fall in the trap. Like they say, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

Very interesting, however, I don't think He would be crying, but He is sad, He knew all of this would happen. He IS THE God. He knows everything that has and ever will happen. He gave us a choice, a choice to either follow his word and be rewarded with his faithfullness to his promises and an everlating life in Heaven, OR to ignore everything He's done and said, and get punished for our actions by burning in Hell for all eternity. Either way, IT'S OUR CHOICE. WE choose what to do. He gave us so many opportunities and, unfourtunately, so many people have ignored them, or, EXTREMELY UNFOURTUNATELY, a lot of us christians have also ignored one of his most important commands:

GO AND SPREAD THE WORLD TO EVERY NATION, AND TO EVERY CREATURE TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD. <<<The great commission.

If every single one of us did that, so many more people would be saved from Hell. Now, not everyone would accept our message, but we would still have an enormous impact on the world.

So, in conclusion, He IS sad, but i don't beleive he would be crying. Thank you for putting your post up, I enjoyed your idea.

You read it backwards. He is the Word in the flesh. Jesus Christ is my heart. Therefore the word is there also.



So everything in the world is degraded save the Bible. I hold the only thing degraded is man and his works. The lamb is not degraded. The horse is not degraded. The tree is not degraded. The rock is not degraded. These things cannot sin. This things have not knowledge of good and evil. These things are a purer testimony of God than anything that has ever been in the hands of man. Sin is a working of man. It belongs only to man. It is our burden. Do not try to place it on the whole of creation.

What I'm saying is that the Word, in writing, and the Word in the flesh, based on John 1 are almost synonymous.

Sin has had a negative effect on all of creation. Granted animals don't have the same moral capacity to commit sin as we do, but they die now, which they wouldn't have had sin not entered the world. They suffer disease now, which they wouldn't have if sin had not entered the world. They are violent and agressive toward humans and other animals, which they would not have been had sin not entered the world.

The plant world also suffers death and disease which it didn't prior to sin. The planet itself, with its turbulent weather, earthquakes, volcanos, landslides etc. also suffers under the weight of sin. I'm not suggesting that these things actively commit sin, but they have suffered the results of our sin and been degraded by our sin.

And yet, you are arguing that people should follow a flawed translation... and you MUST know that it is flawed, surely? Simply by virtue of the fact that Hebrew is such a textured language, compared to our much more prosaic tongue, you must realise that some of the subtlety is lost?

And, didn't Jesus specifically teach AGAINST relying on scripture, and listening to 'experts' and their opinions on what the texts mean?

It seems to me that the less rigourous approach to scripture must be the more 'Christian' approach.

Oh, and, by the way: "If the map is faulty, everything else is suspect"... is probably the first step on the road to Atheism for most Atheists...

I would contend that it is not flaw in terms of content. There may be gramatical errors, but its content has clearly and miraculous been preserved. Aggrement between modern translations and the Qumaran Scrolls is too close to indicate much of anything else. Yes, some of the texture and subtlety is lost, which is why original language study still has theological value.

He never taught against relying on scripture. He did teach against relying on the traditions of the Pharisees, but that is a different baby.

I understand that my statement about the Map, is a two edged sword. The thing is, the more I study the Bible and about the Bible the more I am convinced of its validity and see the truth about God, Salvation and the universe unfold in a clear, logical and perfectly balanced manner.