NationStates Jolt Archive

Who said it was pointless? Just because we don't know the point, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Look, God doesn't bother with the Temporal Plane to the extent you seem to think. I don't know who you think it is telling Humanity to do things, but whoever it is, it's neither of the archetypes I've encountered, nor is it the Universal Consciousness I tapped into briefly, once. I'm going with my gut, and my gut tells me that God doesn't need a Starship after all. On this point, Jim Kirk and I are in full agreement.

If those people had not done as they did then it would have looked like they were ashamed of being a Christian. Jesus said that if you are ashamed of him before the world that he will be ashamed of you before the Father. In other words you would not be saved. Since being saved is the idea behind christianity, by asking those people to do anything but what they did could cost them their soul.

they did not do the wrong thing by continuing their service as usual--or with more enthusiasm than usual. i agree with you that to be silent would have been unnecessarily bowing to authority. im am not big on obedience to those who do not deserve obedience.

but the better thing to do would have been for zilam to stop and say "wait a minute, there is something wrong here. this "official" has no right to stop our services, its not a matter of seperation of church and state and WAIT A MINUTE why doesnt our pastor know that and why did he ask us to be quiet when its utterly unnecessary!!"

its dangerous to not think things through. in this case, the result was benign. in other cases it might lead to disaster.

just as this trick was a babystep in learning how to stand up to unreasonable civil authority, it could have also have been a babystep in learning how to see through this kind of trick.

It is still a contradiction. Saying you would follow those instructions if you knew it was Him. If there is a God and he instructed me to follow that instruction I wouldn't want to have anything to do with that deity.

Why not? Because it is unpleasent, not nice? I'm not concerned with what is nice. I'm concerned with what is right, and God can do no wrong, nor command me to do wrong.

Nice things have caused many problems. It was nice to appease Hitler. It was nice to buy, buy, buy without thought bringing about the Great Depression. It was nice to listen to the Serpent in Eden.

What if you knew for certain it was God, say, he appears and does some miracles and then tells you to kill everyone on earth?

And he does indeed command people to kill people:

Numbers 31: 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,[B] 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

apparently inaction and poor skills at recognizing dangerous leaders are not "wrong"

So it would appear. Yipes.

I have two names to give you to refute that argument:


Slobodan Milosevic

Pope Urban II


Enough said. If that doesn't convince you that you should not do things because you are supposedly commanded to by God, a religious leader, or someone of a highly religious sect, then you are an ultra fundamentalist, and I will see you at the Hague one day.

I'm with you, friend. People who blindly follow other people but claim they are following a god are either crazy or lying, in my opinion -- especially considering all the warnings in Christianity and other religions against blindly following leaders. Such folks must be either well and truly brainwashed by a charismatic leader, or they are satisfying an agenda of their own.

I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.

This seems to contradict what you said in an earlier post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muravyets
I don't follow. Do you disagree with Ashmoria? Christians should not question their leaders when they tell them to do something unusual?

If those people had not done as they did then it would have looked like they were ashamed of being a Christian. Jesus said that if you are ashamed of him before the world that he will be ashamed of you before the Father. In other words you would not be saved. Since being saved is the idea behind christianity, by asking those people to do anything but what they did could cost them their soul.
If it is possible for a person to mispresent God at all, or for an evil spirit to impersonate God in order to mislead you, then why would you not think Christians should be skeptical of their human leaders under all circumstances?

If you think a person should simply comply with an obvious lie in order to avoid a negative appearance -- and if a person could lose their soul for something so relatively minor -- then why should they be confident that the order to kill people is not coming from their god? Why should they risk displeasing their god on something so serious?

Mind you, I do not believe the Christian God would tell people to kill others, either. I'm just not understanding why you think it was okay for Christians to allow themselves to be jerked around by a lying pastor just out of fear of creating a negative impression.

To be clear -- and since it was so long ago that it first came up -- I should repeat that my objection to the pastor's stunt was that he made a fraudulent claim about US law in order to create a sense of attack and rebellion in his congregation. In other words, he set up real laws that protect religious rights as a strawman enemy of religious rights. That's what I have a problem with, and that is why I thought Zilam was wrong in his praise of the pastor.

If I knew It was God, I would. But I don't think that will ever happen. I could be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says He wouldn't (so far as I know), but what it does say about His nature leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely He would ask me to do that.

You see, even though I respect your honesty and your manners and your willingness to talk with people who have opposing points of view, I would not trust you as far as I could throw you in real life. If I learned that you lived on my street, I would probably move.

If I knew It was God, I would. But I don't think that will ever happen. I could be wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that says He wouldn't (so far as I know), but what it does say about His nature leads me to believe that it is highly unlikely He would ask me to do that.

Now, you've already given an answer to my question, so I'll ask you:
Why would you?

Why not? Because it is unpleasent, not nice?
Because killing is wrong.

I'm not concerned with what is nice. I'm concerned with what is right, and God can do no wrong, nor command me to do wrong.
You do not seem to understand that this statement shows a fundamental lack of principles and ethics. What you are doing here is fobbing all the responsibility for everything you do -- and, incidentally, all the blame, too -- onto God. But the world will not treat you so *nicely*, Ed. You will not be let off the hook for the consequences of your actions, by either humanity or fate. "Just following orders" doesn't work as an excuse any more under God than it does under temporal rulers. You are ultimately responsible for everything you do. That is the burden of free will, isn't it?

Nice things have caused many problems. It was nice to appease Hitler. It was nice to buy, buy, buy without thought bringing about the Great Depression. It was nice to listen to the Serpent in Eden.

Do you realize that you are implying that it is better to be willing to kill people than to want to go shopping?

What if you're wrong, Ed? What if you hear the call to arms and you answer it and you kill the designated group, and you die and are sent to hell as murderer? You keep saying, you may be wrong, but you only say that in reference to you may be wrong that God doesn't want you to kill people. What if you're wrong in the other direction?

Very astute.

Poot is not arguing with me at all, but with Marx... which, unfortunately for this debate - he introduced... not I.

While I see your point and generally agree with it, I think you need to cut Poot some slack, this kind of a knee jerk almost allergic reaction to the word communism seems to be almost inbred to most Americans. You spent decades fighting the supposed followers of communism, I guess it's to be expected.

Now, you've already given an answer to my question, so I'll ask you:
Why would you?

If It's truly God, then I could do nothing else. If the Creator and Ruler of the universe, the Author of Truth and Morality told me to do something, it would be immoral for me to not do it.

Now, again, I find this very unlikely. If God came to me and told me to do this, it would probably be more like an Abraham and Isaac deal, where He would tell me to stop just before I did it.

And if He told me to do something outside His Law, I would know that it was really not God.

If It's truly God, then I could do nothing else. If the Creator and Ruler of the universe, the Author of Truth and Morality told me to do something, it would be immoral for me to not do it.

Now, again, I find this very unlikely. If God came to me and told me to do this, it would probably be more like an Abraham and Isaac deal, where He would tell me to stop just before I did it.

And if He told me to do something outside His Law, I would know that it was really not God.

Imagine god wanted to test your morality and your conscience by telling you to kill someone, only to tell you afterwards that the real test was to see if you had the strength of character to know right from wrong? If what he really wanted to see was if you're good enough to contradict him?

If God commanded someone to go to war (which the OT says He has) then He has told someone to kill someone.


God did command people to kill in Old Testament Days before Jesus came to Earth, but that is the old covenant. Since Jesus came he has set down new rules which is the New Covenant which forbids killing.

Because killing is wrong.

Actually God commands us to kill: to protect ourselves (the murder is trying to stangle you and that sort of thing), in war, and to excecute. Outside of that, it is wrong to kill, yes. People, animals are a different story.

You do not seem to understand that this statement shows a fundamental lack of principles and ethics. What you are doing here is fobbing all the responsibility for everything you do -- and, incidentally, all the blame, too -- onto God. But the world will not treat you so *nicely*, Ed. You will not be let off the hook for the consequences of your actions, by either humanity or fate. "Just following orders" doesn't work as an excuse any more under God than it does under temporal rulers. You are ultimately responsible for everything you do. That is the burden of free will, isn't it?

The responsibility is mine! I choose to do what I do. And I must accept the consequenses. I must be willing to accept the consequenses. I agree with you totally on this (except that I was never putting blame on God).

Do you realize that you are implying that it is better to be willing to kill people than to want to go shopping?

No. I was implying that it is better to rely on what is right than what is nice.

What if you're wrong, Ed? What if you hear the call to arms and you answer it and you kill the designated group, and you die and are sent to hell as murderer? You keep saying, you may be wrong, but you only say that in reference to you may be wrong that God doesn't want you to kill people. What if you're wrong in the other direction?

If I'm wrong? Then God will judge me. There's nothing else to it. If I'm wrong, God judges me. And if I'm right God judges me. The difference is what the judgement would be. But the Bible teaches that we cannot lose our salvation, so I am in no danger of hell. Or rather, I protected from the danger of hell. Not that that gives me free reign to do whatever I wish. If I am truly saved, I will want to follow the will of God as revealed in Scripture.

Imagine god wanted to test your morality and your conscience by telling you to kill someone, only to tell you afterwards that the real test was to see if you had the strength of character to know right from wrong? If what he really wanted to see was if you're good enough to contradict him?

God cannot tempt us. It is against His nature. So, if He told me to do something, it would be wrong to not do it.

God did command people to kill in Old Testament Days before Jesus came to Earth, but that is the old covenant. Since Jesus came he has set down new rules which is the New Covenant which forbids killing.

Jesus also said He did not come to abolish the Law. And no where in the Nt does it forbid kiling in the sense of war, execution, or self-defense.

God cannot tempt us. It is against His nature. So, if He told me to do something, it would be wrong to not do it.

How do you know the nature of god? I seem to recall the bible being very specific indeed about the fact that none of us can know god's nature or thoughts?

How do you know the nature of god? I seem to recall the bible being very specific indeed about the fact that none of us can know god's nature or thoughts?

I don't recall it saying nature. Surely, I cannot know anything about God beyond what He has revealed. But He has revealed some, and I would be at fault for not knowing it.

Jesus also said He did not come to abolish the Law. And no where in the Nt does it forbid kiling in the sense of war, execution, or self-defense.


Ok well I guess that that command to Love your neighbor as yourself doesn't count then does it? I'm sure that " most " people would never even consider killing themselves.

Why not? Because it is unpleasent, not nice? I'm not concerned with what is nice. I'm concerned with what is right, and God can do no wrong, nor command me to do wrong.

Nice things have caused many problems. It was nice to appease Hitler. It was nice to buy, buy, buy without thought bringing about the Great Depression. It was nice to listen to the Serpent in Eden.

Appeasing Hitler was nice? :confused:

That question asked earlier about wiping out all people on the planet was more than unpleasant it was outright wrong. Especially if we want to assume that what happens in Revelation is accurate, we can not exactly just wipe out the population on Earth now can we?

I don't recall it saying nature. Surely, I cannot know anything about God beyond what He has revealed. But He has revealed some, and I would be at fault for not knowing it.

Where or when did he reveal that he can't set up a trial for you to see how you react? In that story about Isaac, right?

Ok well I guess that that command to Love your neighbor as yourself doesn't count then does it? I'm sure that " most " people would never even consider killing themselves.

Where is suicide coming from? Suicide is a sin. I don't see how that matters to the conversation.

The only reason that I might see killing as being a necessary evil is in self defense. Mind you ... I didn't say that the Lord agrees with me. In fact, I would say that he does not. This is an age old arguement here on Earth.

Ok well I guess that that command to Love your neighbor as yourself doesn't count then does it? I'm sure that " most " people would never even consider killing themselves.

you seriously worry me.

You can't go on and talk about how in the old covenant it was okay to kill (even ignoring the 10 commandments) and then say "oh, but in the new covenant it's not" and then go and say "well, they didn't really say that but I assume from what was said"

you are one of those people who makes pronouncements about what "God wants" and "Jesus says" and then backs up and twists the scripture to make it true for you.

Appeasing Hitler was nice? :confused:

That question asked earlier about wiping out all people on the planet was more than unpleasant it was outright wrong. Especially if we want to assume that what happens in Revelation is accurate, we can not exactly just wipe out the population on Earth now can we?

Appeasing Hitler was nice because it avoided the not nice war. But the war came anyway.

It was a hypothetical question. If it were possible for this to happen, what would I do? But for various reasons, including your reference to Revelation, it could not happen.

Where is suicide coming from? Suicide is a sin. I don't see how that matters to the conversation.


If you truely love your neighbor as yourself, and you would never consider killing yourself then likewise you would never consider killing your neighbor ... DA!

Sorry I must take my roomate to work, I will be back later.

Where or when did he reveal that he can't set up a trial for you to see how you react? In that story about Isaac, right?

Well, He doesn't need a trial to see how I'll react. The trial would be set up for some other purpose. And if He commanded me to kill, I would be wrong not to.

Now, having considered this further, I have decided based on Scripture that outside execution, self-defense, and war, God cannot command me to kill a human. Now if He were able to, and He did, I would be required to follow, but He cannot, so you are in no danger of me murdering you in your sleep. :)

If you truely love your neighbor as yourself, and you would never consider killing yourself then likewise you would never consider killing your neighbor ... DA!

Oh, okay, I understand now.

Love is a state of being, not a system of actions. Actions result from that state, but they are not the state itself.

Well, He doesn't need a trial to see how I'll react. The trial would be set up for some other purpose. And if He commanded me to kill, I would be wrong not to.

Now, having considered this further, I have decided based on Scripture that outside execution, self-defense, and war, God cannot command me to kill a human. Now if He were able to, and He did, I would be required to follow, but He cannot, so you are in no danger of me murdering you in your sleep. :)

Oh, sweet. Now he's no longer omnipotent, is he?

Oh, sweet. Now he's no longer omnipotent, is he?

I don't think that Edwardis and Krom...whatever really understand what they think they believe.

Oh, sweet. Now he's no longer omnipotent, is he?

Omnipotent (having the power to do anything) does not mean that He is able to do anything. He does not want to go against His nature. And His nature prevents Him from doing certain things and constrains Him to do certain things.

I don't think that Edwardis and Krom...whatever really understand what they think they believe.

I could claim that I'm helping them better understand their faith, then. :p ;)

I don't think that Edwardis and Krom...whatever really understand what they think they believe.

Well, then perhaps you can educate us.

Omnipotent (having the power to do anything) does not mean that He is able to do anything. He does not want to go against His nature. And His nature prevents Him from doing certain things and constrains Him to do certain things.

And again you claim to know god's nature... you even go so far as to claim to know his will. So, which is it? Are you a Christian and believe that nobody can know the true nature of god, nor god's will, or do you place yourself above all that?

I could claim that I'm helping them better understand their faith, then. :p ;)
yep.


Well, then perhaps you can educate us.

sure.

this
Omnipotent (having the power to do anything) does not mean that He is able to do anything. He does not want to go against His nature. And His nature prevents Him from doing certain things and constrains Him to do certain things.
doesn't make any sense.

lying is wrong, killing is wrong, it's not an old covenant/new covenant issue. Questioning our leaders and questioning what we think God says to us is part of being discerning it's part of being a good Christian.

Adding to the Bible, to make things fit with your current view of a debate is wrong, and dangerous.

And again you claim to know god's nature... you even go so far as to claim to know his will. So, which is it? Are you a Christian and believe that nobody can know the true nature of god, nor god's will, or do you place yourself above all that?

The Bible tells us some things about God's nature and about His will.

The Bible tells us some things about God's nature and about His will.

Yep. Namely that you cannot understand or know them.

doesn't make any sense.

How doesn't it make sense?

lying is wrong, killing is wrong, it's not an old covenant/new covenant issue. Questioning our leaders and questioning what we think God says to us is part of being discerning it's part of being a good Christian.

Killing in some instances (execution, self-defense and war) is commanded. Other than that, I have no problem with what you say in this paragraph.

Adding to the Bible, to make things fit with your current view of a debate is wrong, and dangerous.

Who's adding? I'm just refusing to take out.

Yep. Namely that you cannot understand or know them.

And also some other things. He is good, loving, perfect, just, hates sin....

How doesn't it make sense?
if you have the power to do something you are able to do so, if you were unable it would not be within your power.

To say that someone has the power to do something but is unable to do that is senseless.






Who's adding? I'm just refusing to take out.
you have been adding since the get-go, you misunderstand scripture and then twist it to say things like "the nazi's were God's agents of wrath"

Interesting method the pastor used but effective. He got his message across. It is not the Christian thing to do to get angry, desperate, depressed or spiteful but to simply "keep the faith" and strengthen their resolve.

I just wish all Christians and "Secular Humanists" had the sense your pastor and your congregation displayed. so much hate and venom out there, people forget that though their methods may be different, their goals are ultimately the same.

If God said "Kill all the Jews," it would be justice. But God doesn't say that.

If we can find no evidence to support the man's claim in Scripture, we are not to follow him. The only genocide I support is the times in the Bible where God said to do it. Beyond that I support no genocide.

If you believe that God is telling you to commit genocide, you have the responsibility to do it. And the rest of us have the responsibility to try to stop you if we think God didn't tell you to.

If God told me to commit genocide I wouldn't do it. I don't believe that he would though so I don't imagine the situation as possible.

And also some other things. He is good, loving, perfect, just, hates sin....

None of which prevented him from commanding murder and genocide before, according to that book. Just have a look at the story of Hiob (or Iob, I never know which one's the English translation of that name), he did all he could to torture that guy, right? Does that sound good, just or loving?
Your morality would justify everything god says or does, no matter how wrong it might be. So if god was to really try and see if you understood love and care, I guess you'd fail the test.

Interesting method the pastor used but effective. He got his message across. It is not the Christian thing to do to get angry, desperate, depressed or spiteful but to simply "keep the faith" and strengthen their resolve.

I just wish all Christians and "Secular Humanists" had the sense your pastor and your congregation displayed. so much hate and venom out there, people forget that though their methods may be different, their goals are ultimately the same.

not effective, wrong, sinful, manipulative, dangerous, deceitful, immature, wreckless, and dangerous, but no, not effective.

None of which prevented him from commanding murder and genocide before, according to that book. Just have a look at the story of Hiob (or Iob, I never know which one's the English translation of that name), he did all he could to torture that guy, right? Does that sound good, just or loving?
Your morality would justify everything god says or does, no matter how wrong it might be. So if god was to really try and see if you understood love and care, I guess you'd fail the test.
Job?

not effective, wrong, sinful, manipulative, dangerous, deceitful, immature, wreckless, and dangerous, but no, not effective.

I'd wager it was effective. Just a hunch.

if you have the power to do something you are able to do so, if you were unable it would not be within your power.

To say that someone has the power to do something but is unable to do that is senseless.

Are you strong enough to lift a full milk jug? Probably. Is there one sitting next to you? If there isn't, then you are unable right now. But since God's right now is always, there ae some things He could never do.



you have been adding since the get-go, you misunderstand scripture and then twist it to say things like "the nazi's were God's agents of wrath"

No. I read Scripture and refused to add to it and refused to take away. Then I looked at the OT where various nations took over the Israelites because He was wroth with them. I used Scripture only to come to my conclusion.

I'd wager it was effective. Just a hunch.

how was it effective?

None of which prevented him from commanding murder and genocide before, according to that book. Just have a look at the story of Hiob (or Iob, I never know which one's the English translation of that name), he did all he could to torture that guy, right? Does that sound good, just or loving?
Your morality would justify everything god says or does, no matter how wrong it might be. So if god was to really try and see if you understood love and care, I guess you'd fail the test.

He commanded us to do some things and not do others. One of the things He commanded was no killing outside of self-defense, war, and execution. Therefore, He cannot tempt me to disobey. He was able to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because the Law had not yet been given.

Are you strong enough to lift a full milk jug? Probably. Is there one sitting next to you? If there isn't, then you are unable right now. But since God's right now is always, there ae some things He could never do.

I am not omnipotent, if I were I would be able to pick up a milk carton that was on the other side of the world.



No. I read Scripture and refused to add to it and refused to take away. Then I looked at the OT where various nations took over the Israelites because He was wroth with them. I used Scripture only to come to my conclusion.
you came to the wrong conclusion then, I would guess because you look at scripture from the wrong perspective.

Are you strong enough to lift a full milk jug? Probably. Is there one sitting next to you? If there isn't, then you are unable right now. But since God's right now is always, there ae some things He could never do.


Does that mean if we could exist temporally, we still wouldn't get milk?

Example of a thing God could never do. Please.

He commanded us to do some things and not do others. One of the things He commanded was no killing outside of self-defense, war, and execution. Therefore, He cannot tempt me to disobey. He was able to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because the Law had not yet been given.

how do you reconcile that with scripture that says that the law is timeless, that it was from the begining and will be to the end?

I am not omnipotent, if I were I would be able to pick up a milk carton that was on the other side of the world.

The principle is the same.


you came to the wrong conclusion then, I would guess because you look at scripture from the wrong perspective.

Giving God sovereign right over His creation is the wrong perspective?

I have to go to class. I'll be back in a bout 3 hours.

He commanded us to do some things and not do others. One of the things He commanded was no killing outside of self-defense, war, and execution. Therefore, He cannot tempt me to disobey. He was able to command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac because the Law had not yet been given.

So god is bound by timelines? Interesting...

The principle is the same.
no it isn't.




Giving God sovereign right over His creation is the wrong perspective?

to fully understand God's sovereign nature you have to step back from your human understanding of His limitations (which he has none)

how do you reconcile that with scripture that says that the law is timeless, that it was from the begining and will be to the end?

Thanks, I thought there was something about laws being eternal...

Thanks, I thought there was something about laws being eternal...

I am still looking for scripture reference..... :eek: (yeah, I know)

but, yeah, the law has to be eternal if it was not then Adam and
Eve would be in the garden still and nobody would be going to hell and the whole world would be one big orgy.....

how do you reconcile that with scripture that says that the law is timeless, that it was from the begining and will be to the end?
Wait, it really says that?!

This seems like a major oversight, to me. If The Law is supposed to be timeless, then how come the Bible addresses shit like having your oxen stolen (which has very little modern relevance for millions of Christians) but doesn't address things like having your car stolen? Why does the Bible address things like how to appropriately beat your slaves, if the "timeless" law extends to the modern day?

Wait, it really says that?!

This seems like a major oversight, to me. If The Law is supposed to be timeless, then how come the Bible addresses shit like having your oxen stolen (which has very little modern relevance for millions of Christians) but doesn't address things like having your car stolen? Why does the Bible address things like how to appropriately beat your slaves, if the "timeless" law extends to the modern day?

The Law (tm) is timeless meaning it never expires.

the law (about oxen and slaves, meat and 'women issues') were the local ordinances.

The Law (tm) is timeless meaning it never expires.

the law (about oxen and slaves, meat and 'women issues') were the local ordinances.
Huh. So what about things like abortion? That seems like a pretty huge moral issue for a lot of people, so why doesn't The Law clarify something as important as that topic?

Or what about issues like whether it's right to keep people alive using machines? Again, this is a pretty big moral issue, yet The Law doesn't seem to give any specific information about the correct course of action. If somebody is braindead but kept alive by machines, does God want us to keep them alive artificially or allow them to die?

I know why I believe that these topics were not covered in the Bible: because the humans who wrote the Bible had no way of knowing anything about the future importance of such topics. But if God is timeless and all-knowing, you'd think He'd have included some of these major issues in The Law, and would have made it a bit more clear for people to understand the right way to do things.

how was it effective?

They were all singing and crying weren't they? Wasn't that what the leader wanted?

not effective, wrong, sinful, manipulative, dangerous, deceitful, immature, wreckless, and dangerous, but no, not effective.


I am not sure where your cynicism comes from. Hopefully it is not out of ignorant religous intolerance.

The pastor got his point across and did it in a clever way. I would say he was effective.

Huh. So what about things like abortion? That seems like a pretty huge moral issue for a lot of people, so why doesn't The Law clarify something as important as that topic?
some would say it already has.

Or what about issues like whether it's right to keep people alive using machines? Again, this is a pretty big moral issue, yet The Law doesn't seem to give any specific information about the correct course of action. If somebody is braindead but kept alive by machines, does God want us to keep them alive artificially or allow them to die?
it does not.

I know why I believe that these topics were not covered in the Bible: because the humans who wrote the Bible had no way of knowing anything about the future importance of such topics. But if God is timeless and all-knowing, you'd think He'd have included some of these major issues in The Law, and would have made it a bit more clear for people to understand the right way to do things.
I don't think you understand what I mean by The Law(tm)

But if God is timeless and all-knowing, you'd think He'd have included some of these major issues in The Law, and would have made it a bit more clear for people to understand the right way to do things.

How can this just not matter? How do people smooth it over, like a niggly bit of butter? When I try, my head hurts and I have to frown.

I am not sure where your cynicism comes from. Hopefully it is not out of ignorant religous intolerance.

The pastor got his point across and did it in a clever way. I would say he was effective.

what was his point?

all I see that he was effective in doing was lying to his congregation, giving them a false emotional experience slapping it with the title of "God's presence".

what was his point?

all I see that he was effective in doing was lying to his congregation, giving them a false emotional experience slapping it with the title of "God's presence".

I can't see what your beef is with this. It's what he wanted to do and some of his congregation doubtlessly got a kick from it.

QED, it was effective. The leader won.

I can't see what your beef is with this. It's what he wanted to do and some of his congregation doubtlessly got a kick from it.

QED, it was effective. The leader won.

sure, I will concede he effectively manipulated his congregation with a lie.

The Holy Sprit does not respond positively to sinners. That is proof enough for anyone that knows him. ...


I partly* agree with your first premise, but I from the OP I have no certainty that the Holy Spirit is the one who responded to this deception. Instead, I see a lot of people who got excited about the way they responded to a delusion foisted upon them by their pastor who was bearing false witness in order to manipulate them. Human enthusiasm and group psychology offers an adequate alternative explanation.

Why would the Spirit of God respond positively to a lie in the fashion described in the OP? Are we to believe that the Spirit of God was confirming such a deception and helping to weave a delusion around believers? I assume He knew the pastor was lying. Please don't misunderstand me: I wouldn't be questioning His involvement if someone had recognized the Holy Spirit warning them that the pastor had lied (I'm thinking of Acts 5:1-11) and had spoken out. I wouldn't be surprised if there were people there who wanted to challenge the whole charade but were afraid. One might argue from Scripture (though I wouldn't) that the pastor is lucky to be alive; I do think he would do well to make things right with God. That pastor lied to the Family.

The apostle Paul warned that it's necessary to test spirits in the congregation, and also warned that Satan can "appear" in ways that imitate God. You acknowledged this yourself when you post: I can assure you that he doesn't need our help to do anything. Beyond that one of Gods own laws says thou shall " not " kill. So he wouldn't ask you to do it. And I would not do it anyway because it would probly be Satan in pretending to be God.
I see from this second post that you know that things can appear to be from God but still need to be tested against God's own character and against Scripture. This is what I was getting at in my previous posts to which you seemed to take such exception. I believe that the pastor's lie, when tested against the revealed character of God, makes it unlikely that the Holy Spirit was "responding positively" to the lying pastor. He may well have tried to encourage some people there to speak out against the lie, but if He did, they didn't speak out for the truth and against the authority figure. Now that really would have been boldness!


... I suggest you stop trying to rationalize something you can't possibility understand until you have experienced it.
And perhaps you could accept my suggestion that you have no possible idea of the things I or others have experienced, or of the things I (and others) might understand. Once you realize that, you will find it easier not to attribute unworthy actions and ungodly motives to total strangers with whom you may be spending eternity. You'll also find it easier to speak with respect to people even when you dispute something they've said. I speak from experience.

Disagree all you like, present all the arguments you like, but as you are arguing as a Christian, I assume you know Ephesians 4:14-16 in its context. Obviously not everyone on this thread is a believer, and many have taken the time to say clearly they aren't. So for now, I won't discuss them further. But you seem to say no one is saved unless they agree with you. I don't see how the exhortation about "speaking the truth in love" in Eph. 4:14-16 goes with your apparent assumption that everyone who disagrees with you cannot possibly be saved (link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11756856&postcount=955)). Why wouldn't you love those who confess Christ but who disagree with you, enough to hope that we are your brethren and are just having an honest difference of opinion? There are Scriptural precedents for that in the controversy between Paul and Peter, and in the dispute between Paul and Barnabas over John Mark.

I also cannot see that it's any way to speak the truth in love, since you do not know the truth about us. You don't know which of us are saved or what our experiences in Christ have been. I notice someone else has used the word "patronizing" about you. I'm sure you know what that feels like.

The issue we're talking about here are not the heart of the Christian faith: they are opinions within that faith. An opinion about this post is not an indicator of a person's salvation. You are not privy to the lives of us here, however much our opinions may "provoke" or "agitate" you. Even if you believe we're all weak in the faith, you are supposed to accept us, but not for the purpose of condemning us for our opinions. We all stand or fall before our Master (and no other person), and the Lord promises to make us stand. We all need to grow, to repent, to change, to learn, but it isn't for any believer to deny the salvation of another believer simply on the basis of a contested opinion.

BTW, when you blame others for "provoking" you to be aggressive link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11757441&postcount=964) as you appear to do, or call others "odiots" and blame them for "agitating" you into misspelling a word link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11756520&postcount=948), it probably doesn't help people to take your posts seriously. I suspect you'll find that "turn the other cheek" is a more Scriptural response to provocation and agitation, and admission of one's personal fallibility is a more honest (as well as a more Scriptural) response to being shown that you made an error. Not blame-shifting. I think you know where that comes from.

I'm sorry if you don't agree with me. And if I've offended you, forgive me. But for your own sake as well as for those who are getting a picture of God from your words, please, please soften your speech. You may be hurting and misleading people needlessly.

---
*Strictly speaking, He does respond to sinners in the work of salvation or no one could be saved. Also strictly speaking, He goes on responding to sinners because salvation brings us perfect forgiveness and the ability to learn to forsake sin but doesn't make anyone totally free of sinning in this life; that's the Christian faith. In this life we're saved sinners in God's process of transformation, not perfect beings. But I'm happy to accommodate to your language for the sake of the context.

Ka-pow!

Christians sure can type.

Huh. So what about things like abortion? That seems like a pretty huge moral issue for a lot of people, so why doesn't The Law clarify something as important as that topic?

Or what about issues like whether it's right to keep people alive using machines? Again, this is a pretty big moral issue, yet The Law doesn't seem to give any specific information about the correct course of action. If somebody is braindead but kept alive by machines, does God want us to keep them alive artificially or allow them to die?

I know why I believe that these topics were not covered in the Bible: because the humans who wrote the Bible had no way of knowing anything about the future importance of such topics. But if God is timeless and all-knowing, you'd think He'd have included some of these major issues in The Law, and would have made it a bit more clear for people to understand the right way to do things.

It was never Gods intention to hold your or my hand when taking a stand on moral issues. He gave us the power of choice and free will. You do what you feel is right while recognizing that the choice is not easy but at least God gave you the ability to think ratonally. God never intended to be a sort of superhero who makes critical judgements and decisions for us.

As for the issues you mentioned, God made it clear that life is precious, and all life belongs to him. You can interpret that however you want concerning the issues you just mentioned but you know that God wants you preserve life as much as you can. Should you pull the plug? Should she get an abortion? These are tough choices today, as was caring for a terminally ill elderly relative or disabled child back when there was no state aid or sentencing a man to death who scores of people claim is a murderer yet their is no DNA or even crude forensic evidence to back up their claims.

really now, you honestly think the Bible answered everyone's questions 2000 years ago and is simply outdated now?

Use the critical judgement and decision-making faculties God gave you.

It was never Gods intention to hold your or my hand when taking a stand on moral issues.

So why can't a man sleep with another man? I mean, that's forbidden, is it not?

So why can't a man sleep with another man? I mean, that's forbidden, is it not?

oh, really, just about everything is a sin.

sure, I will concede he effectively manipulated his congregation with a lie.

If your girlfirend put on a few extra pounds and asks you if she looked fat, I guess you would tell her "yes" even though she was still beautiful to you?

hey a lie is a lie right? You are more of a moral authoritarian than Pat Robertson.

It was never Gods intention to hold your or my hand when taking a stand on moral issues. He gave us the power of choice and free will. You do what you feel is right while recognizing that the choice is not easy but at least God gave you the ability to think ratonally. God never intended to be a sort of superhero who makes critical judgements and decisions for us.

Fine...that's not what I was suggesting in the first place.

If God is supposed to be like our Father, I'd assume He would give us a few helpful pointers on major issues. After all, He has a shitload more information than we do, so He could help us make more informed choices by giving us a more comprehensive understanding of the world.

And, remember, the Bible contains SPECIFIC "hand-holding" instructions about what to do if your oxen are stolen. It contains instructions on how to beat your slaves, how to sell your children, and how to rape your captives. Why would an all-knowing God have His Word include these details, but not others?


As for the issues you mentioned, God made it clear that life is precious, and all life belongs to him. You can interpret that however you want concerning the issues you just mentioned but you know that God wants you preserve life as much as you can. Should you pull the plug? Should she get an abortion? These are tough choices today, as was caring for a terminally ill elderly relative or disabled child back when there was no state aid or sentencing a man to death who scores of people claim is a murderer yet their is no DNA or even crude forensic evidence to back up their claims.

Yes, they're tough choices...and God could make them much easier to examine by providing us with some more information. For instance, some people claim that the soul is imparted to a human at the moment of conception. God would know the answer to this, right? So why not tell us? We still would be left to make our own evaluation of what to do, but now we'd have a useful bit of info to help us make better choices.


really now, you honestly think the Bible answered everyone's questions 2000 years ago and is simply outdated now?

I don't think the Bible answers any questions now, nor has it ever. I'm simply pointing out that it did plenty of "hand-holding" for the people 2000 years ago, yet doesn't seem to include any of the "timelessness" that is supposed to be a part of The Law.


Use the critical judgement and decision-making faculties God gave you.
My judgment and cognitive function, such as they are, are products of my biology and my own experiences in life. It would be cowardly for me to give credit or responsibility for these features to some outside force.

Christians sure can type.

Not bad for two fingers, eh?

Not bad for two fingers, eh?

Oh god. I'd better read it then, hadn't I?

So why can't a man sleep with another man? I mean, that's forbidden, is it not?

so when God is clear on something, you complain still?

If your girlfirend put on a few extra pounds and asks you if she looked fat, I guess you would tell her "yes" even though she was still beautiful to you?

hey a lie is a lie right? You are more of a moral authoritarian than Pat Robertson.
I don't have a girlfriend, but if I ask my husband if I look fat I expect the truth, and the truth is what I get.

All lies are bad, all sin is equal in it's spiritual consequence, some are worse in a worldly sense and lying to your congregation to emotionally manipulate them is pretty bad.

Fine...that's not what I was suggesting in the first place.

If God is supposed to be like our Father, I'd assume He would give us a few helpful pointers on major issues. After all, He has a shitload more information than we do, so He could help us make more informed choices by giving us a more comprehensive understanding of the world.

And, remember, the Bible contains SPECIFIC "hand-holding" instructions about what to do if your oxen are stolen. It contains instructions on how to beat your slaves, how to sell your children, and how to rape your captives. Why would an all-knowing God have His Word include these details, but not others?


Yes, they're tough choices...and God could make them much easier to examine by providing us with some more information. For instance, some people claim that the soul is imparted to a human at the moment of conception. God would know the answer to this, right? So why not tell us? We still would be left to make our own evaluation of what to do, but now we'd have a useful bit of info to help us make better choices.


I don't think the Bible answers any questions now, nor has it ever. I'm simply pointing out that it did plenty of "hand-holding" for the people 2000 years ago, yet doesn't seem to include any of the "timelessness" that is supposed to be a part of The Law.


My judgment and cognitive function, such as they are, are products of my biology and my own experiences in life. It would be cowardly for me to give credit or responsibility for these features to some outside force.

oh, so when you talk about the law you are talking about the Mosaic law?

that makes more sense.

nevermind.

It was never Gods intention to hold your or my hand when taking a stand on moral issues. He gave us the power of choice and free will. You do what you feel is right while recognizing that the choice is not easy but at least God gave you the ability to think ratonally. God never intended to be a sort of superhero who makes critical judgements and decisions for us.

He didn't? He seemed pretty pedantic to me when he specified kosher food....


As for the issues you mentioned, God made it clear that life is precious, and all life belongs to him. You can interpret that however you want concerning the issues you just mentioned but you know that God wants you preserve life as much as you can. Should you pull the plug? Should she get an abortion? These are tough choices today, as was caring for a terminally ill elderly relative or disabled child back when there was no state aid or sentencing a man to death who scores of people claim is a murderer yet their is no DNA or even crude forensic evidence to back up their claims.

really now, you honestly think the Bible answered everyone's questions 2000 years ago and is simply outdated now?

Use the critical judgement and decision-making faculties God gave you.

I seem to remember a bit in the OT where it's specified what the punishment for killing someone is. A few paragraphs down there's the punishment for causing an abortion, which is nowhere near the same level of punishment. In fact, I seem it's only some sort of "fine" to be paid... it would seem that the bible itself doesn't argue against abortion.

He didn't? He seemed pretty pedantic to me when he specified kosher food....

Exactly. The Bible DOES "hand-hold" in many places and on many topics.

I don't think the Bible answers any questions now, nor has it ever. I'm simply pointing out that it did plenty of "hand-holding" for the people 2000 years ago, yet doesn't seem to include any of the "timelessness" that is supposed to be a part of The Law.


2000 years ago is when the "Bible" did away with all of the hand-holding and told people, "Be Excellent to God and to each other".

The Law has no timelessness attached to it in the way you are referring to it as being timelessly relevant.
Even it's "eternal" nature is/was conditional on both parties continuing on in it as all covenants were/are

My judgment and cognitive function, such as they are, are products of my biology and my own experiences in life. It would be cowardly for me to give credit or responsibility for these features to some outside force.

Well it is my opinion, and i repeat my opinion, that your cognitive function and biology are a creation of God, a high power and intelligent force. Believing in that is not cowardly. On the contrary, it would be arrogant and even naive to deny your creator, give yourself all the credit and explain your existance through coincedence or sheer chance. But again, that is my opinion.

Look, I am not a theologist, so I will end our discussion with this...Just do what is in your heart and be the best person you can be. That is what God wants. The bible presents a general message amidst much ambiguity but the main themes are clear, be good and be a believer. that is really all he asks.

and Bottle, it is clear by your last statement about denying an outside force that you are not a believer, so why debate what is written in the Bible as if you actually look to it for guidance?

Oh god. I'd better read it then, hadn't I?


I just figured I'd put all my answers to Kormanthor in one place, since I'd been away from the thread so long. I also figured I owed him an explanation of why I was saying what I was saying. Hence the length.

so when God is clear on something, you complain still?

Oh no.

Original argument = God did not give us clear instructions for the handling of future moral events.

God never intended to be a sort of superhero who makes critical judgements and decisions for us.

So why can't a man sleep with another man?

so when God is clear on something, you complain still?

To which I say..... nothing. It would be like lassoing a bull with a bungy cord.

I don't have a girlfriend, but if I ask my husband if I look fat I expect the truth, and the truth is what I get.

All lies are bad, all sin is equal in it's spiritual consequence, some are worse in a worldly sense and lying to your congregation to emotionally manipulate them is pretty bad.

damn, i had a 50/50 shot in guessing your gender and i just went with the odds that you were a guy, this being the internet an all. My fault...sorry about that. :p

damn, i had a 50/50 shot in guessing your gender and i just went with the odds that you were a guy, this being the internet an all. My fault...sorry about that. :p

yeah, it happens a lot, don't worry about it. ;)

funny enough a lot of people at first glance assume me to be atheist too.

Well it is my opinion, and i repeat my opinion, that your cognitive function and biology are a creation of God, a high power and intelligent force. Believing in that is not cowardly. On the contrary, it would be arrogant and even naive to deny your creator, give yourself all the credit and explain your existance through coincedence or sheer chance. But again, that is my opinion.

The very cognitive functions we are talking about can lead me to only one conclusion regarding an "intelligent higher power": that I do not have sufficient information to determine whether one exists at all, let alone to make judgments regarding its nature or qualities.

Furthermore, you seem to fall into a common mistake among the superstitious, in which you see two possible choices: 1) we were intentionally designed by an intelligent Creator, or 2) we are the result of chance/coincidence. Neither is the case.

Random chance contributed to my existence, but so did natural forces and physical laws that have nothing to do with chance. My own actions and choices have shaped who I am, but so have the influences of countless other people and events. I did not make myself entire, nor did any other force. I am one of the countless outputs of this amazingly complex universe of ours, shaped by many forces (both conscious and not), and cannot be simplified to the result of one simple, anthropomorphized cause.


Look, I am not a theologist, so I will end our discussion with this...Just do what is in your heart and be the best person you can be. That is what God wants. The bible presents a general message amidst much ambiguity but the main themes are clear, be good and be a believer. that is really all he asks.

I would rather not rely on my cardiovascular system for making cognitive evaluations. Instead of attempting to please a Creator-being who may or may not exist, I prefer to use empathy and pragmatism to set my moral code and my standards for behavior. I would be a poor excuse for a human being if I behaved well simply to please an outside force or being.


and Bottle, it is clear by your last statement about denying an outside force that you are not a believer, so why debate what is written in the Bible as if you actually look to it for guidance?
I debate what is written in the Bible for much the same reason that I debate what is written in the US Constitution. Written works may have great influence over our lives, regardless of how each of us feels about them individually. I do not believe the Bible is the work of any God or gods, but I believe it is a written work which has tremendous power over the majority of my fellow citizens. It is a written work which has shaped my culture's history, and which shapes my culture's present. Analyzing it is important even if one does not buy into the superstition that is attached to it.

I just figured I'd put all my answers to Kormanthor in one place, since I'd been away from the thread so long. I also figured I owed him an explanation of why I was saying what I was saying. Hence the length.

Fair enough. But I've read it now. You lost me here:

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us


It's not like we're asking a lot. Just that if he could send over a dozen prophets and transmogrify or discombulate himself into a son and chat about current affairs, why hasn't he done it for over a thousand years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwardis
If I may, the ideas being promoted by Insignificantia are not anywhere near traditional Chritianity.

And coming from you, that means something!

Thanks, by the way, for pointing that out. I knew it. I don't know if Insignificantia knows it.

Of course I know I represent only my own views. I would hope that we all represent only our own views.

If you choose to agree with the opinions of some "orthodoxy" then that's a lovely thing, and I would also hope that you'd have thought through all the implications of assuming as much (or all) of that orthodoxy as you have.

My point is that arguing about the "fine points" of a belief system that you "accept" but is not actually "yours" is a beautiful example of the entire "angels dancing on the head of a pin" scenario.


I agree with no orthodoxy because I (environmentally) was not offered one. I was forced to develop my own.

What I believe is what I believe. Hopefully, what you believe is what you believe, and not what you "accept" as your beliefs.

Thus lieth the difference between the way of the spirit and the way of the law.

Other than "the law" given by god as the world consisting of a plethora of things to learn from, the "law" is to be accepted or rejected at will.

The spirit is performed, the law is read.

I just figured I'd put all my answers to Kormanthor in one place, since I'd been away from the thread so long. I also figured I owed him an explanation of why I was saying what I was saying. Hence the length.

Fair enough. But I've read it now. You lost me here:

Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us

It's not like we're asking a lot. Just that if he could send over a dozen prophets and transmogrify or discombulate himself into a son and chat about current affairs, why hasn't he done it for over a thousand years?



Sorry, Nguyen. That quote is from Ephesians 3:20; I meant to quote Ephesians 4:14-16 but I mis-typed it as "3:14-16". I've now corrected that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I hope that helps.

Sorry, Nguyen. That quote is from Ephesians 3:20; I meant to quote Ephesians 4:14-16 but I mis-typed it as "3:14-16". I've now corrected that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I hope that helps.

Oh god.

Oh god.


Interesting response...

:p

I'd love to tease you about that response but doubtless someone here would take it wrong and a five page side-dispute would break out over it, so I'll refrain.

Interesting response...

:p

I'd love to tease you about that response but doubtless someone here would take it wrong and a five page side-dispute would break out over it, so I'll refrain.

Yes. good of you to bring it up.

What does verse 16 mean? I can't quite pin it down.

...Quote:
Originally Posted by PootWaddle
~
~Matthew 6:19-21
19"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Storing up treasures in heaven and learning not to over-value material things on Earth is not communism. Teaching us to honor things of real value over material wealth is in everything from Disney movies to Grimm fairy tales, this is not a communist lesson...


Part of a message: do not hold wealth to yourself.

I've met almost no Christians, by the way, that actually practise this.
...


That depends on what you mean by "wealth". The word used in the above scripture seems to be "treasure" and not wealth. That I think is important.

Wealth is that which provides for you. Treasure is the stored excess which you must protect.

Wealth is necessary for life, as the ability to gather food (water/air) is necessary. "Wealth building" is tapping into the flows of sustenance that are available in the world.

God wants us to do that in abundance because then we can convert the potentials of the world into that which we can share with our fellows.

Treasure binds you to "a place" (a treasury). You must develop a system to protect this treasure. The items in your treasury also degrade over time (moth and rust) and create envy in those who see your treasure doing nothing for either you or them.

The problem with treasure is that is "stagnated potential", and just like any pool of stagnation, promotes rot and degradation.

Being wealthy is being a conduit of useful energy flow into "the people".

Being a treasure horder is being a swamp and cess pit within "the people".


I've met MANY christians who are massive wealth holders and wealth builders, and many who are treasure horders.

Guess which one "the people" around them think are the most "christian" and good?



(( Love 'ya Grave, but unless you're saying that SOME christians are using the "collectivizing force" of christianity to accumulate vast treasure (which I FULLY agree with!) your off the mark in calling christianity a "communistic" religion. ))

Actually God commands us to kill: to protect ourselves (the murder is trying to stangle you and that sort of thing), in war, and to excecute. Outside of that, it is wrong to kill, yes. People, animals are a different story.
Does God command these things? Or do men? Men wrote the Bible. You think they were "inspired" by God, but you have only their word for that. You were not there at the time to see them at work or question them about it. You are blindly taking their word for it that what they are telling you is the word of God. Unless you hear that word for yourself, how can you be sure?

And even if you hear a voice inside your own head telling you to do things, how can you be sure it is God's voice, and not the voice of some evil spirit trying to mislead you, or an illusion of a voice generated by mental illness (such hallucinations can occur at any time in a person's life; they can be caused by injuries you don't even know you have, such as with minor strokes that you don't even feel but which cause bleeding in the brain)?

By relying on the written "word of God" (written down by other people) rather than a set of principles, ethics, moral precepts (call them what you like) that are yours, and are between just you and your God, and are independent of external authorities, and by which you judge the validity of what others tell you, you are in essence turning yourself into nothing but a puppet, with neither will nor morals of your own. The morals you follow never become your own. They are always external to you, while you seem to remain empty. You make yourself seem, to me, almost like a non-person. A doll who can be used by others as they like.

You may be willing to be used this way by your God -- seeing it as some absolute submission to his will -- but are you willing to be used the same by charlatans and dictators, too?

The responsibility is mine! I choose to do what I do. And I must accept the consequenses. I must be willing to accept the consequenses. I agree with you totally on this (except that I was never putting blame on God).
You do not think of it that way, but as one who might be likely to blame you for actions you might take against me and mine, I do see it that way.

No. I was implying that it is better to rely on what is right than what is nice.
It is your notion that killing people might be more right than being materialistic that disturbs me to the point of anger. Frankly, I do not see that such slavish literalness, such willingness to do physical harm to others, is less materialistic than a greedy desire to own a lot of stuff.

If I'm wrong? Then God will judge me. There's nothing else to it. If I'm wrong, God judges me. And if I'm right God judges me. The difference is what the judgement would be. But the Bible teaches that we cannot lose our salvation, so I am in no danger of hell. Or rather, I protected from the danger of hell. Not that that gives me free reign to do whatever I wish. If I am truly saved, I will want to follow the will of God as revealed in Scripture.

You're mighty confident of that. The fact that you feel so assured that you will not suffer for your actions, right or wrong, is another reason you should not be trusted.

The very cognitive functions we are talking about can lead me to only one conclusion regarding an "intelligent higher power": that I do not have sufficient information to determine whether one exists at all, let alone to make judgments regarding its nature or qualities.

The existance of God is not a testable hypothesis, i agree. However I choose to believe because to me, the life, world and universe I see is evidence enough.

Furthermore, you seem to fall into a common mistake among the superstitious, in which you see two possible choices: 1) we were intentionally designed by an intelligent Creator, or 2) we are the result of chance/coincidence. Neither is the case.

Random chance contributed to my existence, but so did natural forces and physical laws that have nothing to do with chance. My own actions and choices have shaped who I am, but so have the influences of countless other people and events. I did not make myself entire, nor did any other force. I am one of the countless outputs of this amazingly complex universe of ours, shaped by many forces (both conscious and not), and cannot be simplified to one simple, anthropomorphized cause.

though I am uneasy with you calling my faith "superstitious" I do not believe you mean to be insensitive so I will let that pass. "Superstition" is usually reserved for an uneducated peasant.

Also, there is nothing simple about God or a Higher power that is creator of the universe. We cannot begin to understand this entity anymore than an ant can map out the human brain. I feel the natural forces and physical laws exist, because they were put there. They are the way they are because they must be and are deliberate.

I would rather not rely on my cardiovascular system for making cognitive evaluations. Instead of attempting to please a Creator-being who may or may not exist, I prefer to use empathy and pragmatism to set my moral code and my standards for behavior. I would be a poor excuse for a human being if I behaved well simply to please an outside force or being.

If that "outside force" is responsible for your creation and is in charge of your eternal salvation...then no I do not think you would be a poor excuse of a human if you sought to please this force. ;)

Are you familiar with Pascal's wager at all? If not, I will explain...A French philosopher named Blaise Pascal argued that people should "bet" on believing in God because all they would be risking is the loss of a few finite pleasures in the here and now in exchange for infinite bliss in heaven. Now I am not a betting man, but this is a bet I am willing to take.


I debate what is written in the Bible for much the same reason that I debate what is written in the US Constitution. Written works may have great influence over our lives, regardless of how each of us feels about them individually. I do not believe the Bible is the work of any God or gods, but I believe it is a written work which has tremendous power over the majority of my fellow citizens. It is a written work which has shaped my culture's history, and which shapes my culture's present. Analyzing it is important even if one does not buy into the superstition that is attached to it.

I respect this viewpoint, as long as your are not being cynical for the sake of being cynical. :)

Let me reveal some facts about myself:

I too do not think the bible should be taken literally word for word. I feel it is an invaluable historical and moral document that is beneficial to the spiritual health of society but both critics and hardline believers alike tend to pick at it and focus on it too much. It may be the word of God but it was written by men and has also gone through many translations and possible alterations over the thousands of years it has been around. The Koran is said to have been dictated directly to Muhammed (an illiterate) by God, which is interesting but again I feel these holy documents are allegorical in nature.

I believe in God.

I believe in Jesus as the Son of God and my savior which qualifies me as a Christian.

I respect and am interested in most other major religions.

I struggle with my faith plenty of times.

I believe in immortality, where the soul lives on after death.

I believe in immortalism, where through future scientific and medical advances, the human lifespan can and should be extended to lengths that are unthinkable today.

I believe in Cryonics; that it will one day be a reality and that it does not go against God in any way.

I believe in the separation of Church and state.

I believe in freedom of religion and freedom of religous expression so long as it does not break any public decency standards (so intolerant anti-faith "religions" such as satanism anti-semitic islamo fascism are out of the question but Scientology and Wicca are acceptable)

I am a big fan of ancient religions, mythology and demonology. Some of it is interesting, some of it is scary, all of it is entertaining.

I do not see why some people put a wall between Humanism and Theism.

I hate the 2 party political system America is enslaved by.

I have my political leanings, but I try and take a sensible and practical approach to each issue.

I made this list because I hate labels and how people think they understand my thinking just because I took a certain side on a certain issue. I am guilty of doing this myself as well.

I'd wager it was effective. Just a hunch.

It was certainly effective in making members of the congregation fell like the university and the US government were out to get them, based on a total lie.

I can't see what your beef is with this. It's what he wanted to do and some of his congregation doubtlessly got a kick from it.

QED, it was effective. The leader won.

You seem to think leaders are in competition with their followers, that going to church is some kind adversarial exercise.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no Christian), but are pastors supposed to be leaders? Are Christians followers of pastors? I thought they were supposed to follow God and Jesus, not the pastor of the moment.

Are you familiar with Pascal's wager at all?

Except Pascal's wager actually works against you. If you accept the possible existence of one god, then you must de facto accept the possible existence of all the others. So, your odds of going to hell as an atheist are maybe 10000/1.*

But betting like Pascal, your odds of eternal reward, should you believe in god, are merely 9999/1. Which is a long shot, or something.

And where did the thing about Cryonics come from?

*Idiocy.

Of course I know I represent only my own views. I would hope that we all represent only our own views.

If you choose to agree with the opinions of some "orthodoxy" then that's a lovely thing, and I would also hope that you'd have thought through all the implications of assuming as much (or all) of that orthodoxy as you have.

My point is that arguing about the "fine points" of a belief system that you "accept" but is not actually "yours" is a beautiful example of the entire "angels dancing on the head of a pin" scenario.


I agree with no orthodoxy because I (environmentally) was not offered one. I was forced to develop my own.

What I believe is what I believe. Hopefully, what you believe is what you believe, and not what you "accept" as your beliefs.

Thus lieth the difference between the way of the spirit and the way of the law.

Other than "the law" given by god as the world consisting of a plethora of things to learn from, the "law" is to be accepted or rejected at will.

The spirit is performed, the law is read.

I'm sorry, who are you again? :p

It was certainly effective in making members of the congregation fell like the university and the US government were out to get them, based on a total lie.


maybe you should be more disturbed by the fact that this lie was totally believable. I could see this happen at a large number of todays Universities.

maybe you should be more disturbed by the fact that this lie was totally believable. I could see this happen at a large number of todays Universities.

I am disturbed first that the pastor would lie, second that his congregation would believe it, and third that people think this was anything less than a sick manipulation by a disturbed man.

maybe you should be more disturbed by the fact that this lie was totally believable. I could see this happen at a large number of todays Universities.

I do not think the lie was believable at all. I am disturbed that so many were so ready to believe something so obviously bogus. And what, precisely,could you see happening at universities? Pastors telling such lies? Yes, unfortunately, many religious spokespeople nowadays seem to think nothing of spreading lies, rumors and slanders willynilly.

Except Pascal's wager actually works against you. If you accept the possible existence of one god, then you must de facto accept the possible existence of all the others. So, your odds of going to hell as an atheist are maybe 10000/1.

But betting like Pascal, your odds of eternal reward, should you believe in god, are merely 9999/1. Which is a long shot, or something.

And where did the thing about Cryonics come from?

you have a point, but I believe in something at least. Also, not all religions preach "believe or perish", so many religions do not qualify for Pascals wager. And concerning Christianity specifically, Jesus said you shall be saved through him and only him...so from my point of view, it is a bet worth taking.

as for Cryonics, i mentioned this because many feel it is an attempt to cheat death and therefore goes against faith. I however do not see this and am willing to keep an openmind. I do not want anyone to label me as a bible thumper or anything.

and just sharing some tid bits about myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonocracy
It was never Gods intention to hold your or my hand when taking a stand on moral issues. He gave us the power of choice and free will. You do what you feel is right while recognizing that the choice is not easy but at least God gave you the ability to think ratonally. God never intended to be a sort of superhero who makes critical judgements and decisions for us.


Fine...that's not what I was suggesting in the first place.

If God is supposed to be like our Father, I'd assume He would give us a few helpful pointers on major issues. After all, He has a shitload more information than we do, so He could help us make more informed choices by giving us a more comprehensive understanding of the world.

He gave us all the information he could, which is the world itself.

Your job, as a sentient being, is to OBSERVE.

God is not "like our father". God is not a PERSON (a creature).

If god had given you 200 times the "understanding" of the world that you have now, you'd still complain that he'd not given you enough.

The game is to be played with the situation as it is. Your job is to play the game, which you actually cannot help but do. :)


And, remember, the Bible contains SPECIFIC "hand-holding" instructions about what to do if your oxen are stolen. It contains instructions on how to beat your slaves, how to sell your children, and how to rape your captives. Why would an all-knowing God have His Word include these details, but not others?

That is the "cultural overlay" of a particular people at a particular time in a particular place that someone else decided to include in a "religious" work.

God does not write books or make rules. God provides the world in which people can write books, and make rules.

You are wrong that god "knows-all". God simply allows all within the context of his creation.

It is your job to distinguish between the "words of men" which say they are the words of god (which is an impossibility as god does not DO words) and the actual "words" of god which are not words at all.

God does not speak, but we can hear him through the cacophony of creation deep in the background.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonocracy
As for the issues you mentioned, God made it clear that life is precious, and all life belongs to him. You can interpret that however you want concerning the issues you just mentioned but you know that God wants you preserve life as much as you can. Should you pull the plug? Should she get an abortion? These are tough choices today, as was caring for a terminally ill elderly relative or disabled child back when there was no state aid or sentencing a man to death who scores of people claim is a murderer yet their is no DNA or even crude forensic evidence to back up their claims.


Yes, they're tough choices...and God could make them much easier to examine by providing us with some more information. For instance, some people claim that the soul is imparted to a human at the moment of conception. God would know the answer to this, right? So why not tell us? We still would be left to make our own evaluation of what to do, but now we'd have a useful bit of info to help us make better choices.

If you were told (by a creation [a person]) that god said that there is NO time when it is acceptable to harm any reproductive cell (egg, sperm, zygote, fetus, etc) would you believe what you were told?

I would imagine that you'd say NO because you didn't hear it from god himself.

But what if god is not capable of producing any form of communication that you would accept as "god-to-human" communication?

Your demand that god communicate to you in a way that he is incapable of doing is a demand for the impossible, and gives you full justification to do anything about anything that you wish. That is the POINT of free will.

If god could do the impossible and make you believe that he were speaking to you as you demand to be spoken to, then you'd have absolute knowledge about the "morality" of every action, and your free will would be SEVERELY curtailed.

That would make the game too easy. An it would stunt your development as a sentient being, essentially making you into a robot.

And making robots is not what this world is for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonocracy
really now, you honestly think the Bible answered everyone's questions 2000 years ago and is simply outdated now?


I don't think the Bible answers any questions now, nor has it ever. I'm simply pointing out that it did plenty of "hand-holding" for the people 2000 years ago, yet doesn't seem to include any of the "timelessness" that is supposed to be a part of The Law.

Then you're not reading it with an eye toward learning anything from it, but only an eye toward degrading it.

And that's your right. You may choose to learn or not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonocracy
Use the critical judgement and decision-making faculties God gave you.

My judgment and cognitive function, such as they are, are products of my biology and my own experiences in life. It would be cowardly for me to give credit or responsibility for these features to some outside force.

You did not create yourself.

Your biology and the sustenance of your life that is provided by this earthly environment were here before you, and will exist after you are gone.

So what do you "own" that doesn't rely on that which was here before you, however it got to be here?

The provider of the "before me" stuff that my biology and sustenance relies on I call god.

What do you call it?

I'm sorry, who are you again? :p

A very VERY INSIGNIFICANT-ia type person. :D

..and loving my insignificance.

And what do you think of my words? :)

Guys I have done my best to try to explain to you why I believe as I do, it has become extremely clear to me that you don't want to hear my message. No matter what I say you are just going to keep this going so you can say that you shut down those Christians. The scripture says that we should not argue about spritual things and I for one am tired of speaking to people who refuse to hear or believe. Oh ... one last thing even though I may not post in this forum after this post doesn't mean that I won't somewhere else.

you have a point, but I believe in something at least. Also, not all religions preach "believe or perish", so many religions do not qualify for Pascals wager. And concerning Christianity specifically, Jesus said you shall be saved through him and only him...so from my point of view, it is a bet worth taking.

as for Cryonics, i mentioned this because many feel it is an attempt to cheat death and therefore goes against faith. I however do not see this and am willing to keep an openmind. I do not want anyone to label me as a bible thumper or anything.

and just sharing some tid bits about myself.

I don't have a point. I completely fucked up the odds. I'm still figuring out how to express it with numbers, but I'm lean. So - I don't think it is a bet worth taking because:

If you hold to the wager, then your chances of going to a Christian heaven are outweighed by the presence of other faiths and after-life theories. Meanwhile, back on earth, you live by a book written by men. I follow the statutes of law (reasonably), but I don't play guitar and sing really twee, happy-strummy songs in front of police stations. Devout Christians tend to be boring, and their music tends to be shite. I've said it. I'm sorry. I love you as people, but I don't want to live with you. Sentiment shared and all that.

I reckon Pascal's Wager can be inverted to mean that the best chance you have for happiness at any time is now, because there is a 1/1 chance of you being alive at this point.

The bible cannot cut it when providing you with happiness in this life. Only the next.

Yes. good of you to bring it up.

What does verse 16 mean? I can't quite pin it down.


It's part of the context that completes the idea in Ephesians 4:14-16. I'll explain it to you enough to answer your question (I hope), but let me make this caveat for the people who don't like reading Christian teaching on an NS page: if you don't want to read Christian doctrine, stop now.

Also, I'm writing to answer to the best of my ability Nguyen's specific question about a verse of the New Testament. If you feel the need to argue with me along the lines of "but since I don't believe x, I reject your conclusion y" or "... I think God is a load of [fill in the blank] so I resent you preaching at me", don't let me waste your time. I'm not writing this to argue with anyone so I'm unlikely to answer that.



Verse 14 encourages Christians to stop being spiritually immature. He specifies that this means escaping the danger of being taken in by trickery and schemes and false teaching.
Verse 15 exhorts Christians to do this by "speaking the truth in love", in order to become spiritually mature in every way.

[Explanatory note at this point: the New Testament uses the image of the Church (read: "the whole group of believers in Christ", not just this or that denomination) as the "Body" of Christ. But there is a sense in which we're to understand that this is not only an image, but is also true in a non-physical, spiritual sense. In this image, the Church is the Body, but Christ Himself is the Head of that Body. The Christian life is described as a life in which believers grow, together as the Body, into ever more perfect, functioning unity with Christ. As a further aside, the failures that so many people see in the way the churches and individual Christians behave result from the central failure to grow: immature Christians are inadequately "connected" to the Head of the Body, and are capable of very nasty things. But I digress.]

To continue...
Paul finishes verse 15 by saying that this "speaking the truth in love" is part of the process of becoming spiritually mature. And as I mention in the note, this means "growing up in all aspects into Him"; i.e., learning to live fully in spiritual union with Christ.

Verse 16 is just the final part of that thought. If you read the whole clause and don't worry about the verse number it helps to see the thought: "... we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, Who is the Head, Christ from Whom the whole Body, being fitted and held together ..." etc.

In verse 16 Paul links back to the way Christ Himself is the origin of all spiritual growth. In the light of Paul's writing, this is a reference to the Spirit of Christ transforming believers and working in us to become like Christ. In this context Paul is talking about how each member of the Body (i.e., each Christian) is to be integrated into the whole, and how every Christian's maturing contributes to the maturity of the whole. This is described as the Church being built up in love.

There are a few "fine points" that might be (and are) extracted and discussed among believers but that's the gist of it.

And to finish, the reason I cited it in my answer to Kormanthor was because Paul's exhortation to overcome the spiritual childishness of spiritual deception (verse 14) is not simply "speaking the truth", but "speaking the truth in love" (verse 15), which seemed appropriate in the context.

I hope that makes it clearer.

And what, precisely,could you see happening at universities? Pastors telling such lies? Yes, unfortunately, many religious spokespeople nowadays seem to think nothing of spreading lies, rumors and slanders willynilly.

I could see University officials wishing to appease a "secular" speaker by asking an on campus church to postpone or cancel one of its services to avoid offending the speaker or his audience.

I do not see how this is so hard to believe when during Vietnam, ROTC students were spit on by students encouraged by faculty, present day Military recruiters are nearly assaulted by protesting students and faculty at Berkely and signs for christian prayer groups and especially signs for pro life viewpoints put up by church members are vandalized and ripped apart by students and faculty members as well.

Universities are not about the free exchange of ideas they claim to be. Those in the Academic world are often left wing and intolerant of opposing viewpoints, similar to the right wingers you see on Wall Street who actually say "Greed" is a good thing. :headbang:

Quote:
If I'm wrong? Then God will judge me. There's nothing else to it. If I'm wrong, God judges me. And if I'm right God judges me. The difference is what the judgement would be. But the Bible teaches that we cannot lose our salvation, so I am in no danger of hell. Or rather, I protected from the danger of hell. Not that that gives me free reign to do whatever I wish. If I am truly saved, I will want to follow the will of God as revealed in Scripture.

You're mighty confident of that. The fact that you feel so assured that you will not suffer for your actions, right or wrong, is another reason you should not be trusted.

(Who was that that you, Mura, quoted?)

The world, not god, judges us on our actions (behaviors). That is why god created it (the world). God can only forgive.

If you are evil (do evil acts), you create evil (for yourself and others) here, in the world, and that is your punishment.

When (not if) you are forgiven by god, you realize (by the grace of god) that you have created that evil and that realization is the most awful agony imaginable.

That is your "punishment", which is in fact administered by yourself (a creation of god and not god himself). God does not punish.

To believe that you can do evil with impunity because you are "forgiven" all your sins, is to miss the essential point that you are forgiven by GOD but not by the world, of which you are a part, and the operative part in your own ultimate punishment.

So to do evil with the assurance of "heaven" is to delude yourself into creating MUCH more pain for yourself (and bringing the world more HELLishness) in the long run.

Thus, hell will be avenged, but by the world, in the agent of yourself, while you will always be redeemed into the fogiveness of god.


We are all fully punished AND fully forgiven, always.


So don't be stupid and create more of a mess for yourself and others by doing evil, as it just hurts more eventually.

That clears it up nicely, thanks. I couldn't decide if it was a paeon to the physical or spiritual. It's a really well written passage.


For my digression, I like that it doesn't mention hell.

But to tie some things together, you say that some Christians have trouble with growing. Could this be because there's no presence of Christ, and people have become disillusioned? On a related note, does the body of christ ebb and flow with generations or does he experience constant growth?

Apologies for the facetious tone. No offense intended here.

I don't have a point. I completely fucked up the odds. I'm still figuring out how to express it with numbers, but I'm lean. So - I don't think it is a bet worth taking because:

If you hold to the wager, then your chances of going to a Christian heaven are outweighed by the presence of other faiths and after-life theories. Meanwhile, back on earth, you live by a book written by men. I follow the statutes of law (reasonably), but I don't play guitar and sing really twee, happy-strummy songs in front of police stations. Devout Christians tend to be boring, and their music tends to be shite. I've said it. I'm sorry. I love you as people, but I don't want to live with you. Sentiment shared and all that.

I reckon Pascal's Wager can be inverted to mean that the best chance you have for happiness at any time is now, because there is a 1/1 chance of you being alive at this point.

The bible cannot cut it when providing you with happiness in this life. Only the next.

LOL, hey I am not offended and trust me, I am not a Southern Baptist or a Mormom.

Alot of the restrictions certain puritanical branches of Christianity practice are not present in others. Some do not allow dancing or drinking or singing or even sleeping in the same bed...with your wife.

Jesus loved music. He loved to Dance and he drank wine. Jesus also spent much of his time helping supposed deviants such as protistutes and vagabonds and thieves. What he did not like, as far as I can tell, was exploitation of the weak.

so as far as I am concerned, from reading the Gospels and other historical documents I have come across, the sacrifices I have to make are really not sacrifices at all. The 10 Commandments are relatively simple to follow for any decent human being. Do not kill, do not screw your neighbors wife, treat others with the respect you would want for yourself...ok, i got it. love thy neighbor, i can do that...except when he walks around in the backyard in a speedo.

being a christian is not about all the extra restrictions added such as no dancing, no drinking, no rock and roll, no loitering, no rollerblading, no soliciting...etc. These were put there in an attempt to help people stay out of trouble such as getting drunk and possibly hurting someone or dancing and getting too horny.

I try to live by the Golden Rule. I screw up though plenty of times. I love Las Vegas and it is a city full of temptation but i don't have to go nuts while there nor do i need to avoid it all together. Even those sluts on Girls gone wild who drink too much and make complete fools out of themselves can always repent and get to heaven as long as it's genuine. The guys with the cameras who buy them the shots and encourage them to do the things they do may not be so lucky though...they are exploiting stupid and drunk girls for sexual and financial reasons. then again, who knows.

my point is, I try. I try to be the best person I can, but I am still a creature of sin. And I can enjoy my life just fine without the excesses the bible warns against.

as far as Christian music goes, I have never been a bg fan of the genre but P.O.D. was a pretty good rock band and they were christian rock. Rock is pretty much dead these days but they breathed temporary life back into it. Three Doors Down isn't bad either.

Does that mean if we could exist temporally, we still wouldn't get milk?

Example of a thing God could never do. Please.

Forgive sin unpaid for. The whole basis of Christianity. That's the reason Jesus died, so that sin would be paid for.

how do you reconcile that with scripture that says that the law is timeless, that it was from the begining and will be to the end?

Are we responsible for what God has not revealed? God revealed parts of it. There may still be parts that we do not know of, but we are responsible for how much has been given up to this point.

to fully understand God's sovereign nature you have to step back from your human understanding of His limitations (which he has none)

Well, one very important limitation (which apparently He does not have) is that He cannot forgive sin unpaid for. That's the whole basis for Christianity. If you don't believe that, Jesus' death meant nothing and you are not a Christian.

So I guess there are some things which limit God. They're called His nature, and He has shown some of His nature to us through the Bible.

LOL, hey I am not offended and trust me, I am not a Southern Baptist or a Mormom.


something wrong with being Southern Baptist?

Are we responsible for what God has not revealed? God revealed parts of it. There may still be parts that we do not know of, but we are responsible for how much has been given up to this point.
first you must figure out what the truth is and use it to discern everything else.
Well, one very important limitation (which apparently He does not have) is that He cannot forgive sin unpaid for. That's the whole basis for Christianity. If you don't believe that, Jesus' death meant nothing and you are not a Christian.

So I guess there are some things which limit God. They're called His nature, and He has shown some of His nature to us through the Bible.
A limitation that He placed on himself with The Law.

Does God command these things? Or do men? Men wrote the Bible. You think they were "inspired" by God, but you have only their word for that. You were not there at the time to see them at work or question them about it. You are blindly taking their word for it that what they are telling you is the word of God. Unless you hear that word for yourself, how can you be sure?

This is actually the identical argument from the opposite position. One says the bible IS of God the other argues that it IS of man, and neither offers anything outside of opinion as evidence.

But let’s continue…
And even if you hear a voice inside your own head telling you to do things, how can you be sure it is God's voice, and not the voice of some evil spirit trying to mislead you, or an illusion of a voice generated by mental illness (such hallucinations can occur at any time in a person's life; they can be caused by injuries you don't even know you have, such as with minor strokes that you don't even feel but which cause bleeding in the brain)?

Remember that and then compare it to this..

By relying on the written "word of God" (written down by other people) rather than a set of principles, ethics, moral precepts (call them what you like) that are yours, and are between just you and your God, and are independent of external authorities, and by which you judge the validity of what others tell you, you are in essence turning yourself into nothing but a puppet, with neither will nor morals of your own. The morals you follow never become your own. They are always external to you, while you seem to remain empty. You make yourself seem, to me, almost like a non-person. A doll who can be used by others as they like.

IF a person is to not believe what they choose from older scriptures (because they are possibly written by man and that makes us puppets to their will) AND THEN we cannot believe what our own head tells us either, of God’s will from the paragraph above makes it so we can't trust our own judgement, how exactly do YOU suggest that we determine what we should or should not do? You've directed him to not trust his holy scripture AND you’ve directed him not to trust his own mind…

You may be willing to be used this way by your God -- seeing it as some absolute submission to his will -- but are you willing to be used the same by charlatans and dictators, too?

I would suggest that the opposite implication is much more likely. It is far more likely that it is those without a written and recorded codec of ethics, a codec which can be used to measure and direct our daily dilemmas and answers to our questions, to keep us out of the grasp of charlatans and liars whom prey on the good intentioned through misdirection of their good will.

Without a guide, without a set of parameters to assist us in stormy and confusing times, those left to nothing but their own resources (such as you admitted yourself are essentially guideless) using their ‘impressions’ of what is good and bad, are like a boat tossed in a stormy sea with no rudder. Tossed and turned as the wind and waves throw them, sometimes in this direction, sometimes in that direction.

The properly used scripture will have the opposite affect. It will guide, steer and direct during times of turmoil, helping the person keep a straight course and a controlled response to life’s daily troubles, large and small.

it is. I think the true test of your faith isn't what happens to you, but how you react to it.

Well put. That's how I feel about it in one short concise sentence.

first you must figure out what the truth is and use it to discern everything else.

And...? I don't see your point.

A limitation that He placed on himself with The Law.

Is God mutable? NO! Then how could He place a limitation on His nature? He couldn't. His nature has always, is, and will always be the same.

Forgive sin unpaid for. The whole basis of Christianity. That's the reason Jesus died, so that sin would be paid for.

since jesus IS god, has always BEEN god and will always BE god, then GOD paid the price for sin (as well he should since it was all his fault) and GOD could and did forgive sin that was paid for by himself.

Is God mutable? NO! Then how could He place a limitation on His nature? He couldn't. His nature has always, is, and will always be the same.

God practices a fair amount of self control and the testament to that is that He provided a way for us to live under His grace.

something wrong with being Southern Baptist?

nah, it could be worse. you could be a woman... :mp5:

nah, it could be worse. you could be a woman... :mp5:

actually I am.

I am also a registered republican.....

anything else bad about me?

actually I am.

I am also a registered republican.....

anything else bad about me?

*hands Smunkeeville a rainsuit to wear and shield to hold in front of herself*

*hands Smunkeeville a rainsuit to wear and shield to hold in front of herself*

thanks ;)

now that I have some protection

I drive an SUV, I don't use public transportation because it's inefficient

I print out about 300 pages a day, I mail 2500 newsletters a week, I eat meat, and I hunt animals.....

hmm?

God practices a fair amount of self control and the testament to that is that He provided a way for us to live under His grace.

A fair amount? I'd say He uses a lot more than a fair amount.

I don't see how this means His nature changes.

A fair amount? I'd say He uses a lot more than a fair amount.

I don't see how this means His nature changes.
I never said that He changed his nature. That's something you introduced.

I never said that He changed his nature. That's something you introduced.

What? I've been saying the whole time that God's nature cannot change?!?!

Okay. Somewhere we (more likely I) got confused, so sorry for that.

What? I've been saying the whole time that God's nature cannot change?!?!

Okay. Somewhere we (more likely I) got confused, so sorry for that.

tell me all you know about God's nature.

That clears it up nicely, thanks. I couldn't decide if it was a paeon to the physical or spiritual. It's a really well written passage.


For my digression, I like that it doesn't mention hell.

But to tie some things together, you say that some Christians have trouble with growing. Could this be because there's no presence of Christ, and people have become disillusioned? On a related note, does the body of christ ebb and flow with generations or does he experience constant growth?

Apologies for the facetious tone. No offense intended here.


No offence taken. The questions seem reasonable to me.

I can only give an opinion on your question. I'm older and I've been around awhile, but it's still just my point of view. I'm sure other believers may see it differently, but one of the good things about Christ in my experience is that I'm allowed to think about things like this. Only some people will take exception, not Christ.

I believe that one reason why Christians (i.e., people like me) have trouble growing is because of things we forget to consider. The 21st century teaches us to want what's instant, not what takes time and hard work, and it teaches us to push ourselves forward and to promote ourselves as important. By contrast, the New Testament teaches us that maturity is not instant, but takes time and hard work, and it teaches us to be humble and to serve others. IMO, if we try too hard to be "relevant" to our generation, we risk conforming ourselves to the world instead of to Christ, and we can make the mistake of trying to live by 21st century values instead of Christian ones.

One of the consequences of this can be that we can be ashamed to need to grow. Then once we try to pretend that we're more mature than we are, we can have trouble remembering that our culture's current pre-occupation with health, wealth, success and reputation is not a pre-occupation shared by Christ. We also can have trouble remembering that becoming a Christian is the beginning and not the end of our need to change. In Christian teaching, being aware of the presence of Christ is not forced on anyone; it results from a willingness to embrace fully the teaching of Christ and to embrace Christ as He is, without "editing" Him. For example, if I'm full of thoughts of how mature and spiritual I am or what a good job I'm doing, I'm denying the teaching and the Teacher I'm supposed to embrace. That will make me "numb" to the presence of Christ and I won't grow. I can become disillusioned from that, because it's easier to blame God or say there is no God, than it is to admit that I'm trying to remake Christian teaching into something it isn't.

As for what happens with the Body of Christ through the generations, I'm not going to pretend to know. I have certain beliefs about that, but those are even less interesting than most of my other beliefs.
:)
OK, so I should say something, I guess. The thing is, I believe that the Body of Christ refers to the whole of believers through all the generations, so I wouldn't say it quite as you did. Ebbing and flowing isn't an important idea when you realize that the Body isn't like the Yankees team, that changes each season for better or worse. In the New Testament, the Body is added to with each generation. What we see in each generation is just the visible Church, not the whole. That visible Church can be more or less faithful to Christ -- more or less mature -- in any particular generation. And the "growth" is to this Body of believers, not to Christ Himself.

I should note, BTW, that "growth" in the New Testament is not primarily about size. That's another one of those 21st century pre-occupations that doesn't belong in the Church. It refers to maturity. Size is incidental to that. I believe that all these folks who just want to talk about the numbers are missing the point.



BTW, re: your digression, hell isn't really the point of existence; it's the unfortunate consequence of what some people do with existence. The fact that some Christians seem to feel the need to focus on it is partly because they're concerned about the responsibility to warn people. As the old proverb says: "He is no friend who burns himself on the soup and doesn't warn his fellow-diners that it's hot". I guess it's also partly to do with the fact that we find it easier to talk about bad news that's similar to what we know than about good news that's unlike anything we've ever seen.

But there's a matter of balance. IMO Christianity is wa-a-a-ay more than just avoiding hell; Jesus offered "eternal life", not just eternal escape. Most of all, He offered God's love, not just God's tolerance. Without that intimate personal relationship, salvation wouldn't be salvation and heaven wouldn't be heaven. I prefer to put the emphasis there, and I think that's pretty Biblical.

So it's no wonder there are a lot of great passages in the Bible that aren't about hell. Hell is just the "something else" that happens, not the point of creation. To put it another way, Christianity isn't the teaching that God lives to shove people into hell, it's the teaching that He died to keep us out.

Whew! Too long again. Sorry Nguyen.

No offence taken. The questions seem reasonable to me.

I can only give an opinion on your question. I'm older and I've been around awhile, but it's still just my point of view. I'm sure other believers may see it differently, but one of the good things about Christ in my experience is that I'm allowed to think about things like this. Only some people will take exception, not Christ.

I believe that one reason why Christians (i.e., people like me) have trouble growing is because of things we forget to consider. The 21st century teaches us to want what's instant, not what takes time and hard work, and it teaches us to push ourselves forward and to promote ourselves as important. By contrast, the New Testament teaches us that maturity is not instant, but takes time and hard work, and it teaches us to be humble and to serve others. IMO, if we try too hard to be "relevant" to our generation, we risk conforming ourselves to the world instead of to Christ, and we can make the mistake of trying to live by 21st century values instead of Christian ones.

One of the consequences of this can be that we can be ashamed to need to grow. Then once we try to pretend that we're more mature than we are, we can have trouble remembering that our culture's current pre-occupation with health, wealth, success and reputation is not a pre-occupation shared by Christ. We also can have trouble remembering that becoming a Christian is the beginning and not the end of our need to change. In Christian teaching, being aware of the presence of Christ is not forced on anyone; it results from a willingness to embrace fully the teaching of Christ and to embrace Christ as He is, without "editing" Him. For example, if I'm full of thoughts of how mature and spiritual I am or what a good job I'm doing, I'm denying the teaching and the Teacher I'm supposed to embrace. That will make me "numb" to the presence of Christ and I won't grow. I can become disillusioned from that, because it's easier to blame God or say there is no God, than it is to admit that I'm trying to remake Christian teaching into something it isn't.

As for what happens with the Body of Christ through the generations, I'm not going to pretend to know. I have certain beliefs about that, but those are even less interesting than most of my other beliefs.
:)
OK, so I should say something, I guess. The thing is, I believe that the Body of Christ refers to the whole of believers through all the generations, so I wouldn't say it quite as you did. Ebbing and flowing isn't an important idea when you think that the Body isn't like the Yankees team, that changes each season for better or worse. The Body in the New Testament is added to with each generation. What we see in each generation is just the visible Church, not the whole. That visible Church can be more or less faithful to Christ -- more or less mature -- in any particular generation. And the "growth" is to this Body of believers, not to Christ Himself.

I should note, BTW, that "growth" in the New Testament is not primarily about size. That's another one of those 21st century pre-occupations that doesn't belong in the Church. It refers to maturity. Size is incidental to that. I believe that all these folks who just want to talk about the numbers are missing the point.



BTW, re: your digression, hell isn't really the point of existence; it's the unfortunate consequence of what some people do with existence. The fact that some Christians seem to feel the need to focus on it is partly because they're concerned about the responsibility to warn people. As the old proverb says: "He is no friend who burns himself on the soup and doesn't warn his fellow-diners that it's hot". I guess it's also partly to do with the fact that we find it easier to talk about bad news that's similar to what we know than about good news that's unlike anything we've ever seen.

But there's a matter of balance. IMO Christianity is wa-a-a-ay more than just avoiding hell; Jesus offered "eternal life", not just eternal escape. Most of all, He offered God's love, not just God's tolerance. Without that intimate personal relationship, salvation wouldn't be salvation and heaven wouldn't be heaven. I prefer to put the emphasis there, and I think that's pretty Biblical.

So it's no wonder there are a lot of great passages in the Bible that aren't about hell. Hell is just the "something else" that happens, not the point of creation. To put it another way, Christianity isn't the teaching that God lives to shove people into hell, it's the teaching that He died to keep us out.

Whew! Too long again. Sorry Nguyen.
wow. I can agree with like 90% of that

Can what the Pastor did be held against Zilam, I think not. The point is that Zilam stood up for the Lord in front of the world at large. In doing so he proved to the Lord that he wasn't ashamed of being a Christian.

I feel I have to point out (although - admittedly, this is the page I only just got to - so it could already be pointed out. If so, I apologise to everyone for duplication...) that the point was supposed to be about proving it to THEMSELVES, not to 'the Lord'.

One assumes that 'the boss man' KNOWS who is, and isn't, ashamed.... no?

tell me all you know about God's nature.

God is:
perfect
holy
immutable
omnipotent
omnipresent
omniscient
sovereign
good
loving
just
spirit

There are more, but I can't think of them. And these aspects constrain Him to do or not do certain things.

He doesn't ask people to kill other people, it is against his own laws.

Wow... someone needs a refresher on the Hebrew scripture...

God is:
perfect
holy
immutable
omnipotent
omnipresent
omniscient
sovereign
good
loving
just
spirit

There are more, but I can't think of them. And these aspects constrain Him to do or not do certain things.

he can not be omnipotent and also be constrained.

he can not be omnipotent and also be constrained.

We already had that spat. I thought we agreed to disagree. The whole thing can be summed up in this: Can God forgive sin unpaid for? No. So then, He cannot do some things. But the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful (omnipotent). How can that be? The only way I can work it out is if God has the power to do everything, but cannot do some things because He can only do things insied His nature. He can only do things He wants to do, and He wants to do only that which is in His nature.

they did not do the wrong thing by continuing their service as usual--or with more enthusiasm than usual. i agree with you that to be silent would have been unnecessarily bowing to authority.

Then again - the arguement can be made that Jesus makes a special point of telling people NOT to engage in their religious observations in such a fashion. One could argue that the 'more enthusiastic' version of their service was directly equivalent to the Pharisee's standing in public, proclaiming about their observations... no?

By that logic - what the priest tricked them into doing is fairly anti-Christian.

Also - Jesus did make a point of telling us to bow to authority. "Render unto Caesar" would cover being quiet, while the congregation "renders unto God".

We already had that spat. I thought we agreed to disagree. The whole thing can be summed up in this: Can God forgive sin unpaid for? No. So then, He cannot do some things. But the Bible teaches that God is all-powerful (omnipotent). How can that be? The only way I can work it out is if God has the power to do everything, but cannot do some things because He can only do things insied His nature. He can only do things He wants to do, and He wants to do only that which is in His nature.

:confused:

I am going to take a nap.

If someone else wants to decipher that for me, please do so.

thanks ;)

now that I have some protection

I drive an SUV, I don't use public transportation because it's inefficient

I print out about 300 pages a day, I mail 2500 newsletters a week, I eat meat, and I hunt animals.....

hmm?

I have one question for you,


Would you be willing to be my second wife? :)

I have one question for you,


Would you be willing to be my second wife? :)

I thought you hated me.....

Then again - the arguement can be made that Jesus makes a special point of telling people NOT to engage in their religious observations in such a fashion. One could argue that the 'more enthusiastic' version of their service was directly equivalent to the Pharisee's standing in public, proclaiming about their observations... no?

By that logic - what the priest tricked them into doing is fairly anti-Christian.

Also - Jesus did make a point of telling us to bow to authority. "Render unto Caesar" would cover being quiet, while the congregation "renders unto God".

And again, I'll point out that Jesus himself was confronted with a similar scenario, and he gave up then, even though much more was at stake then.
Here, the congregration doesn't even lose anything by giving up.

While I see your point and generally agree with it, I think you need to cut Poot some slack, this kind of a knee jerk almost allergic reaction to the word communism seems to be almost inbred to most Americans. You spent decades fighting the supposed followers of communism, I guess it's to be expected.

I agree that it is a matetr of social conditioning. The government made a deliberate point of highlighting the militant atheism of some communists, and tied it to a 'religious patriotism' that they largely invented just to mobilise feeling.

I don't feel too forgiving that people still cling to the 'red under the bed' mentality... just as I don't feel too forgiving when someone trots out some new 'McCarthyism'.

People in large numbers act dumb... this I know. But, I expect better from the individuals.

actually I am.

I am also a registered republican.....

anything else bad about me?


smunkee...i know you're a woman...remember I mistook you for a guy a few posts back? I was playing around with you. ;)

and there is nothing wrong with being a southern baptist, but in relevance to my other discussion with another poster...alot of southern baptist chruches frown on dancing and drinking and other little pleasantries. not all christians have those restrictions...most don't in fact...i was pointing that out.

as for being a republican, well, nothing wrong with that. But as this political system gets more and more polarized it is kind of hard to discern exactly what a Republican is these days, as well as a democrat for that matter. The 2 party system may finally buckle...then again, maybe not.

If you truely love your neighbor as yourself, and you would never consider killing yourself then likewise you would never consider killing your neighbor ... DA!

Unless you don't like yourself OR your neighbour. In which case, you would 'love' both equally.

Logic. It's not just for decoration.

I thought you hated me.....

Hate? No. Strongly disagree w/ on certain topics, yes.

Woman who

drives big vehicles
hunts
eats meat
kills trees
Generally conservative.

My wife is a devout Christian. If I could get you two past the whole "one partner only" thing, we could make it work. As long as you stay out of my den. :)

God is:
perfect
holy
immutable
omnipotent
omnipresent
omniscient
sovereign
good
loving
just
spirit

There are more, but I can't think of them. And these aspects constrain Him to do or not do certain things.

God is not perfect. Even top christian thinkers will argue this.

If God told me to commit genocide I wouldn't do it. I don't believe that he would though so I don't imagine the situation as possible.

There is precedent...

Again, I'd like to point out Numbers 31:13-20 or so.

(( Love 'ya Grave, but unless you're saying that SOME christians are using the "collectivizing force" of christianity to accumulate vast treasure (which I FULLY agree with!) your off the mark in calling christianity a "communistic" religion. ))

:)

But, I didn't say Christianity was communistic... just that Jesus was a communist (not a Marxist, as Poot would have you believe I said), and that his message was communism.

Most Christians aren't communistic... indeed, quite the opposite. I think that's a shame.

...I have done my best to try to explain to you why I believe as I do...

...you don't want to hear my message...

...I for one am tired of speaking to people who refuse to hear or believe."

Perhaps there are 'preach' forums, somewhere?

This fourm, unfortunately, is a 'debate' forum. That means, when you set out your little stall, it is going to be 'debated'.

You seem to be upset that your 'preaching' was not received as divinely inspired, but questioned as the words of man. Perhaps this was not the forum you were looking for?

:)

But, I didn't say Christianity was communistic... just that Jesus was a communist (not a Marxist, as Poot would have you believe I said), and that his message was communism.

Most Christians aren't communistic... indeed, quite the opposite. I think that's a shame.


i see where you are coming from and it is valid reasoning but i have to disagree. Jesus believed in free will and he despised exploitation. He preached the right thing to do and urged good men right any wrongs they may see but in the end you can not force people to be charitable or good (you can isolate the bad though).

communism centers on redistribution of wealth and basically amounts to forcing people to be charitable or "good". This is not free will. society may reach a point where altruism is commonplace but there will still be haves and have nots.

Perhaps there are 'preach' forums, somewhere?

This fourm, unfortunately, is a 'debate' forum. That means, when you set out your little stall, it is going to be 'debated'.

You seem to be upset that your 'preaching' was not received as divinely inspired, but questioned as the words of man. Perhaps this was not the forum you were looking for?

I just wanted to say that I am new here but have been to many debate/discussion forums and I am so impressed with what I have seen here. This is a topic about religion and I have not seen much of the usual personal attacks or snide remarks that I have come to expect on such a topic. This is a very thoughtful and civil discussion...even when things get heated. :)

as far as Christian music goes, I have never been a bg fan of the genre but P.O.D. was a pretty good rock band and they were christian rock. Rock is pretty much dead these days but they breathed temporary life back into it. Three Doors Down isn't bad either.

Plus One "Poor Man" isn't bad, either.

I've reversed your post, just because I wanted to address it that way round - hope you don't mind.


I just wanted to say that I am new here but have been to many debate/discussion forums and I am so impressed with what I have seen here. This is a topic about religion and I have not seen much of the usual personal attacks or snide remarks that I have come to expect on such a topic. This is a very thoughtful and civil discussion...even when things get heated. :)

Yes - I have been on a few forums, and this has to be one of the better ones.... for 'general' topics, certainly. (Sometimes the very specific forums can be very good, but you might be out of luck for a change of scenery).

We do have the occassional problems, but our Mods are pretty hot, and usually nip potential damage before it gets too far out of control.

Plus - a lot of the 'regulars' kind of 'police' the forums, encouraging good form, trying to 'lead by example', etc.


i see where you are coming from and it is valid reasoning but i have to disagree. Jesus believed in free will and he despised exploitation. He preached the right thing to do and urged good men right any wrongs they may see but in the end you can not force people to be charitable or good (you can isolate the bad though).

communism centers on redistribution of wealth and basically amounts to forcing people to be charitable or "good". This is not free will. society may reach a point where altruism is commonplace but there will still be haves and have nots.



Don't fall into the same trap that Poot did - what you are describing might be true of some realworld models, or some hypothetical suggestions, of 'communism'... but those examples don't define communism in it's entirety.

I could find fault in religion by pointing out that 'religion' flies planes into buildings - but, for MOST of the time, for most people... it doesn't. One shouldn't confuse the scope of a thing, with some 'demonstrations' that claim to be 'of' that thing.

I already commented, way way back, that the way that a communism would ideally work, would be entirely voluntary. And, I think that is a model that Jesus was basically suggesting.

:)

But, I didn't say Christianity was communistic... just that Jesus was a communist (not a Marxist, as Poot would have you believe I said), and that his message was communism.

Most Christians aren't communistic... indeed, quite the opposite. I think that's a shame.

I prefer to call Jesus "familial" rather than communist. I think the implications of His teachings take sharing beyond the ideal community to the ideal family.

And that's all the more reason to mourn that we find it so hard to be more open-handed ...

A very VERY INSIGNIFICANT-ia type person. :D

..and loving my insignificance.

And what do you think of my words? :)

I'm still thinking about the rude words to me that you have not apologized for yet. Sorry, but that rudeness overshadows everything else you've written so far, so I have no opinion of of your other words.

I am still looking for scripture reference..... :eek: (yeah, I know)


A number of 'ritual laws' in Exodus, including:

Exodus 12:24 "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."

A number of references that are especially relevent today, in Leviticus, including:

Leviticus 23:28-31 "And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. For whatsoever soul [it be] that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul [it be] that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

First Chronicles 16:15-7 "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word [which] he commanded to a thousand generations; [Even of the covenant] which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, [and] to Israel [for] an everlasting covenant..."

Psalm 119:151-2 "Thou [art] near, O LORD; and all thy commandments [are] truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever..."


and...

Psalm 119:160 "Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever."


And, just to prove I am not [i]entirely biased against the Greek scripture:


Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."

Guys I have done my best to try to explain to you why I believe as I do, it has become extremely clear to me that you don't want to hear my message. No matter what I say you are just going to keep this going so you can say that you shut down those Christians. The scripture says that we should not argue about spritual things and I for one am tired of speaking to people who refuse to hear or believe. Oh ... one last thing even though I may not post in this forum after this post doesn't mean that I won't somewhere else.

One last thing before you go: Kindly point out where anyone here has done any such thing as the bolded phrase. No one is trying to "shut down" anyone here. Presenting and facing challenges to ideas is an essential part of debate.

I prefer to call Jesus "familial" rather than communist. I think the implications of His teachings take sharing beyond the ideal community to the ideal family.

And that's all the more reason to mourn that we find it so hard to be more open-handed ...

But, there is a weakness in our common reception of the word 'communist'. The way I see it - the idealised communism IS very much a kind of extended family... indeed, when I have discussed the matter before, the family is the image I usually use for comparison.

Often, we can 'see' how we should treat our families, but have problems extending that image beyond biological divides. I think Jesus makes a lot of points about how the blood-bond is not the be-all-and-end-all, and that our chosen community is definitive for us.... and may follow very different lines to a standard 'familial' arrangement.

One last thing before you go: Kindly point out where anyone here has done any such thing as the bolded phrase. No one is trying to "shut down" anyone here. Presenting and facing challenges to ideas is an essential part of debate.

I don't think Kormanthor was much interested in 'debate', to be honest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
(( Love 'ya Grave, but unless you're saying that SOME christians are using the "collectivizing force" of christianity to accumulate vast treasure (which I FULLY agree with!) your off the mark in calling christianity a "communistic" religion. ))

But, I didn't say Christianity was communistic... just that Jesus was a communist (not a Marxist, as Poot would have you believe I said), and that his message was communism.

Most Christians aren't communistic... indeed, quite the opposite. I think that's a shame.


"Jesus was a communist".. {Insig mulls this over in his puny brainpan}

Hmmmm......

I'm not at all an authority of what Jesus said, so I can't really comment on that. BUT,.. it sounds vaguely,............... wrong, somehow. :)

You (knowing you) could probably support that with excerpts from what he said. Which is probably what you've been doing.

I tend to avert my eyes when I see KingJames english and numbers like 34:12, and the word "verse" used in excess,.. in the interests of full disclosure.

So,.. given that,.. I'm left in the awkward position of having nothing much to say on the subject,.. except maybe,..

If Jesus was a communist, was he just the "more equal than others" kind of leader or what?


Anywho,.. my point was that treasure is fun for a while but gives you crabs eventually, while wealth will actually make god smile at you for keeping the other potentially unruly children in line by giving them something to do that isn't war.

God is utterly communistic in that he makes everyone the absolute equal of everyone else (in heaven), but Jesus, like all of creation is run STRICTLY on capitalistic principles.

What,.. you think being Jesus (or any other creation) was cheap and easy..!!?

..that took some SERIOUS R&D and production costs.

I could see University officials wishing to appease a "secular" speaker by asking an on campus church to postpone or cancel one of its services to avoid offending the speaker or his audience.
Do you actually see this, or do you just imagine it, as this pastor just imagined it? Sorry, but I do not think a false story suddenly gets to be true on nothing but the "it could happen" principle.

I do not see how this is so hard to believe when during Vietnam, ROTC students were spit on by students encouraged by faculty, present day Military recruiters are nearly assaulted by protesting students and faculty at Berkely and signs for christian prayer groups and especially signs for pro life viewpoints put up by church members are vandalized and ripped apart by students and faculty members as well.
And during Vietnam, anti-war protesters were beaten, jailed, and once, they were even shot to death by National Guardsmen (Kent State University). And as I pointed out in a much earlier post, as a member of a minority religion, I am frequently faced with verbal attacks against me and my religion by people who call themselves Christians. Yet you don't see me, a died-in-the-wool moderate liberal secularist, claiming that the Constitution is stacked against me, do you? Quite the contrary. I know that the Constitution is the ultimate protection of my rights as a citizen, and you should know it, too.

Universities are not about the free exchange of ideas they claim to be. Those in the Academic world are often left wing and intolerant of opposing viewpoints, similar to the right wingers you see on Wall Street who actually say "Greed" is a good thing. :headbang:

Headbanging notwithstanding, nothing in your post implies in any way that Christians are an oppressed group in American universities. You also fail to address the simple fact that Zilam's pastor was LYING. His congregation was most certainly not being oppressed in any way. He made it all up. You can't get around that.

But, there is a weakness in our common reception of the word 'communist'. The way I see it - the idealised communism IS very much a kind of extended family... indeed, when I have discussed the matter before, the family is the image I usually use for comparison.

Often, we can 'see' how we should treat our families, but have problems extending that image beyond biological divides. I think Jesus makes a lot of points about how the blood-bond is not the be-all-and-end-all, and that our chosen community is definitive for us.... and may follow very different lines to a standard 'familial' arrangement.

sorry for adding the bold, but that piece is interesting to me, because earlier today I was talking to someone about their marriage and mentioned that it was interesting to me that God would give us such a connection to our children and yet expect us to put our husband's first, the one person in our family whom we have no biological connection with and we are to put them above the others.....(children, parents, siblings)

But, there is a weakness in our common reception of the word 'communist'. The way I see it - the idealised communism IS very much a kind of extended family... indeed, when I have discussed the matter before, the family is the image I usually use for comparison.

Often, we can 'see' how we should treat our families, but have problems extending that image beyond biological divides. I think Jesus makes a lot of points about how the blood-bond is not the be-all-and-end-all, and that our chosen community is definitive for us.... and may follow very different lines to a standard 'familial' arrangement.


You are simply trying to re-invent what the word communist means, trying to make it fit what you want it to mean. Communalism or familiar like Pure Thought was using does it better.

But regardless, you've started to object to descriptions of it like textbook communist and, a page out of a communist manifesto (words you brought into this thread before I even started, mind you), to describe what you meant by calling Jesus a communist, so your position has been modified, at least in as much it is better described and conveyed. In which case, I will leave it alone, even if I still don't agree with it, it is closer to communalism like the type the early church and the puritans (for examples) might have called it. They certainly didn't call what they did communism because THAT word/title/name was defined and created by other people with entirely different goals, sometime after their existence.

I've reversed your post, just because I wanted to address it that way round - hope you don't mind.



Yes - I have been on a few forums, and this has to be one of the better ones.... for 'general' topics, certainly. (Sometimes the very specific forums can be very good, but you might be out of luck for a change of scenery).

We do have the occassional problems, but our Mods are pretty hot, and usually nip potential damage before it gets too far out of control.

Neah,.. the mods are fascists,.. but generally a good lot. :eek:


Plus - a lot of the 'regulars' kind of 'police' the forums, encouraging good form, trying to 'lead by example', etc.





Don't fall into the same trap that Poot did - what you are describing might be true of some realworld models, or some hypothetical suggestions, of 'communism'... but those examples don't define communism in it's entirety.

I, personally, get "yelled" at quite a bit for my "odd" definitions of things.

It's nice to know that we can have our own opinions as to the definitions of things without being considered TOO weird.


I could find fault in religion by pointing out that 'religion' flies planes into buildings - but, for MOST of the time, for most people... it doesn't. One shouldn't confuse the scope of a thing, with some 'demonstrations' that claim to be 'of' that thing.

Take note children!!!

Wise person making PROFOUND statements! Danger Will Robinson...!!

Keep it up Grave!! You doin' good stuff, you guy! You go do mo'..!


I already commented, way way back, that the way that a communism would ideally work, would be entirely voluntary. And, I think that is a model that Jesus was basically suggesting.

Communism, like PERFECT, is impossible,.. but something to shot for.

But, there is a weakness in our common reception of the word 'communist'. The way I see it - the idealised communism IS very much a kind of extended family... indeed, when I have discussed the matter before, the family is the image I usually use for comparison.

Often, we can 'see' how we should treat our families, but have problems extending that image beyond biological divides. I think Jesus makes a lot of points about how the blood-bond is not the be-all-and-end-all, and that our chosen community is definitive for us.... and may follow very different lines to a standard 'familial' arrangement.


I think you've pretty much said all there is to say. If only we could, somehow, just see our way to look at one another and look beyond the "blood-bond" ...

"Jesus was a communist".. {Insig mulls this over in his puny brainpan}

Hmmmm......

I'm not at all an authority of what Jesus said, so I can't really comment on that. BUT,.. it sounds vaguely,............... wrong, somehow. :)

You (knowing you) could probably support that with excerpts from what he said. Which is probably what you've been doing.

I tend to avert my eyes when I see KingJames english and numbers like 34:12, and the word "verse" used in excess,.. in the interests of full disclosure.

So,.. given that,.. I'm left in the awkward position of having nothing much to say on the subject,.. except maybe,..

If Jesus was a communist, was he just the "more equal than others" kind of leader or what?


Anywho,.. my point was that treasure is fun for a while but gives you crabs eventually, while wealth will actually make god smile at you for keeping the other potentially unruly children in line by giving them something to do that isn't war.

God is utterly communistic in that he makes everyone the absolute equal of everyone else (in heaven), but Jesus, like all of creation is run STRICTLY on capitalistic principles.

What,.. you think being Jesus (or any other creation) was cheap and easy..!!?

..that took some SERIOUS R&D and production costs.

I did, indeed, whip out a half million extended verses of justification. :) You knew I would, and I hate to disappoint.

If Jesus was a communist, I think the picture is clear that he was very much a 'voluntary, egalitarian' type communist. All that stuff about washing each other's feet, and being each other's servant?

But, he doesn't shut the door on the other kind either... he does tell us that the political world we live in IS to be 'obeyed' (render unto Caesar, etc)... because there is a higher calling, but that it is ELSEwhere. I don't get the feeling he thinks much of that scheme, though.... he tells us to obey, but he makes a clear separation between that 'world of the flesh' (Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's), and the 'world of the spirit' (Render unto God, that which is God's).

In my usual (no doubt heretical) interesting way, I take that to mean that his 'voluntary' communism can be both world AND spirit for us, while the 'authoritarian' model is just 'world'... and we'll have to wait for the 'spirit' part, till after.

I see where you are going with 'wealth' and 'treasure'... but I think the line is blurry, and starts a lot nearer to 'poverty' than most people would like.

Don't fall into the same trap that Poot did - what you are describing might be true of some realworld models, or some hypothetical suggestions, of 'communism'... but those examples don't define communism in it's entirety.

I could find fault in religion by pointing out that 'religion' flies planes into buildings - but, for MOST of the time, for most people... it doesn't. One shouldn't confuse the scope of a thing, with some 'demonstrations' that claim to be 'of' that thing.

I already commented, way way back, that the way that a communism would ideally work, would be entirely voluntary. And, I think that is a model that Jesus was basically suggesting.

I do see what you are saying, but all I know of communism is what I read in the Communist Manifesto.

Also, there are many philanthropist capitalists out there such as Paul Newman who Jesus would certainly approve of. There are even rich people out there in a capitalist system who may still live more comfortably than most, but give proportionally more of their income and time than most others.

I see what you are getting at in a sense, but communism is a political system. Jesus would be better described as a humanitarian or philanthropist (other than the savior) than communist.

I just hesitate to put any "politcal" labels on jesus. even if communism is an ideal...capitalism and even arianism can also be called ideals.

I do see what you are saying, but all I know of communism is what I read in the Communist Manifesto.

Also, there are many philanthropist capitalists out there such as Paul Newman who Jesus would certainly approve of. There are even rich people out there in a capitalist system who may still live more comfortably than most, but give proportionally more of their income and time than most others.

I see what you are getting at in a sense, but communism is a political system. Jesus would be better described as a humanitarian or philanthropist (other than the savior) than communist.

I just hesitate to put any "politcal" labels on jesus. even if communism is an ideal...capitalism and even arianism can also be called ideals.

Where to start...

It is possible to 'politicise' the word communism, but it isn't (of itself) a 'political' term at all - it describes an economic model, just as 'capitalism' does.

You may have noticed that the world can turn with Republican capitalists, Democratic capitalists, capitalist Monarchies... capitalist Despotisms... capitalist anarchism. It's because capitalist only applies to the 'economic model'... not the governmental one.

Poot keeps falling into that trap - he somehow equates 'communism' with "The Communist Party", and with the former USSR, Stalin, Lenin and Marx. That is part of the communist arena - but certainly only a PART of it.

Example - The US is a 'democratic' government. It is the type of 'democratic' government called a 'Republic'.

Are ALL 'democratic' governments Republics? No - of course not. No more are ALL versions of 'communism' Marxist.


Next point - when I say 'ideal' communism... I don't mean as in 'an ideology', 'AN ideal'... I was referring to a best-case-scenario model.


Regarding 'The Communist Manifesto': This is a stumbling block... any agenda can be described as a 'manifesto', be it communist or otherwise. It is unfortunate that the term "The Communist Manifesto" is so widely identified with a certain scenario - because there have been many 'communist manifestoes'.

You are simply trying to re-invent what the word communist means, trying to make it fit what you want it to mean. Communalism or familiar like Pure Thought was using does it better.

But regardless, you've started to object to descriptions of it like textbook communist and, a page out of a communist manifesto (words you brought into this thread before I even started, mind you), to describe what you meant by calling Jesus a communist, so your position has been modified, at least in as much it is better described and conveyed. In which case, I will leave it alone, even if I still don't agree with it, it is closer to communalism like the type the early church and the puritans (for examples) might have called it. They certainly didn't call what they did communism because THAT word/title/name was defined and created by other people with entirely different goals, sometime after their existence.


I'm sorry, but you really are talking out of your arse.

I am not trying to 'redefine' the word... but your own horizons seem to have you convinced that ALL communism equates to the former soviet republics, and their particular brand of Stalin's Statist communism. It isn't a matter of making it mean what I "want it to mean"... communism is JUST an economic model... your insistence on tying it to specific people, events and places is not based on what 'communism' is - but on what you THINK it is.

I'm not objecting to phrases like "textbook communist" or "a apage out of a communist manifesto"... but I am objecting to other people telling ME what I mean by them. I didn't say "the works of Marx" or "The Communist Manifesto"... and that isn't an accident.

My position hasn't been modified, at all. Perhpas you are becoming more aware of what I have been saying all along? Perhaps it is because other posters have asked me to EXPLAIN some of the details, rather than just ASSUMING they know what I mean.


I'm not saying Jesus would have called himself a 'communist'. He didn't speak English, for a start. But, that is the term for the specific economic model I am discussing... that I feel accurately describes what Jesus suggested - so that is the word I use. My Aramaic certainly isn't up to trying to trawl the language for an equivalent.

God is not perfect. Even top christian thinkers will argue this.

Then I would be very loathe to call them Christian.

That's the whole basis for Chrsitianity. That a perfect God could not forgive sin unpaid for and so incarnated (did I use that correctly?) Himself as a human so that a perfect Man, with no sin of His own, would be able to die as payment of the sins for all those who would repent and proclaim Him their personal Lord and Savior.

That's what makes one a Christian. If God is not perfect, then Jesus died for His own sins, not ours and there is no Christianity.

I don't have a girlfriend, but if I ask my husband if I look fat I expect the truth, and the truth is what I get.


As a husband, I assure you that no husband would ever fall into this trap. At least not more than once.

As a husband, I assure you that no husband would ever fall into this trap. At least not more than once.

I know better than to ask if I don't want to know the truth.

it's easier to guide him than to let him say what he wants to....

for example

"do I look fat in these jeans?" <---- bad

"I don't know if these jeans have a good fit, what do you think?"<---- good because then he can blame it on the jeans.

Do you actually see this, or do you just imagine it, as this pastor just imagined it? Sorry, but I do not think a false story suddenly gets to be true on nothing but the "it could happen" principle.

i thought i was clear in what I said. I am a reasonable person and try to avoid sensationalism. I do know for a fact however that progressive academia is hostile towards traditional christianity. So I could imagine this happening. That is how most faculties are. Plus, in high schools around the country, the ACLU has brought up lawsuits against football coaches who lead voluntary prayer before a football game and christian student groups who want to meet after school on school grounds. There are many more absurd examples as well which defy all logic.

and just so you know, I am against school prayer and for separation of church and state so do not think of me as a Zealot. I support common sense, fairness and freedom of religous expression.


And during Vietnam, anti-war protesters were beaten, jailed, and once, they were even shot to death by National Guardsmen (Kent State University). And as I pointed out in a much earlier post, as a member of a minority religion, I am frequently faced with verbal attacks against me and my religion by people who call themselves Christians. Yet you don't see me, a died-in-the-wool moderate liberal secularist, claiming that the Constitution is stacked against me, do you? Quite the contrary. I know that the Constitution is the ultimate protection of my rights as a citizen, and you should know it, too.

yes they were shot to death by the National Guard, a tragic event. Young soldiers opened fire after stones and bottles were thrown at them by an already massive and growing crowd. they panicked, and the result was horrid. But any abuse the protestors may have went through does not excuse what they put the soldiers through. The fact that faculty was involved is disgusting and was my main point and soldiers getting jeered at, at airports on their return home and taunted as baby killers while they walked the streets played a large part in why the country was so turned off by the anti-war movement. they acted like animals.

and i am sorry that you have faced religous bigotry. The idiots who have assailed you are an embarassment to their faith. But please do not lecture me on how the Constitution protects my rights. I know quite well what the constitution protects. I also know that organizations such as the ACLU have gone on record saying they are concerned with the rights of the minority, not the majority and they will use the court system to get the results they want. They intimidate many communities and schools with expensive lawsuits. They even went after a small town in New Mexico which had a spanish name that when translated meant "the three crosses" and demanded that the town change its name because it violated the establishment clause in the Constitution. They target specifically Christian symbolism, groups and Christian events. It is part of an agenda which is shared by like minded university faculty.

Now I am sorry for any pain you have been caused at the hands of Christians but it seems a well funded organization like the ACLU will come to your aid but if a Christian tries to go to court he/she is labeled as a fundamentalist and is often told to chill out. Any political science major has learned of the tyranny of majority, well there is also the danger of the tyranny of the minority. Look at what is happening in Darfur for instance, Christians getting slaughtered by Muslims yet it is taking forever for the UN and the EU to do anything about it, even though the Catholic Church has been pleading for help for a long time now. Same damn thing happened in Nigeria and in other parts of Africa and happens everyday in the Middle East, but the EU and UN don't give a damn.

Headbanging notwithstanding, nothing in your post implies in any way that Christians are an oppressed group in American universities. You also fail to address the simple fact that Zilam's pastor was LYING. His congregation was most certainly not being oppressed in any way. He made it all up. You can't get around that.

as i have said before, i do not look at the pastor as lying. he was making a point to see how the congregation would react. He was not advocating any ill will towards the school either he was just preaching to his congregation that getting upset or angry is not the way...keeping the faith is how to deal with those situations. and the reason why that congregation believed the pastors story is because the university system is infested with liberal secular thinking which is hostile to christianity. They are looked at as superstitous, fundamentalist boobs by elitist professors and the many left wing activist groups on campus. The constitution protects your rights, yet you still faced prejudice. just because Christians are the largest religous group in the country does not mean they have it good, it just makes them a larger target.

Below are links displaying a tiny sample of the anti-christian hostility on many university campuses and the double standards held when it comes to other faiths:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=461497&page=1

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0125/p12s02-legn.htm

http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=98e9616f-c0e0-410f-89bf-1863ced269ea

http://www.jews4fairness.org/who.php

http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=490d8620-3158-4d55-9be6-9866fd1ceefb

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17884

I know better than to ask if I don't want to know the truth.

it's easier to guide him than to let him say what he wants to....

for example

"do I look fat in these jeans?" <---- bad

"I don't know if these jeans have a good fit, what do you think?"<---- good because then he can blame it on the jeans.

You need to write a book.

Personally I use the line, "I just look for a beautiful smile. A smile adds 3 big points to any woman."

I would like to point something out to you:
The ACLU sues Christians the most,yes.
Why do you think that is?
It's not the fault of the ACLU that more Christians then other religions try to force their religion on random people that may or not be Christian.
And if you say "It's not forcing!" I'll prove it to you:
Say your school's coach tried to lead the crowd in a Pagan or Satanist or even a Scientologist prayer.
(and of course, assumed everyone in the crowd was Pagan/Satanist/Scientologist)
I'd assume you'd feel uncomfortable at least, and in the case of the last two you'd probably feel some righteous indignation.
Now consider that the coach is a representative of the school here, which is a representative of the state, and you will see the problem.
If something is both said by a representative the state and not percieved similarly to all religions then it is a breach of the seperation of church and state.

EDIT: Damn, someone posted before I did.
Anyway, this post was supposed to be to Daemonocracy.

You need to write a book.

Personally I use the line, "I just look for a beautiful smile. A smile adds 3 big points to any woman."

I did write a book it comes out next year.

It's about being a parent though.

I would like to point something out to you:
The ACLU sues Christians the most,yes.
Why do you think that is?
It's not the fault of the ACLU that more Christians then other religions try to force their religion on random people that may or not be Christian.
And if you say "It's not forcing!" I'll prove it to you:
Say your school's coach tried to lead the crowd in a Pagan or Satanist or even a Scientologist prayer.
(and of course, assumed everyone in the crowd was Pagan/Satanist/Scientologist)
I'd assume you'd feel uncomfortable at least, and in the case of the last two you'd probably feel some righteous indignation.
Now consider that the coach is a representative of the school here, which is a representative of the state, and you will see the problem.
If something is both said by a representative the state and not percieved similarly to all religions then it is a breach of the seperation of church and state.

EDIT: Damn, someone posted before I did.
Anyway, this post was supposed to be to Daemonocracy.

if the prayer is voluntary, I would have no problem with it. The religion and spirituality of others does not make me nervous. Satanism ofcourse is nothing but a mockery of Christianity and is not an actual religion. And spare me any equivocation on that statement...satanism is not a religion. as i said in my previous post i like common sense.

and the ACLU targets Christianity deliberately and exclusively. They literally scour small town USA looking for schools or public buildings that might have two trees resembling a cross and demand they be cut down. Christianity is first, then it will be Islam and Judaism and any other religion that has a moral code. why? Because it is religous morals that interfere with their secular idea of morals. Organizations like the ACLU are turning secularism into a religion of its own and they are competing for followers.

by the way, just to be clear, i have no problem with paganism or scientology. and i admire religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism.

christian student groups who want to meet after school on school grounds.

Look at what is happening in Darfur for instance, Christians getting slaughtered by Muslims yet it is taking forever for the UN and the EU to do anything about it, even though the Catholic Church has been pleading for help for a long time now. Same damn thing happened in Nigeria and in other parts of Africa and happens everyday in the Middle East, but the EU and UN don't give a damn.


There is no law or court ruling against a student led religious group using school buildings outside of normal school hours. Our HS has such groups.

The ACLU defends the first amendment. Something conservatives should applaud. The majority can vote and buy protection. The bill of rights is to protect the minority. The US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic that protects the rights of all.

What Darfur needs is oil. It proves that Saddam wasn't the worst dictator in the world. Just the one with oil.

The US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic that protects the rights of all.

Um, this is off topic, but the US is a representative democracy, neither a pure democracy or a republic.

I don't think Kormanthor was much interested in 'debate', to be honest.

Guess he wandered into the wrong party. Oh, well.

I am not trying to 'redefine' the word... but your own horizons seem to have you convinced that ALL communism equates to the former soviet republics, and their particular brand of Stalin's Statist communism. It isn't a matter of making it mean what I "want it to mean"... communism is JUST an economic model... your insistence on tying it to specific people, events and places is not based on what 'communism' is - but on what you THINK it is.

Riiiight. I’m tying the meaning of the word ‘communist’ to the people and period in time that the word was invented and applied in the modern sense and to politics. How silly of me, I should have seen the obvious flaw in my position of assigning to the people that actually created and defined the word for the first time in their writings (in the modern world) and the creation of political parties as we know them now, excuse me for thinking that they of all people might actually knowing what it meant...

I'm not objecting to phrases like "textbook communist" or "a apage out of a communist manifesto"... but I am objecting to other people telling ME what I mean by them. I didn't say "the works of Marx" or "The Communist Manifesto"... and that isn't an accident.

It’s entirely clear now. You mean it in the very same that IF I were to say that Buddha was a republican, his writings read like a paragraph right out of a declaration of independence, or stating that he was, step in line with some forefathers… And then YOU came back with some Buddha quotes and some Constitutional paraphrases that showed the exact opposite was true. My defense would be to say those quotes of Buddha were taken out of context, that I didn’t mean THAT Constitution, and I didn’t say THE Declaration of Independence. I just meant some kind of republic, with some general idealist constitution and declaration of independence in the general sense, and it’s not MY fault that your narrow focus was to blame for YOU thinking I meant the US Constitution, because if I meant that, I would have capitalized the words.

My position hasn't been modified, at all. Perhpas you are becoming more aware of what I have been saying all along? Perhaps it is because other posters have asked me to EXPLAIN some of the details, rather than just ASSUMING they know what I mean.

In the same way they might ask why I would call Buddha a republican.


I'm not saying Jesus would have called himself a 'communist'. He didn't speak English, for a start. But, that is the term for the specific economic model I am discussing... that I feel accurately describes what Jesus suggested - so that is the word I use. My Aramaic certainly isn't up to trying to trawl the language for an equivalent.

*And I’m not saying Buddha called himself a ‘republican.’ He didn’t speak English (like this matters, ‘communist’ and ‘republican’ are not English words) for a start. But, that is the term for the specific economic model I am discussing… That I feel accurately describes what Buddha suggested – so that is the word I use. My Persian certainly isn’t up to trying to trawl the language for an equivalent*

Nah, that’s not right. It’s far too easy to plainly see that you just simply got caught exaggerating your initial posit and THEN you exacerbated your position with your initial denials of exaggeration and NOW you’re in full battle dress, go down with the ship if need be, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, course of action, trying as hard as you might to squirm out of it without admitting anything. Nice :rolleyes:

i thought i was clear in what I said. I am a reasonable person and try to avoid sensationalism. I do know for a fact however that progressive academia is hostile towards traditional christianity. So I could imagine this happening. That is how most faculties are. Plus, in high schools around the country, the ACLU has brought up lawsuits against football coaches who lead voluntary prayer before a football game and christian student groups who want to meet after school on school grounds. There are many more absurd examples as well which defy all logic.

and just so you know, I am against school prayer and for separation of church and state so do not think of me as a Zealot. I support common sense, fairness and freedom of religous expression.
Fine, except that you cite some questionable examples. The ACLU, which is too extreme for my taste, is usually denounced as being liberal or leftwing or anti-Christian or what have you. Yet at the same time that they bring suits for one side, they are also bringing suits on behalf of the other side. They are way too far out on the fringes of society, I think, but I also think it is unfair to say they do not represent a balanced clientele of far out cases.

Also, I am of the opinion that school football teams do not need to pray together. And if those teams have members of different religions, we do not need to be giving some members of the team the option to practice someone else's religion or else go into the game without a prayer the rest seem to think is so important.

Also, public schools and the staff of public schools, which are paid for with public tax dollars, have no business leading students in religious services. If an entire team happens to be all Christian or whatever, and the players want to have a prayer together, fine. The coach, as a member of the faculty, doesn't get to decide that for them.

yes they were shot to death by the National Guard, a tragic event. Young soldiers opened fire after stones and bottles were thrown at them by an already massive and growing crowd. they panicked, and the result was horrid. But any abuse the protestors may have went through does not excuse what they put the soldiers through. The fact that faculty was involved is disgusting and was my main point and soldiers getting jeered at, at airports on their return home and taunted as baby killers while they walked the streets played a large part in why the country was so turned off by the anti-war movement. they acted like animals.
Protesters who blamed soldiers for what they had to do in battle were wrong, yes, but you think their ignorance earned them a death penalty? You think throwing a stone means you deserve to get shot? (BTW, I have never heard of any stones being thrown at Kent State. At other protests, yes, but not there.)

and i am sorry that you have faced religous bigotry. The idiots who have assailed you are an embarassment to their faith. But please do not lecture me on how the Constitution protects my rights. I know quite well what the constitution protects. I also know that organizations such as the ACLU have gone on record saying they are concerned with the rights of the minority, not the majority and they will use the court system to get the results they want. They intimidate many communities and schools with expensive lawsuits. They even went after a small town in New Mexico which had a spanish name that when translated meant "the three crosses" and demanded that the town change its name because it violated the establishment clause in the Constitution. They target specifically Christian symbolism, groups and Christian events. It is part of an agenda which is shared by like minded university faculty.
This sounds a little bit paranoid.

I have actual personal experience to back up public statements from some extremist Christian leaders (like Pat Robertson), that there are factions in the US that would want to see my religion either outlawed or at least used to ban me from certain kinds of jobs and privileges of citizenship. Yet even I do not think there is an "organized agenda" pervading the legal system, out to get me.

Now I am sorry for any pain you have been caused at the hands of Christians but it seems a well funded organization like the ACLU will come to your aid but if a Christian tries to go to court he/she is labeled as a fundamentalist and is often told to chill out. Any political science major has learned of the tyranny of majority, well there is also the danger of the tyranny of the minority. Look at what is happening in Darfur for instance, Christians getting slaughtered by Muslims yet it is taking forever for the UN and the EU to do anything about it, even though the Catholic Church has been pleading for help for a long time now. Same damn thing happened in Nigeria and in other parts of Africa and happens everyday in the Middle East, but the EU and UN don't give a damn.
A) I'd be willing to bet a nickel, the ACLU would represent you, too, if they thought they could win your case. They are lawyers, after all. It takes a lot for a lawyer to turn down a client.

B) What a coincidence! Animists are also being slaughtered in Darfur, right next to their Christian neighbors. I'm an animist. Who says there's no common ground?

C) Oh, sweetie, I hate to sound cynical, but I really don't think the reason the UN and the US have taken no action on behalf of Darfur and other sites of atrocities in Africa is because the victims are Christians. I think it has more to do with the fact that they are Africans. It's a different kind of bigotry.

as i have said before, i do not look at the pastor as lying. he was making a point to see how the congregation would react. He was not advocating any ill will towards the school either he was just preaching to his congregation that getting upset or angry is not the way...keeping the faith is how to deal with those situations. and the reason why that congregation believed the pastors story is because the university system is infested with liberal secular thinking which is hostile to christianity. They are looked at as superstitous, fundamentalist boobs by elitist professors and the many left wing activist groups on campus. The constitution protects your rights, yet you still faced prejudice. just because Christians are the largest religous group in the country does not mean they have it good, it just makes them a larger target.
None of this was in Zilam's story. Zilam's story is clearly about a pastor making up a scenario that was not really happening. All I see you doing here is reading your own issues into his story.

I am not going to address your sites. There is bigotry enough on all sides to go around, and I'm sure these sources are all very convincing to you. I don't want to take over the thread entirely and turning it into a dueling sources fest. I'll leave them for others to look at.

A number of 'ritual laws' in Exodus, including:

Exodus 12:24 "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to thy sons for ever."

A number of references that are especially relevent today, in Leviticus, including:

Leviticus 23:28-31 "And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the LORD your God. For whatsoever soul [it be] that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul [it be] that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: [it shall be] a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings."

First Chronicles 16:15-7 "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word [which] he commanded to a thousand generations; [Even of the covenant] which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, [and] to Israel [for] an everlasting covenant..."

Psalm 119:151-2 "Thou [art] near, O LORD; and all thy commandments [are] truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever..."


and...

Psalm 119:160 "Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever."


And, just to prove I am not [i]entirely biased against the Greek scripture:


Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."


Are you using King James? I grew up with it, but I'm not a fan.

I don't think we read the words "forever" and "everlasting" properly in English though.
It quite often meant for a long period, or, for generations into the future beyond what we can see.

Ezekiel refers to David as a prince forever (Ezekiel 37:25), yet his body has long ago decomposed and no one on Earth is on his 'throne'. I just think it's a mistake to take a simplistic reading of these words that had a broader understanding in their own context.

<snip>
Bad analogy.
Try, say, Grave n idle saying Moses would've liked a monarchy, you saying he wouldn't have liked the British Empire at all, and Grave n idle pointing out that:
1. He really WOULD have liked monarchy
and
2. Monarchy is quite a bit broader then the British Empire

Then we'd have you arguing something about the British Empire being a good example of monarchy, and Grave saying that that doesn't matter, because the british empire has nothing to do with the actual definition of monarchy.
And I'll give you the definition of communism again, just to clarify:

communism  (pronunciation details were here)
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Let's go with the first definition here, as it's the only one that talks about communism broadly, and not about the Communist Party.

Now, I think Grave has already proved pretty well that Jesus would have liked that.

This is actually the identical argument from the opposite position. One says the bible IS of God the other argues that it IS of man, and neither offers anything outside of opinion as evidence.
Let's be clear. I do not think that God took up a pen and wrote the book himself. Do you? Obviously the Bible is the work of man, in the very basic sense of physical work. It was written by human hands. So, there is no way to delete humans from the question of the Bible's authorship or creation.

The only question is whether the writers were inspired by God or not. THAT is what cannot be either proven or disproven, and all statements concerning it are just opinion.

However, even in that case, since humans are fallible, and we cannot know whether or not they were inspired by an infallible God, then the only thing we know for certain was involved with the creation of the Bible was a group of fallible human beings. I mean, we KNOW they were there, even if we're not sure God was. So, then, on what basis should we assume the God-inspired infallibility of the Bible -- or any scripture of any religion, for that matter?

But let’s continue…


Remember that and then compare it to this..



IF a person is to not believe what they choose from older scriptures (because they are possibly written by man and that makes us puppets to their will) AND THEN we cannot believe what our own head tells us either, of God’s will from the paragraph above makes it so we can't trust our own judgement, how exactly do YOU suggest that we determine what we should or should not do? You've directed him to not trust his holy scripture AND you’ve directed him not to trust his own mind…
I see where what I wrote is confusing. Sorry about that. I'll try again.

I do not believe that a person can just blindly follow any instruction without question and remain confident that he is not being misled and is doing the right thing. I believe we must each find and learn a set of first principles which express our basic understanding of right and wrong, our bottom line, as it were. We use such principles to judge our own actions and the actions of others.

The way Edwardis describes his relationship to God and the Bible, it seems that he does not apply any critical judgment to his own actions at all. As long as the given action is covered by the Bible, he will never question whether he believes it to be right or wrong according to a moral understanding of "right" and "wrong." He claims that his only criterion for deciding if an action is right is if "God says to do it." He further claims that his source for what God says is the Bible. So basically, he just uses the Bible as an instruction book and does whatever it says.

But the Bible contains many contradictions. It states a lot of first principles, like "Do not kill," "Honor your parents," "Don't covet your neighbor's property," "Don't lie about people," etc. But at the same time, it describes many exceptions to those principles, stories in which prohibitions against killing, lying, incest, rape, etc. are set aside.

Now, if I, as person working from first principles, were asked to use the Bible as a guide for moral behavior, I would not be able to do so until I had reconciled those contradictions in my own mind. Edwardis claims to make no such effort. Whatever the Bible contains, he takes as being of equal value, no matter how contradictory its stories may be. I have asked him many times what principles does he use to judge whether the authority claiming to speak for God really does. He says that the person's demands would have to be in accordance with God's law, but then he expands the scope of that law to allow for just about anything. I have asked him what principles he uses to decide which of the Bible's many contradictory verses apply to which situation in order to justify whatever action. He seems to have no answer for this.

So, in practice, a sufficiently convincing person claiming to represent God could sell him any bill of goods and find a verse in the Bible to authorize it, and Edwardis would have no independent way of judging whether he was being led astray.

As for not trusting his own mind: I am not trying to make Edwardis question his god. I am trying to make him question himself. He has said many times that humans are sinful and fallible. Yet he makes no allowance for that sinfulness and fallibility in the people who claim to be presenting God's word to him. He also makes no allowance for his own, acknowledged sinfulness and fallibility in his claims to understand his God. He says he would commit genocide if he thought God wanted him to. I ask him, how can he be sure he understands God? How can he be sure that what he is hearing is a message from God and not just his own mind generating thoughts? If he does not ever ask himself the question, "Am I wrong?", how will he ever know if he is right?

I would suggest that the opposite implication is much more likely. It is far more likely that it is those without a written and recorded codec of ethics, a codec which can be used to measure and direct our daily dilemmas and answers to our questions, to keep us out of the grasp of charlatans and liars whom prey on the good intentioned through misdirection of their good will.

Without a guide, without a set of parameters to assist us in stormy and confusing times, those left to nothing but their own resources (such as you admitted yourself are essentially guideless) using their ‘impressions’ of what is good and bad, are like a boat tossed in a stormy sea with no rudder. Tossed and turned as the wind and waves throw them, sometimes in this direction, sometimes in that direction.
You had me and then you lost me. The above paragraphs are based on nothing but unsupported suppositions and speculations on your part.

I like the way you presume to know what my life is like and how I react to circumstances. I especially like the way you make up a whole reality for me and people like me without actually asking me what my experiences are.

All of my comments to and about Edwardis are based solely on his specific statements about himself. I am trying to get a clear picture of him, and I am trying to get it FROM him. I work only with the statements of his that I have seen on this forum. I try to be clear that I am working from those statements and clear about how I understand them, and that I am expressing conclusions based on my understanding of what he has said. If I am getting something wrong or am confused, he has plenty of chances to see my mistakes and correct them.

I notice you do not do the same for me. Based only on some vague remarks of mine that I do not follow a written doctrine (vague because this thread has not been about my religion), you go ahead and supply a whole list of speculations and suppositions about how I live and use that to announce that I and people like me have no moral direction in life and just bob helplessly about like rudderless boats. :rolleyes: Please. You have absolutely no basis for such remarks unless you are basing them on a prior assumption that your kind of moral system is the only kind of moral system that exists and, therefore, anyone who doesn't follow your kind of guide must be following no guide at all. That is not a valid assumption at all, but I notice you do not try to check with me to see if you've got it right.

I am trying to learn what Edwardis is really about. You seem to want tell me what I am about, rather than learn.

The properly used scripture will have the opposite affect. It will guide, steer and direct during times of turmoil, helping the person keep a straight course and a controlled response to life’s daily troubles, large and small.

Those who need to be told what to do every day will have no trouble finding authorities to do just that.

That does not mean that those who do not need to be told what to do every day lack moral direction in their lives.

Um, this is off topic, but the US is a representative democracy, neither a pure democracy or a republic.

I pledge alliegence to the flag of the United States of America,
And to the representative democracy for which it stands.

I pledge alliegence to the flag of the United States of America,
And to the representative democracy for which it stands.

It's both.
From wiki:

In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.


Representative democracy is a form of democracy founded on the exercise of popular sovereignty by the people's representatives. The representatives act in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representative—i.e., not necessarily always according to their voters' wishes, but with enough authority to exercise initiative in the face of changing circumstances. It is often contrasted with direct democracy, where the representatives are absent or only proxy representatives

The way Edwardis describes his relationship to God and the Bible, it seems that he does not apply any critical judgment to his own actions at all. As long as the given action is covered by the Bible, he will never question whether he believes it to be right or wrong according to a moral understanding of "right" and "wrong." He claims that his only criterion for deciding if an action is right is if "God says to do it." He further claims that his source for what God says is the Bible. So basically, he just uses the Bible as an instruction book and does whatever it says.

Yes, that’s exactly right. That’s exactly what he claims to do, AND I don’t think we are insulting him to point it out. He is saying that critical judgment is interpretation of what the Bible says. You find that shockingly obtuse, you think it’s an insult to repeat of him exactly what he boasts of himself.

But the Bible contains many contradictions. It states a lot of first principles, like "Do not kill," "Honor your parents," "Don't covet your neighbor's property," "Don't lie about people," etc. But at the same time, it describes many exceptions to those principles, stories in which prohibitions against killing, lying, incest, rape, etc. are set aside.

And because your interpretations result in different questions than his do, you and he resolve to a different solution. This isn’t hard to understand, not really. He agrees with it, you don’t.

Now, if I, as person working from first principles, were asked to use the Bible as a guide for moral behavior, I would not be able to do so until I had reconciled those contradictions in my own mind. Edwardis claims to make no such effort. Whatever the Bible contains, he takes as being of equal value, no matter how contradictory its stories may be. I have asked him many times what principles does he use to judge whether the authority claiming to speak for God really does. He says that the person's demands would have to be in accordance with God's law, but then he expands the scope of that law to allow for just about anything. I have asked him what principles he uses to decide which of the Bible's many contradictory verses apply to which situation in order to justify whatever action. He seems to have no answer for this.

He interprets the Bible directives with a basis on faith, you interpret the Bible directives on a basis of suspicion. You interpret the ACLU unseen behind the scenes motives as benign, someone else interprets the ACLU’s unseen behind the scenes motives as ultra socialist conspiracy gone to the extreme. The differing outlooks result in different interpretations of the same facts…

So, in practice, a sufficiently convincing person claiming to represent God could sell him any bill of goods and find a verse in the Bible to authorize it, and Edwardis would have no independent way of judging whether he was being led astray.
According to you, not according to his own interpretation…

As for not trusting his own mind: I am not trying to make Edwardis question his god. I am trying to make him question himself.

You already provided a sufficiently good argument for why we can’t depend on our own ability to make rationale judgments. Why now should he disbelieve what you said then to disbelieve what he feels he ‘knows’ now?

I like the way you presume to know what my life is like and how I react to circumstances. I especially like the way you make up a whole reality for me and people like me without actually asking me what my experiences are.

That didn’t happen. I did NOT presume anything about YOU whatsoever. I made no personal reference, I addressed only the “We” and the US and the THEM, and the what then. You turned a discussion about options, if and if not to have a written codec to fall back on, AS YOU suggested yourself (even if you said we should have our own code, you didn’t say how we should ‘remember’ that code if our brains were compromised (as you suggested they could be and we couldn’t trust them). It was YOU who

I notice you do not do the same for me. Based only on some vague remarks of mine that I do not follow a written doctrine (vague because this thread has not been about my religion), you go ahead and supply a whole list of speculations and suppositions about how I live and use that to announce that I and people like me have no moral direction in life and just bob helplessly about like rudderless boats. :rolleyes: Please. You have absolutely no basis for such remarks unless you are basing them on a prior assumption that your kind of moral system is the only kind of moral system that exists and, therefore, anyone who doesn't follow your kind of guide must be following no guide at all. That is not a valid assumption at all, but I notice you do not try to check with me to see if you've got it right.

Here you are playing the victim, and a bad one at that. The vague remarks you mention did not occur. They are not directed at you or your beliefs. They were directed at people with a codec and people without a codec and YOUR posit that a person can not trust themselves to be their own codec as they might lose rationality due to no fault of their own.

You choose to take this as an attack on yourself, then that’s you, not me. It was not addressed or written that way. You are mis-reading between the lines and finding stuff that doesn’t exist.

I am trying to learn what Edwardis is really about. You seem to want tell me what I am about, rather than learn.

Didn’t happen, you are imagining words that weren’t said.

Now, I think Grave has already proved pretty well that Jesus would have liked that*.

(*That being a communist state)

Do you now? You think it's been proven by GnI or did you already have that preconcieved notion yourself?

Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of wages, Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of private property, Jesus did not promote the idea that marriages should cease and the community (and not the parents) should raise the children, Jesus did not dictate that all worship of God should come to an end. Thus, Jesus was NOT a communist.

I never said Jesus endorsed capitalism either. However, I showed verses that could be used to make the argument that Jesus endorsed hardcore investment brokering to prove a point. The point being that anyone can claim Jesus favored their political system, or one over another, like you are helping GnI claim that Jesus was a communist. But compare that with a more complete picture of all of Jesus' teachings.



Matthew 25
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
According to this story, one which Jesus himself endorsed by telling it himself, Jesus must be a capitalist who favors the idea of investments for profit. In the end of this story, the master, goes so far as to take money from the Poor and gives it the Rich! That is NOT communism. The exact opposite of a communist…

Luke 19
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
That’s not a story advocating a communist agenda. Not when Jesus himself is the rich prince to be crowned king…

Both of these quotes were added already. GnI said nothing but, in essence, they aren’t talking about economics on earth… However. Even IF we agree that Jesus doesn’t talk about worldly socio-economic systems on Earth (as THAT has been my primary point this entire thread off-topic), that Jesus doesn’t CARE what socio-economic system we live in and we have to do our best in all of them etc., but in agreement that Jesus isn’t talking about economic systems here, it is IMPOSSIBLE that any of Jesus other sayings ARE somehow MORE capable of talking about Jesus endorsed economic systems, MORE than these two main parables are/were.

The evidence is irrefutable. Jesus did NOT endorse communism over any other system.

What I’ve said more than once in this thread is that Jesus doesn't care what socio-economic system we live under, his directions and directives for us are regardless of our position (rich or poor, powerful or weak, master or slave) in the world. If we live under Kings and Monarchies, Republics or in Communes, Jesus' teachings are for you. He was no more a communist than he was an endorser of the Roman Empire, he was simply NOT talking about earthly governmental parties at all.

---

Additional thoughts for those that still think Jesus might have favored and preached communism advancement policies. Consider this: IF Jesus advanced the ideas of the abolishment of governments which recognized private property (communism) AND he was tried as a potential enemy of the State of Rome, then Rome, a non-communist state, would have been right to find him guilty of sedition against the state of Rome for advancing communism among the population via his messages in the territories controlled by Rome. Do YOU think Jesus was guilty of the crime of sedition against the state of Rome? I do not.

Jesus said he was innocent, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus did not attack the socio-economic polices of Rome. Thus, Jesus did NOT advance an anti-Rome communist agenda (nor any other kind of socio-economic advocate), or else Jesus was a liar at his own trial. I will not call him that.

(*That being a communist state)

Do you now? You think it's been proven by GnI or did you already have that preconcieved notion yourself?

Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of wages, Jesus did not advocate the abolishment of private property, Jesus did not promote the idea that marriages should cease and the community (and not the parents) should raise the children, Jesus did not dictate that all worship of God should come to an end. Thus, Jesus was NOT a communist.

You seem to be forgetting that communism does not require all of those.
Let's look at the definition again, eh?

communism  (pronunciation details were here)
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Do we see that marriages should cease or that worship of god should end here? No.
You're thinking of Marxism.

I never said Jesus endorsed capitalism either. However, I showed verses that could be used to make the argument that Jesus endorsed hardcore investment brokering to prove a point. The point being that anyone can claim Jesus favored their political system, or one over another, like you are helping GnI claim that Jesus was a communist. But compare that with a more complete picture of all of Jesus' teachings.


Yes, you gave those two parables, versus GnI's pile of verses.


Matthew 25
14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
According to this story, one which Jesus himself endorsed by telling it himself, Jesus must be a capitalist who favors the idea of investments for profit. In the end of this story, the master, goes so far as to take money from the Poor and gives it the Rich! That is NOT communism. The exact opposite of a communist…


Again, this is an analogy for knowledge.
I don't expect anyone took my analogy about Moses being a monarchist(I don't care that it isn't a word) literally.

Luke 19
12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas. 'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
That’s not a story advocating a communist agenda. Not when Jesus himself is the rich prince to be crowned king…

Again, you seem to have a problem with parables.

Both of these quotes were added already. GnI said nothing but, in essence, they aren’t talking about economics on earth… However. Even IF we agree that Jesus doesn’t talk about worldly socio-economic systems on Earth (as THAT has been my primary point this entire thread off-topic), that Jesus doesn’t CARE what socio-economic system we live in and we have to do our best in all of them etc., but in agreement that Jesus isn’t talking about economic systems here, it is IMPOSSIBLE that any of Jesus other sayings ARE somehow MORE capable of talking about Jesus endorsed economic systems, MORE than these two main parables are/were.

So we have to assume your argument for your argument to be correct?
Usually when you use circular reasoning, you don't make it that obvious.

The evidence is irrefutable. Jesus did NOT endorse communism over any other system.

No, it's refutable easily. We just did.

What I’ve said more than once in this thread is that Jesus doesn't care what socio-economic system we live under, his directions and directives for us are regardless of our position (rich or poor, powerful or weak, master or slave) in the world. If we live under Kings and Monarchies, Republics or in Communes, Jesus' teachings are for you. He was no more a communist than he was an endorser of the Roman Empire, he was simply NOT talking about earthly governmental parties at all.

Yes he wasn't talking about political parties.
However, communism is not a political party, it is an economic system.
Considering Jesus wanted everyone to give to someone worse off then them, if you do that enough it all balances out into communism.

---

Additional thoughts for those that still think Jesus might have favored and preached communism advancement policies. Consider this: IF Jesus advanced the ideas of the abolishment of governments which recognized private property (communism) AND he was tried as a potential enemy of the State of Rome, then Rome, a non-communist state, would have been right to find him guilty of sedition against the state of Rome for advancing communism among the population via his messages in the territories controlled by Rome. Do YOU think Jesus was guilty of the crime of sedition against the state of Rome? I do not.

Problem here: Jesus wanted people to do this of their own free will, without changing the government.
You can't (shouldn't) be accused of sedition if nothing you've said is against any law.

Jesus said he was innocent, Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Jesus did not attack the socio-economic polices of Rome. Thus, Jesus did NOT advance an anti-Rome communist agenda (nor any other kind of socio-economic advocate), or else Jesus was a liar at his own trial. I will not call him that.
He wasn't anti-Rome. He wanted people to do it within Rome's system.

Yes, that’s exactly right. That’s exactly what he claims to do, AND I don’t think we are insulting him to point it out. He is saying that critical judgment is interpretation of what the Bible says. You find that shockingly obtuse, you think it’s an insult to repeat of him exactly what he boasts of himself.
Hm. Referring to your last comment to me, at the end of your post, I think you are the one reading things that were not written.

I did not insult Edwardis at all. I merely described my understanding of what he himself told me. Then I went on to explain why I have a problem with that. But how does my disagreement with him translate into an insult, in your mind? Did I call him a bad name? Did I say he was stupid? No, I just disagree with his assertion that this way of thinking is leading him along the right path. That is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. There is nothing insulting about that.

And because your interpretations result in different questions than his do, you and he resolve to a different solution. This isn’t hard to understand, not really. He agrees with it, you don’t.
Look, I am having this conversation with Edwardis. I am merely explaining my view of that conversation to you. You are free to join in, but it would be helpful if you kept abreast of what he and I have already discussed.

We have already covered that we take different approaches. No surprise, as we have different religions. What we are discussing here is the point at which, socially, his life and my life might hypothetically overlap and whether that is likely to be a problem or not. He thinks not (which is good). I, however, feel that I might not be safe around him, and I am trying to explain to him why I think that.

Are we on the same page now?

He interprets the Bible directives with a basis on faith, you interpret the Bible directives on a basis of suspicion. You interpret the ACLU unseen behind the scenes motives as benign, someone else interprets the ACLU’s unseen behind the scenes motives as ultra socialist conspiracy gone to the extreme. The differing outlooks result in different interpretations of the same facts…
I do not interpret the Bible at all.

It is not my holy book. I have no opinion about its content or its meaning whatsoever. I am only interested in the people I meet, not the religions they espouse or the religious books they read. That is part of what I have been trying to explain to Edwardis.

As for the rest, um... no kidding.

According to you, not according to his own interpretation…
Again, no kidding. I was telling you what I think.

You already provided a sufficiently good argument for why we can’t depend on our own ability to make rationale judgments. Why now should he disbelieve what you said then to disbelieve what he feels he ‘knows’ now?
I think you mean "why should he believe what you said."

I'm not asking him to believe me because I am not telling him anything that I claim to be true. I am only making a suggestion. I am suggesting that he should question himself as much as he should question others who try to lead him. And I am trying to explain to him why I am suggesting that. All I ask is that he ask the question. He'll find whatever answer he finds. That is not my concern, even if he decides that I was wrong all along. I just do not think people should blindly follow their own impulses any more than they should blindly follow the directions of someone else. I certainly do not want to be his, or anyone's, leader in anything at all.

That didn’t happen. I did NOT presume anything about YOU whatsoever. I made no personal reference, I addressed only the “We” and the US and the THEM, and the what then. You turned a discussion about options, if and if not to have a written codec to fall back on, AS YOU suggested yourself (even if you said we should have our own code, you didn’t say how we should ‘remember’ that code if our brains were compromised (as you suggested they could be and we couldn’t trust them). It was YOU who
Umm... huh?

Kinda lost the thread there a bit?

Here you are playing the victim, and a bad one at that. The vague remarks you mention did not occur.
Yes, they did. I made them. I said in this thread -- very long ago, and to someone else -- and in other threads, some of which I believe you have participated in, that my religion does not have a written scripture. I've said that frequently. But only one thread -- egad, a year ago maybe -- ever went into detail about my religion. So, since then, all my references to my own beliefs have been somewhat vague. But I have made them.

They are not directed at you or your beliefs. They were directed at people with a codec and people without a codec and YOUR posit that a person can not trust themselves to be their own codec as they might lose rationality due to no fault of their own.
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. I did not mean that a person cannot trust themselves to be their own codec. I meant that a person cannot blindly and automatically trust that even their own thoughts come from God, rather than just being self-serving impulses or even delusions. I meant that we must always question ourselves and our perceptions to make sure of them. Above all, we must question our own motives.

You choose to take this as an attack on yourself, then that’s you, not me. It was not addressed or written that way. You are mis-reading between the lines and finding stuff that doesn’t exist.

Didn’t happen, you are imagining words that weren’t said.
Did you or did you not describe people who do not follow a code such as is found in scripture, as boats without a rudder, tossed helplessly about on stormy seas? Did you or did you not say that people who do not follow a code such as is found in scripture lack direction? Did you or did you not say that people who rely only on their own "impressions" of right and wrong to guide them are pulled this way and that and were likely to be misled and misdirected? And did you or did you not, at the beginning of that paragraph [EDIT: Correction: in the middle of the paragraph], describe me as a person who does not follow a code and is "guideless"?

I remind you that it is in writing in this very thread.

And I ask you, how do you know what I (or any other person) follow or don't follow? How do you know that I (or any other person) am tossed about helplessly and have no direction? How do you know what I (or any other person) rely on for guidance?

You do not know any of those things. And you still don't because you still haven't asked.

Considering Jesus wanted everyone to give to someone worse off then them, if you do that enough it all balances out into communism.

No, no it doesn't balance out into communism. Mandating charity for the poor from your followers is not mandating communism. Not owning property (communism) does not result from balancing out the distribution of wealth (as you speculated).

Jesus said, share all that you have, in communism you don't have anything to share, you only have what you require for your needs. Jesus talked about having an abundance, and an abundance in communism is an oxymoron.

Problem here: Jesus wanted people to do this of their own free will, without changing the government.
You can't (shouldn't) be accused of sedition if nothing you've said is against any law.

It was against the law to incite the people against Rome. It would be against the Roman law to tell people that they shouldn't buy and sell in the markets where the Romans collected their taxes. Jesus would be guilty of sedition against Rome IF he advocated a socio-economic overturning of the free market of the Roman Palestinian provience. Jesus did NOT tell his followers to end their economic transactions.

He wasn't anti-Rome. He wanted people to do it within Rome's system.
If you take away their ability to collect taxes from the the people you lead and the people you lead are also tax payers in the Roman province, you are attacking the Roman economic system, you are attacking Rome.

---

Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind

How can you invite the poor if there are no poor because everyone is taken care of by the community in your communist system? And in your communist system, how can you have an abundance enough to feed a banquet or give to charity? The community feeds everyone daily.

How can you make a tithe offering of 10% of your profits IF you don't own any property? HOW can it be voluntary to give 10% of the 'community's' property, you wouldn't have any vote or say in it because you either don't own anything in it or you can't make them tithe if the community doesn't agree with your religious interpretation of tithing at all? If the community gives you what you need for making an offering, that is NOT tithing, that is like me giving my child a dollar to put in the offering plate, who really met the need? You can't tithe yourself IF you have nothing extra outside of your needs because the communist system doesn't allow you to own even your own house or sell your own crops, or raise your own herd of animals.

Neither the teachings nor the mission of Jesus on Earth was ever to advance a communist agenda, despite your interpretation to the contraire, you did NOT refute it simply because you continued to disagree. ‘Refute’ means to disprove. You did no such thing. Whereas I DID prove that Jesus' parables were NOT parables of a communist society.

He gave us all the information he could, which is the world itself.

If God is incapable of providing us with more information, then He is not omnipotent. If He is unwilling to do so, then He is unworthy of my worship.


Your job, as a sentient being, is to OBSERVE.

I don't have "a job" as a sentient being.


God is not "like our father". God is not a PERSON (a creature).

The Christian God is named the Father (as well as Son and Holy Ghost) by Christians, who are the focus of this thread.


If god had given you 200 times the "understanding" of the world that you have now, you'd still complain that he'd not given you enough.

It is charming that you presume to know what I would and would not do in theoretical circumstances, but you might as well save your time and energy.


The game is to be played with the situation as it is. Your job is to play the game, which you actually cannot help but do. :)

Again, I do not have "a job" or "a purpose" merely by virtue of existing. Those concepts are subjective constructs.


If you were told (by a creation [a person]) that god said that there is NO time when it is acceptable to harm any reproductive cell (egg, sperm, zygote, fetus, etc) would you believe what you were told?
I would have precisely the same reaction as if somebody told me that magical leprechauns hate abortion, and therefore it's wrong. However, we're not talking about ME, we're talking about people who believe in the Christian God.

To people who believe in the Christian God, the Bible is relevant to morality. If the Christian God is a loving being who wishes His children to be good and moral creatures, one would think He'd give them an inkling of what it means to be good. And, indeed, the Bible is full of stories of God doing exactly that: giving humans precise, specific instructions about what is and is not good behavior. Giving precise instructions about how to structure laws and how to be moral. Yet, for some reason, the moral advice provided by the Bible is limited to the cultural context of the time period in which it was written.

If the morality described in the Bible were really inspired by an all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful Being with the power to transcend time as we know it, and if the Bible exists (as Christians claim) to provide God's People with The Word, then why would The Word be so limited and...well, human?


But what if god is not capable of producing any form of communication that you would accept as "god-to-human" communication?

Then why the fuck should any of us listen to what anybody else has to say about God?

This entire discussion is in reference to Christianity. A central principle of Christianity is that God can, and does, interact with human beings. If you want to talk about some other religion or some other faith, go to another thread.


Your demand that god communicate to you in a way that he is incapable of doing is a demand for the impossible, and gives you full justification to do anything about anything that you wish.

I don't demand squat from God, any more than I make demands of unicorns or Santa.


That is the POINT of free will.

So you're saying that if somebody teaches you something or provides you with information, they are infringing on your free will or reducing your ability to act with free will? Interesting theory.


If god could do the impossible and make you believe that he were speaking to you as you demand to be spoken to, then you'd have absolute knowledge about the "morality" of every action, and your free will would be SEVERELY curtailed.

Gee, so that means that the more a person knows, the less "free" they are! It's the Garden all over again! Ignorance is freedom! Stupidity is liberty! Don't try to "understand" or "know" things, just be "free"! Enjoy the "free will" that can only be yours if you have little to no information about the things you're talking about!


That would make the game too easy. An it would stunt your development as a sentient being, essentially making you into a robot.

So, in order to avoid being a "robot," you must make sure that you don't question or ask for information. Don't question God's will, don't expect Him to provide you with explanations or information, and don't expect to be able to comprehend or evaluate moral questions using anything more than the gut instincts that you were born with. That's what "freedom" and "sentience" is all about: addressing difficult problems without trying to gather information! And God gave you "free will" because He didn't want you to actually understand the decisions you are making. Instead, He wants you to make uninformed choices (presumably so that He can then send you to Hell when you make lousy choices due to your lack of information)!


And making robots is not what this world is for.

This world isn't "for" anything. Purpose is a subjective concept.


You did not create yourself.

Read my post. I specifically stated that I have contributed to making myself the person I am today, but that my contributions are by no means the only (or most important) ones.


Your biology and the sustenance of your life that is provided by this earthly environment were here before you, and will exist after you are gone.

So what do you "own" that doesn't rely on that which was here before you, however it got to be here?

Many aspects of myself and my life are the direct products of my choices and actions, and would not be as they are but for my personal and conscious intervention. I am a contributor, however small, to the world as I know it. It is not arrogance to take responsibility for my role in my life.


The provider of the "before me" stuff that my biology and sustenance relies on I call god.

What do you call it?
I don't call "it" anything. I know of biology, sure. Physics as well. I know of my parents, my planet, my food, my home, and many other things and people which contributed to bringing me into the world and rearing me to be the person I am today. I know each of these things and people, and I do not feel any need to lump them together and give them a single name.

There is no law or court ruling against a student led religious group using school buildings outside of normal school hours. Our HS has such groups.

The ACLU defends the first amendment. Something conservatives should applaud. The majority can vote and buy protection. The bill of rights is to protect the minority. The US is NOT a democracy. It is a republic that protects the rights of all.

What Darfur needs is oil. It proves that Saddam wasn't the worst dictator in the world. Just the one with oil.

court rulings, not so far, unless you count the 9th circuit court of appeals, the ACLUs favorite go to court. But the hostile environments do exist.

The ACLU defends the first amendment for select groups of people, lifestyles and ideologies. They have their own agenda and interpretation of the first ammendment. The organization has been politicized, just like the NAACP has been in recent years.

The Constitution protects the rights of all. The Bill of rights attempts to clarify those rights but ends up giving the courts, most made up of unelected judges, the power to decide what is constitutional and right and what is not.

Yes the US is a republic. So why does the ACLU feel the need to bypass the legislature continuously and head straight for the courts, often cherry picking their judges? The rights of all are supposed to be protected, both the minority and the majority.

Names are magic, use them as a religion.
An imbecile who feels insulted when not, call him god, in respect of some prophet religion.

An enigmatic past you do not know, call it god in respect of indulgence to your laziness to learn.

A priest who looks for quarrels with other religion you call him god, but here no magic, just you are the god I called before.

if the prayer is voluntary, I would have no problem with it. The religion and spirituality of others does not make me nervous. Satanism ofcourse is nothing but a mockery of Christianity and is not an actual religion. And spare me any equivocation on that statement...satanism is not a religion. as i said in my previous post i like common sense.


Satanism is less of a 'mockery' of Christianity, and more of an abject 'denial' of it. To the extent that it picks up the dichotomy in Christianity (the fact that, Christianity calls itself monotheism, it acts like polytheism), and embraces the other 'extreme'.

Thus, if you call Christianity a 'religion', you pretty much have to call Satanism a religion, too.

Riiiight. I’m tying the meaning of the word ‘communist’ to the people and period in time that the word was invented and applied in the modern sense and to politics.


Anarchy has a number of different meanings... most of them are to do with being destructive, very few to do with the idea of a political 'system' of entirely self-governing nature.

Until fairly recently, the prime definition of athiest, in many dictionaries was 'wicked person'.

The point I'm making here, is that a word doesn't always mean what a) it first was coined to mean, or b) what it is commonly RECEIVED to mean.

I don't know WHY you are so desperate to tie 'communism' to Marx - but I suspect it is entirely because you don't want to admit you were wrong.


How silly of me, I should have seen the obvious flaw in my position of assigning to the people that actually created and defined the word for the first time in their writings (in the modern world) and the creation of political parties as we know them now, excuse me for thinking that they of all people might actually knowing what it meant...


Like I say - words in English are very rarely limited to their initial connotations. I have seen cupboards in furniture shops that contained NO cups. I have watched Christians talk about how they never use 'cuss' words, and then complain about something being 'damaged'.

It IS silly of you to assume that ALL communism MUST be defined by Marx. It is like assuming ALL 'democratic nations' MUST be Republics, because the US is.


It’s entirely clear now. You mean it in the very same that IF I were to say that Buddha was a republican, his writings read like a paragraph right out of a declaration of independence, or stating that he was, step in line with some forefathers… And then YOU came back with some Buddha quotes and some Constitutional paraphrases that showed the exact opposite was true. My defense would be to say those quotes of Buddha were taken out of context, that I didn’t mean THAT Constitution, and I didn’t say THE Declaration of Independence. I just meant some kind of republic, with some general idealist constitution and declaration of independence in the general sense, and it’s not MY fault that your narrow focus was to blame for YOU thinking I meant the US Constitution, because if I meant that, I would have capitalized the words.


If you proceded to draw a load of Buddha quotes that actually did favour the idea of a Republic, you might have a point. If I could prove that those quotes were NOT in line with the idea of the Republic, you might have a point.

However, in this Alice world, I did produce Buddha quotes that showed him to be keen on the idea of a Republic, and you have utterly failed to provide any evidence. On the contrary - you have picked examples of one far-from-ideal Republic, and continually tried to hammer Buddha into it.


In the same way they might ask why I would call Buddha a republican.


Err.. yes? I'm not sure what you think this example proves...


Nah, that’s not right. It’s far too easy to plainly see that you just simply got caught exaggerating your initial posit and THEN you exacerbated your position with your initial denials of exaggeration and NOW you’re in full battle dress, go down with the ship if need be, damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, course of action, trying as hard as you might to squirm out of it without admitting anything. Nice :rolleyes:

Not at all. I have not changed my position one jot or tittle. You have continuously insisted I am talking about Marxism... you NOW seem to be arguing ALL communism is Marxism?

I have continuously told you you are barking up the wrong tree.

Just because my table has four legs, and my dog has four legs... does NOT mean my dog is a table.

I'm surprised you think of me in 'battle mode', etc... because, from what I can see, you got caught in a mistake... that is, your foolish assumption that communism MUST mean Marxism... and have been too proud or contrary to admit you were wrong...?

Are you using King James? I grew up with it, but I'm not a fan.

I don't think we read the words "forever" and "everlasting" properly in English though.
It quite often meant for a long period, or, for generations into the future beyond what we can see.

Ezekiel refers to David as a prince forever (Ezekiel 37:25), yet his body has long ago decomposed and no one on Earth is on his 'throne'. I just think it's a mistake to take a simplistic reading of these words that had a broader understanding in their own context.

And, when they say 'crucifixion', they mean "gave him a present and a small pat on the head, but generally sent him on his way"?

And, when they say God is 'omnipotent', they mean "God is a kind of lilac colour"?


I'm happy to quibble meanings. Really, I am. But - if we are going to quibble meanings, we have to remember that the ENTIRE scripture may fall victim, not just one word.


So - give me a good reason why I should take ALL the instances in which a word is translated as 'for ever'... and ASSUME they mean 'quite a while'? Convince me and I'll happily agree.

Bad analogy.
Try, say, Grave n idle saying Moses would've liked a monarchy, you saying he wouldn't have liked the British Empire at all, and Grave n idle pointing out that:
1. He really WOULD have liked monarchy
and
2. Monarchy is quite a bit broader then the British Empire

Then we'd have you arguing something about the British Empire being a good example of monarchy, and Grave saying that that doesn't matter, because the british empire has nothing to do with the actual definition of monarchy.
And I'll give you the definition of communism again, just to clarify:

communism  (pronunciation details were here)
–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
4. communalism.

Let's go with the first definition here, as it's the only one that talks about communism broadly, and not about the Communist Party.

Now, I think Grave has already proved pretty well that Jesus would have liked that.


Thank you! Thank you so much!

I was beginning to wonder if my examples were just fundamentally flawed - I didn't seem to be able to 'get the message through' of what I thought I was saying.

But it looks like, maybe, some audiences choose not to understand... and some audiences understand exactly what I was saying - for which I thank you.

No, no it doesn't balance out into communism. Mandating charity for the poor from your followers is not mandating communism. Not owning property (communism) does not result from balancing out the distribution of wealth (as you speculated).

Jesus said, share all that you have, in communism you don't have anything to share, you only have what you require for your needs. Jesus talked about having an abundance, and an abundance in communism is an oxymoron.


In a communism, you have communal ownership. In SOME models of communism, there may be elements of personal ownership, also.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that communism is, at heart, an ECONOMIC model. The 'property' to which it FUNDAMENTALLY refers, is the MEANS OF PRODUCTION.


It was against the law to incite the people against Rome.


Blah blah irrelevent blah.

Messiah was supposed to bring the sword and fire against the 'enemies of Israel'... one assumes that Rome would fit that option.

Thus - according to the Hebrew scripture... Jesus SHOULD have incited the people against Rome.


Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind
How can you invite the poor if there are no poor because everyone is taken care of by the community in your communist system?
How can you make a tithe offering of 10% of your profits IF you don't own any property?


The poor, blind, crippled, etc... might NOT be members of you communistic state or microstate.

More importantly - Jesus preached to the 'reality of his day' AND to the possibility of the future. Jesus tells the Christian to obey Rome (Render unto Caesar), whilst simultaneously promising a brighter tomorrow.

And yet, he wasn't prosecuted as a criminal. I guess your argument earlier was bullshit.


Whereas I DID prove that Jesus' parables were NOT parables of a communist society.

You did no such thing. You've not even come close.

The only thing you've 'proved' is that Jesus probably wouldn't have implemented a MARXIST communism... which is fine, I agree. Which is why I have never SUGGESTED a Marxist model.

...
And yet, he wasn't prosecuted as a criminal. I guess your argument earlier was bullshit....


Really? That's incredible. I assume you think Luke is a liar now...

Luke 23
1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

3So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"

I did, indeed, whip out a half million extended verses of justification. :) You knew I would, and I hate to disappoint.

But of course mon ami..!!


If Jesus was a communist, I think the picture is clear that he was very much a 'voluntary, egalitarian' type communist. All that stuff about washing each other's feet, and being each other's servant?

He also had the sense, or lack of time to do otherwise, to recruit only a dozen or so "party members" into his "cell".


But, he doesn't shut the door on the other kind either... he does tell us that the political world we live in IS to be 'obeyed' (render unto Caesar, etc)... because there is a higher calling, but that it is ELSEwhere. I don't get the feeling he thinks much of that scheme, though.... he tells us to obey, but he makes a clear separation between that 'world of the flesh' (Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's), and the 'world of the spirit' (Render unto God, that which is God's).

This is what makes him a "capitalist", in my opinion.

Unlike communists, who give no quarter to being realistic (in anything), he (Jesus) knew about the "separation of realms" concept.

That is, he knew that "this world" (the world) was the place for the necessity to find (battle/toil for) sustenance and extend one's blood-line, which are the primary tenets of capitalism,.. and "the other world" (of god) was the place where all inequalities would be dealt with with such utter simplicity (by god) that there would be no need for strife (battle/toil) or the work of needing to consider "the future" at all.

Thus, Jesus advocated "capitalism" here, in the world, but with "communism" (for want of a better word) as a "greater goal" to keep in mind (while plying one's commerce) because of the tendency for "capitalism" to create "bad juju" that "sticks" you to "this world" and causes you much anguish when you have to "give it up" to god.


In my usual (no doubt heretical) interesting way, I take that to mean that his 'voluntary' communism can be both world AND spirit for us, while the 'authoritarian' model is just 'world'... and we'll have to wait for the 'spirit' part, till after.

Your idea sounds pretty good to me. :)

To live ONLY like animals, constantly taking full "advantage" of the weak, gets you what the animals have, which is no advancement of society, and a bare minimum of "pleasure" for a bare minimum of the poulation.

That would be your "authoritarian" capitalistic bad scenario, which Jesus probably thought was NOT the way to go.

To at least TRY to interject some "humanity" into your "worldly doings" (attempted communism in the world) made SOME gains over the "animalistic" path, with more advancement of society and more pleasure for more people.

It also prepared you somewhat for the "stripping away" of your sins, by yourself standing before god, as it means that you haven't created quite as much "bad juju" that you excoriate yourself from under.


I see where you are going with 'wealth' and 'treasure'... but I think the line is blurry, and starts a lot nearer to 'poverty' than most people would like.

To be able to give, you have to have.

To have in abundance you have to find the sources of continuous having.

To give as you have, when you can sustain your having, is to be a blessing.

To keep what you have, when you can sustain your having, is to be a curse.

I've skipped around this thread, trying to find a way to add to the debate, but evidently I'm in over my head.

Besides, I've about forgotten what it's supposed to be about.

And, when they say 'crucifixion', they mean "gave him a present and a small pat on the head, but generally sent him on his way"?

And, when they say God is 'omnipotent', they mean "God is a kind of lilac colour"?


Humourous, but fails to address my point, thank you for the comedic diversion though.


I'm happy to quibble meanings. Really, I am. But - if we are going to quibble meanings, we have to remember that the ENTIRE scripture may fall victim, not just one word.


So - give me a good reason why I should take ALL the instances in which a word is translated as 'for ever'... and ASSUME they mean 'quite a while'? Convince me and I'll happily agree.

You are quite correct, all of scripture has the same potential to fall "victim" to this. It certainly isn't limited to one single word.

We are dealing with an ancient language in an ancient culture, we must always be careful that we have an accurate translation, that that thranslation is in context witht he text it is found in and that the text is in context with the culture it is found in.

Would you agree with that?

I'm suggesting that 'forever' and 'eternal' may have been understood in a similiar, but not precisely the same fashion that we understand them.
Most people are familiar with how many diferent ways the word love can be used in the Greek texts but yet is simply rendered 'love' in English.

So, should you take ALL instances of these words and ASSUME they have a slightly different flavour of meaning every time?
That would be foolish, even if it did agree with me.

My point is that these words don't seem to be the simply understood words that we might make them every time. I'm not presenting liliac coloured crucifixions that need a decoder ring to transopose the letters or words to discover that we should drink our Ovaltine, just a different cultural take on the concept.

The ACLU defends the first amendment for select groups of people, lifestyles and ideologies. They have their own agenda and interpretation of the first ammendment.

Pretty much everybody has their own interpretations and agendas. That's not really anything unique to the ACLU. Frankly, I've seen the ACLU be far more even-handed than most other organizations, so it feels odd to single them out as an example of an "agenda-driven" organization.


The organization has been politicized, just like the NAACP has been in recent years.

Any organization that deals with enforcing, challenging, or reforming the laws of our country is going to be "politicized" by its very nature. Again, I don't think this is unique to the ACLU, and I certainly don't think it's any particular slam against them.


The Constitution protects the rights of all. The Bill of rights attempts to clarify those rights but ends up giving the courts, most made up of unelected judges, the power to decide what is constitutional and right and what is not.

Somebody has to interpret the laws. In our system of government, we assign this role to a branch of government called the judiciary. Or, at least, we used to, until our Unitary Executive decided that he needed to have all the eggs in his basket.


Yes the US is a republic. So why does the ACLU feel the need to bypass the legislature continuously and head straight for the courts, often cherry picking their judges?

"Bypass" the legislature? The ACLU is doing exactly what the system is designed for. They are using the correct channels for their aims, based on the way in which our system of government is designed. If you don't like the system, don't blame the ACLU...blame the Founders.

The rights of all are supposed to be protected, both the minority and the majority.
Right. And how exactly is this going to be better achieved by handing judiciary powers over to representatives who are elected by majority vote?

Humourous, but fails to address my point, thank you for the comedic diversion though.




You are quite correct, all of scripture has the same potential to fall "victim" to this. It certainly isn't limited to one single word.

We are dealing with an ancient language in an ancient culture, we must always be careful that we have an accurate translation, that that thranslation is in context witht he text it is found in and that the text is in context with the culture it is found in.

Would you agree with that?

I'm suggesting that 'forever' and 'eternal' may have been understood in a similiar, but not precisely the same fashion that we understand them.
Most people are familiar with how many diferent ways the word love can be used in the Greek texts but yet is simply rendered 'love' in English.

So, should you take ALL instances of these words and ASSUME they have a slightly different flavour of meaning every time?
That would be foolish, even if it did agree with me.

My point is that these words don't seem to be the simply understood words that we might make them every time. I'm not presenting liliac coloured crucifixions that need a decoder ring to transopose the letters or words to discover that we should drink our Ovaltine, just a different cultural take on the concept.

I agree with the Ovaltine. :)

I am totally with you on the idea that we need to be very careful about bearing in mind we read translations, and translations OF translations.

Most of the real problems arrive, to my way of thinking, when words are translated identically despite different roots (like your example of 'love' being the translation of a number of different concepts), or when words are simply excluded from translation (like ignoring the references to animals having a 'soul', when Hebrew is translated).

Of course, there may well be the same kind of 'conversational' uses of words... like the 'day' in Genesis. It doesn't have to be 24 hours, conversationally. I say "back in my day", but it doesn't refer to specifically 24 hour periods... it just means quite a while ago.

But - if I encounter 'forever' in the Hebrew, within one book, and it seems to be a fairly accurate translation to assume it means what I] by 'forever'... why should I quibble it?

Really? That's incredible. I assume you think Luke is a liar now...

Luke 23
1Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. 2And they began to accuse him, saying, "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ, a king."

3So Pilate asked Jesus, "Are you the king of the Jews?"


How dishonest.

Luke records the accusations made by the Jews. The verses you chose to ignore go on to say that Rome ignored those charges, and, in fact, found no grounds for prosecution in the legislatures of two different jurisdictions.

How dishonest.

Luke records the accusations made by the Jews. The verses you chose to ignore go on to say that Rome ignored those charges, and, in fact, found no grounds for prosecution in the legislatures of two different jurisdictions.

LOL, Oh my goodness. You are seriously funny sometimes when you miss the point so badly.


Dishonest? How? I said, IF Jesus had been preaching for the advancement of communism in the Roman province, then he WOULD have been guilty of those charges. I consider it proof that he was NOT advancing a socio-economic change because the Romans did NOT find him guilty of that charge when it was brought before them.

LOL, Oh my goodness. You are seriously funny sometimes when you miss the point so badly.


Dishonest? How? I said, IF Jesus had been preaching for the advancement of communism in the Roman province, then he WOULD have been guilty of those charges. I consider it proof that he was NOT advancing a socio-economic change because the Romans did NOT find him guilty of that charge when it was brought before them.

In other words, you've been proved wrong, yet again, and are trying to wriggle out of it.

I said "And yet, he wasn't prosecuted as a criminal. I guess your argument earlier was bullshit."

To which you posted some attempt at refutation, taking Luke out of context.

You can't even keep track of which side of each point you are arguing...

I feel no victory winning a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

In other words, you've been proved wrong, yet again, and are trying to wriggle out of it.

I said "And yet, he wasn't prosecuted as a criminal. I guess your argument earlier was bullshit."

To which you posted some attempt at refutation, taking Luke out of context.

You can't even keep track of which side of each point you are arguing...

I feel no victory winning a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.

Right. :rolleyes:

I see your inability to focus on the question in hand (if Jesus preached communism it would have been sedition against the state of Rome, since it is known that Rome dismissed charges of sedition against Jesus, including the Tax question, then Jesus must not have been preaching Communism in the Roman province) is matched only by your incessant need to make personal insults...

How boorish.

Right. :rolleyes:

I see your inability to focus on the question in hand (if Jesus preached communism it would have been sedition against the state of Rome, since it is known that Rome dismissed charges of sedition against Jesus, including the Tax question, then Jesus must not have been preaching Communism in the Roman province) is matched only by your incessant need to make personal insults...

How boorish.

If you took one comment to be a personal insult, that would still not qualify as 'incessant'.

It is not I that has failed to keep track of the argument... although you now appear to be pretending you posted Luke 23 as something other than a rebuttal.

Your argument that Jesus would have beenm prosecuted is obviously false - so long as Jesus preached paying taxes, and respecting Roman authority (which he did - which, of course, is just further evidence he was not Messiah), it seems unlikely that Rome would have CARED what he preached to the Jews.

Thus, Rome not prosecuting Jesus speaks nothing to the CONTENT of what he preached.

You fail to make any logical connection, and I won't just accept your opinion on faith.

Then again - the arguement can be made that Jesus makes a special point of telling people NOT to engage in their religious observations in such a fashion. One could argue that the 'more enthusiastic' version of their service was directly equivalent to the Pharisee's standing in public, proclaiming about their observations... no?

By that logic - what the priest tricked them into doing is fairly anti-Christian.

Also - Jesus did make a point of telling us to bow to authority. "Render unto Caesar" would cover being quiet, while the congregation "renders unto God".

it certainly can be argued. there are obviously certain self satisfied practices that jesus seemed to find distasteful. (im thinking of the parable where the one guy stays at the back of the church grovelling in his sinfulness and repentence and the other guy walks boldly to the front and thanks god for making him the coolest guy ever)

but jesus didnt really outline what he expected out of services that worship HIM. outside of "do this in remembrance of me". but in acts there are discussions of services that seem to have been very enthusiastic and were considered to have been visited by the holy spirit. if it was good enough for the early church, it should be good enough for zilams church.

im thinking that if the congregation had gone looking for this phantom official with the objective of yelling at him, that would have been unchristian. i dont have a problem with exercising their religious freedom in a more enthusiastic way than usual in response to some perceived hardship.

[QUOTE]No, no it doesn't balance out into communism. Mandating charity for the poor from your followers is not mandating communism. Not owning property (communism) does not result from balancing out the distribution of wealth (as you speculated).

Jesus said, share all that you have, in communism you don't have anything to share, you only have what you require for your needs. Jesus talked about having an abundance, and an abundance in communism is an oxymoron.

Yes it does balance out.
Let's base it on your comment, shall we?
According to Jesus, you should give to anyone who needs it.
So if everyone follows his law exactly, everyone gives to everyone else to their level of need, and so everyone has exactly what they need.
The overlying structure may be capitalism, but it works the same way as communism.

It was against the law to incite the people against Rome. It would be against the Roman law to tell people that they shouldn't buy and sell in the markets where the Romans collected their taxes. Jesus would be guilty of sedition against Rome IF he advocated a socio-economic overturning of the free market of the Roman Palestinian provience. Jesus did NOT tell his followers to end their economic transactions.

He didn't say not the use the roman markets. He said to give the stuff you buy to people who need it. No government in the world will ever criminalize charity.

If you take away their ability to collect taxes from the the people you lead and the people you lead are also tax payers in the Roman province, you are attacking the Roman economic system, you are attacking Rome.---

They could still collect taxes. Everyone still technically had property in Jesus' variation on communism, just the understood community law was that you give stuff to people who need it.

Luke 14:13 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind

How can you invite the poor if there are no poor because everyone is taken care of by the community in your communist system? And in your communist system, how can you have an abundance enough to feed a banquet or give to charity? The community feeds everyone daily.

I've dealt with this already. (You have an abundance if you have extra money after giving to everyone who needs money)



How can you make a tithe offering of 10% of your profits IF you don't own any property? HOW can it be voluntary to give 10% of the 'community's' property, you wouldn't have any vote or say in it because you either don't own anything in it or you can't make them tithe if the community doesn't agree with your religious interpretation of tithing at all? If the community gives you what you need for making an offering, that is NOT tithing, that is like me giving my child a dollar to put in the offering plate, who really met the need? You can't tithe yourself IF you have nothing extra outside of your needs because the communist system doesn't allow you to own even your own house or sell your own crops, or raise your own herd of animals.

You own property, you just give everything you don't need and someone else does away.

Neither the teachings nor the mission of Jesus on Earth was ever to advance a communist agenda, despite your interpretation to the contraire, you did NOT refute it simply because you continued to disagree. ‘Refute’ means to disprove. You did no such thing. Whereas I DID prove that Jesus' parables were NOT parables of a communist society.

A communist society? Of course not, Jesus had to adapt it to the roman law system.
A communist community and communist laws? Certainly.

it certainly can be argued. there are obviously certain self satisfied practices that jesus seemed to find distasteful. (im thinking of the parable where the one guy stays at the back of the church grovelling in his sinfulness and repentence and the other guy walks boldly to the front and thanks god for making him the coolest guy ever)

but jesus didnt really outline what he expected out of services that worship HIM. outside of "do this in remembrance of me". but in acts there are discussions of services that seem to have been very enthusiastic and were considered to have been visited by the holy spirit. if it was good enough for the early church, it should be good enough for zilams church.

im thinking that if the congregation had gone looking for this phantom official with the objective of yelling at him, that would have been unchristian. i dont have a problem with exercising their religious freedom in a more enthusiastic way than usual in response to some perceived hardship.


Maybe early Chrisitanity was enthusiastic, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Basically:
The pastor lied that the government was oppressing his congregation.
The congregations took this as an oppourtunity to "stick it to the (invisible) man" and sing REAL LOUD in defiance of teh ebil government.
Zilam is somehow praising his pastor and his congregation for doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Jesus did.

To wit:
Rome was oppressing Jews/Early Christians and Jesus praised rome.
America is not oppressing Christians and the pastor lied and said it was.
Rome arrested Jesus and he surrendered.
If America DID ask these people to tune their services down ONE TIME, then they should have surrendered, following Jesus' example.

it certainly can be argued. there are obviously certain self satisfied practices that jesus seemed to find distasteful. (im thinking of the parable where the one guy stays at the back of the church grovelling in his sinfulness and repentence and the other guy walks boldly to the front and thanks god for making him the coolest guy ever)

but jesus didnt really outline what he expected out of services that worship HIM. outside of "do this in remembrance of me". but in acts there are discussions of services that seem to have been very enthusiastic and were considered to have been visited by the holy spirit. if it was good enough for the early church, it should be good enough for zilams church.

im thinking that if the congregation had gone looking for this phantom official with the objective of yelling at him, that would have been unchristian. i dont have a problem with exercising their religious freedom in a more enthusiastic way than usual in response to some perceived hardship.


A priest and a publican, I think. The Pharisee proclaiming his thanks for being much less sinful than the plebs, while the publican pleads for merciful treatment for his sinful soul... maybe? I can't quite recall right now.

I've made the argument before that Christianity went to hell in a handbasket the minute Jesus' body was cold. I don't hold that something would have been 'alright by Jesus', just because it is in Acts... indeed, I believe the young Christian church had basically reverted to most of the practises Jesus decried, by the time Paul and his buddies started penning their texts.

I think Jesus made quite a big deal about personal faith, and about keeping it personal... decrying those who made it evident they were fasting, that stood in the streets proclaiming their good works. He urged those who fasted to make every appearance of NOT fasting, and those who might be stood on street corners, he urged to their 'closets', to engage directly with God... without the recognition of the world.

I've made the argument before that Christianity went to hell in a handbasket the minute Jesus' body was cold. I don't hold that something would have been 'alright by Jesus', just because it is in Acts... indeed, I believe the young Christian church had basically reverted to most of the practises Jesus decried, by the time Paul and his buddies started penning their texts.

This is asuming they even penned thier own books.

Thomas, perhaps. Ive heard estimates of @ 40. ad as to its being written.
Some of the others as late as 180 .AD.

So assuming the average life span of the day is 45, its not hard to think that these "witnesses" may have been dead and buried when actual written versions of thier Gospels started circulating.
Wich of course, is why I find it so strange that people cling tenaciously to every word as if its as accurate as a spelling book.



I think Jesus made quite a big deal about personal faith, and about keeping it personal... decrying those who made it evident they were fasting, that stood in the streets proclaiming their good works. He urged those who fasted to make every appearance of NOT fasting, and those who might be stood on street corners, he urged to their 'closets', to engage directly with God... without the recognition of the world.

And speaking against Cesear, the Temple, and hinting at a much higher authority than local magistrates.

So...why was he killed again?

This is asuming they even penned thier own books.

Thomas, perhaps. Ive heard estimates of @ 40. ad as to its being written.
Some of the others as late as 180 .AD.

So assuming the average life span of the day is 45, its not hard to think that these "witnesses" may have been dead and buried when actual written versions of thier Gospels started circulating.
Wich of course, is why I find it so strange that people cling tenaciously to every word as if its as accurate as a spelling book.


Oh - indeed, I was speaking 'in character', to a degree - I am assuming for the sake of argument, that the books are fairly true, by the limits of human ability to discern... and that they were written, if not by the people for whom they bear the names, at least by people who knew people who knew someone... who was there.

Personally, I see no really convincing reason to accept any of the text as any more worthy of special treatment than any other book. And, less than many.


And speaking against Cesear, the Temple, and hinting at a much higher authority than local magistrates.

So...why was he killed again?

Because he found out that doctors were stealing foetuses from pregnant women, and replacing them with mice and lizards, and because he found the location of the secret mind control ray.

Oh - indeed, I was speaking 'in character',

Quite understood.

I'd probably pass a ten-pound gold kidneystone If I heard you suddenly went Fundie on us.


to a degree - I am assuming for the sake of argument, that the books are fairly true, by the limits of human ability to discern... and that they were written, if not by the people for whom they bear the names, at least by people who knew people who knew someone... who was there.

Personally, I see no really convincing reason to accept any of the text as any more worthy of special treatment than any other book. And, less than many.

Agreed.

I also find it funny that if scholars are correct, and believe Thomas to have been among the first, that it makes no reference to Jesus as divine, nor is he reffered to as anything other than Rabbi.
No miracles...
No ressurection....

Just some wise words to live by.

Why wasnt that included with the New Testament again?




Because he found out that doctors were stealing foetuses from pregnant women, and replacing them with mice and lizards, and because he found the location of the secret mind control ray.

"Jesus is just alright with me".

Yes it does balance out.
Let's base it on your comment, shall we?
According to Jesus, you should give to anyone who needs it.
So if everyone follows his law exactly, [b]everyone gives to everyone else to their level of need,[/i] and so everyone has exactly what they need.

Jesus never said, "give to everyone else to their level of need." He said, If they ask for your shirt, give them your coat as well. If they ask for one thing of you, give them two of them… Jesus said, sell ‘everything’ you have and give it to the poor. Where did Jesus say you should keep anything for yourself? He said don’t worry about what you will wear or eat tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself…

What Jesus preached was not communism, it was destitutism. Jesus did NOT say, make sure everyone gets an equal share, disperse all of the goods and make sure you get yours as well. He didn’t say that, but communism does.


The overlying structure may be capitalism, but it works the same way as communism.

If the overlying structure is capitalism, then it is capitalism (but I’m not arguing for that either, I’m arguing that Jesus didn’t advance a preference for any socio-economic system over another). He advocated that we take care of the poor and the orphans and the widows and the sick etc., and he told us to do that through charity and visits.


He didn't say not the use the roman markets. He said to give the stuff you buy to people who need it. No government in the world will ever criminalize charity.

In a Communist system you give up ownership of property. Without ownership you can’t give it away OR be taxed on it. The end result; you give away less because you don’t own anything to be able to give away AND you get taxed on less because you don’t own anything to be taxed (no profits etc.,).


They could still collect taxes. Everyone still technically had property in Jesus' variation on communism, just the understood community law was that you give stuff to people who need it.

Everyone technically had property in Jesus’ variation of communism you say? Really? Perhaps you would like to give us a biblical example of where that sort of definition of property separation took place. I believe you are speculating and inventing a scenario beyond the scope of the evidence.

The book of Acts (and other NT books) describes people donating everything from selling all of their property and then donating the money in it’s entirely OR simply allowing the use of their properties for free etc., or feeding and supporting Christian travelers etc., Where does your description of communism come in to effect then?


You own property, you just give everything you don't need and someone else does away.

Jesus didn’t say, "pile up the stuff you don't need and then give away everything you don’t need." Jesus said, sell ALL that you have and give it to the poor (not a word about keeping what you need for yourself or keeping anything else off to the side for yourself). You are changing what the scripture says to meet your objectives now.


A communist society? Of course not, Jesus had to adapt it to the roman law system.
A communist community and communist laws? Certainly.

Who’s communist community and communist laws are you thinking of? If you say Jesus', show me how destitutism means communism… Because Jesus taught destitutism, keeping nothing for yourself.

If you say some other type of 'communist laws', perhaps would you please link to them. I’ve linked to communist manifestos and communist sites and origins already, but apparently these aren't the communists you are thinking of when you say Jesus was a communist.

...

And speaking against Cesear, the Temple, and hinting at a much higher authority than local magistrates.

So...why was he killed again?

Your insight/observation here is accurate. In addition to preaching that we should be humble, Jesus ALSO overturned tables outside the temple, Jesus also attracted and spoke to large crowds and Jesus also said, go out and spread the Good News, and Jesus also said, If the crowds did not praise and sing hallelujah then the rocks themselves would.

In a Communist system you give up ownership of property.


Still not empirically true. In some forms of communism there can be no private ownership, but in other forms there can be. What is definitively regulated by the term 'communism', is the ownership of the means of production.


The book of Acts (and other NT books) describes people donating everything from selling all of their property and then donating the money in it’s entirely OR simply allowing the use of their properties for free etc., or feeding and supporting Christian travelers etc., Where does your description of communism come in to effect then?


One could argue that this communal use of property, each giving what they can, in accord with what others need... is almost definitive of the social view of many communists.


If you say some other type of 'communist laws', perhaps would you please link to them. I’ve linked to communist manifestos and communist sites and origins already, but apparently these aren't the communists you are thinking of when you say Jesus was a communist.

How old are you?

That isn't an insult or anything. I'm in my thirties, and I remember the term 'Eurocommunism' - so I did a quick search on it, and found a Wiki article that talks about it.

Eurocommunism does not call for proletariat revolution, calls for explicitly democratic government, and is not intrinsically secular. Eurocommunist made a definitive break from the 'soviet statist communism' of the USSR.

That was just off the top of my head, it took me thirty seconds to find a 'form of communism' that is different from Marxism, in all the ways you claim isolate Jesus' teachings from 'communism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocommunism

Quite understood.

I'd probably pass a ten-pound gold kidneystone If I heard you suddenly went Fundie on us.


It's almost tempting to claim it, just for the emergency-room humour.. :D


Agreed.

I also find it funny that if scholars are correct, and believe Thomas to have been among the first, that it makes no reference to Jesus as divine, nor is he reffered to as anything other than Rabbi.
No miracles...
No ressurection....

Just some wise words to live by.

Why wasnt that included with the New Testament again?


Because the New Testament changed, continuously for several hundred years... in huge leaps at some points, and slow crawls at others.

Even looking at individual scriptures, many of the earliest 'copies' of the Gospels, are markedly different from later 'copies'... verses 'migrate' from other texts, and most of the Gospels increase in length with passing time.

The earliest forms of scripture did not contain the post-resurrection 'Great Commission' at all.

It looks like the original Q text probably described yet another mortal claimant to the Kingship of Israel... one of many Messiah stories circulating in that place, at that time. The earliest 'Gospel' texts would have been describing a man still considered wholly mortal, as Thomas does.

The real push for the 'spirit' value of Jesus comes with the Gospel of John, which fits poorly with the non-John Gospels... even moreso with the earliest versions.

It is worth remembering that, opinions were STILL divided on the nature of Christ, up until Nicaea. It was at that point of canonisation, that texts like Thomas get permanently excluded.


"Jesus is just alright with me".

Oh yeah, he's fine. I just can't stand some of his friends.

In a Communist system you give up ownership of property.

Communism doesn't call for the abolition of private property.
In communism, the instruments of mass production (like factories) are of common ownership.
Private property is retained as long as it is not an instrument of exploitation (an artisan owns his tools, an architect owns his drawing table).
You've just hit a common error about communism. You'd better read some of "Das Kapital". There is an interesting and accurate reduction (a compendium) written by the italian anarchist Cafiero, that covers the whole marxist theory of economics.

Still not empirically true. In some forms of communism there can be no private ownership, but in other forms there can be. What is definitively regulated by the term 'communism', is the ownership of the means of production.

If you don't own a means of production, you don't make a profit which can be given away... IF you don't own a means of production, you can't be tithed. The difference between your definition and mine is insignificant, neither owning only my shirt or only my bedroom (examples) means I have anything of a profit to be taxed OR given to charity.

One could argue that this communal use of property, each giving what they can, in accord with what others need... is almost definitive of the social view of many communists.

Communist and Communalism may share a similar societal vision of what the community should look like in an idyllic world, but HOW they achieve their goals differentiate them one from the other.

Each giving what they can, in accordance to what they HAVE, NOT in accordance to what others need. The difference is subtle but relevant.


How old are you?

That isn't an insult or anything. I'm in my thirties, and I remember the term 'Eurocommunism' - so I did a quick search on it, and found a Wiki article that talks about it.

Eurocommunism does not call for proletariat revolution, calls for explicitly democratic government, and is not intrinsically secular. Eurocommunist made a definitive break from the 'soviet statist communism' of the USSR.

That was just off the top of my head, it took me thirty seconds to find a 'form of communism' that is different from Marxism, in all the ways you claim isolate Jesus' teachings from 'communism'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocommunism

My age is irrelevant. Are you now saying Eurocommunism endorses Christianity's teachings? Or, where does Jesus endorse a democratic government? How DOES eurocommunism or democracy advocate Christianity and Christ?

My age is irrelevant.


If you say so.

I thought, perhaps you were young enough that 'Eurocommunism' would be 'before your time'.

Failing that, one assumes either a lack of perspective on European issues... or just a general apathy towards knowledge.

I opted for that which I thought would be the kindest.


Are you now saying Eurocommunism endorses Christianity's teachings? Or, where does Jesus endorse a democratic government? How DOES eurocommunism or democracy advocate Christianity and Christ?

I didn't say it necessarily 'endorsed'... but it didn't set out to destroy, in the way Marx might have liked.

There is a difference between actively endorsing, and allowing as part of the model.

Marx wouldn't even have tolerated.

If you say so.

I thought, perhaps you were young enough that 'Eurocommunism' would be 'before your time'.

Failing that, one assumes either a lack of perspective on European issues... or just a general apathy towards knowledge.

I opted for that which I thought would be the kindest.

Really? You attempted to publicly speculate negatively on another person's intelligence and ability to act upon knowledge, via your implied diminishment of their age, and you claim this was the 'kindest' way you could attack me instead of my argument? Interesting. And sad.


I didn't say it necessarily 'endorsed'... but it didn't set out to destroy, in the way Marx might have liked.

There is a difference between actively endorsing, and allowing as part of the model.

Marx wouldn't even have tolerated.

If you didn’t mean to say it necessarily ‘endorsed’ Christianity and Christianity’s message, then do you mean that Jesus’ endorsed Democracy through Eurocommunism?

If so, why didn’t you just simply say Jesus was a eurocommunist instead of saying Jesus was a communist? Because the people that called themselves eurocommunists seem to think the name differentiates them from other communists, or else they wouldn’t have bothered to think up a new name for themselves when they invented eurocommunism and would have just called themselves communists, if there was no difference between them and communists.

Additionally, I would still like to see how and where Jesus advocated democracy.

Really? You attempted to publicly speculate negatively on another person's intelligence and ability to act upon knowledge, via your implied diminishment of their age, and you claim this was the 'kindest' way you could attack me instead of my argument? Interesting. And sad.
<snip>

Indeed, very interesting. GnI did attack your argument and did suggest that its flaws stemmed from a lack of knowledge about a specific item in history, yet I have not seen him call you any names or imply anything personal about you. He did say you were being dishonest, but that was in specific reference to his claim that you were quoting the Bible out of context. Admittedly, I have not been poring over every detail of this religion/politics argument, but I have seen no personal insults from GnI.

Yet you seem to see personal insults and personal comments about you right and left. Isn't this exactly what you accused me of earlier? I refer you to the following posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11761526&postcount=1190
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11761687&postcount=1193

in which you can find your comments about me and people like me, my objections to them, and your denial that you ever made them and suggestion that I was "playing the victim." The only difference between what you are doing and what you dismissed me as doing seems to be that I could actually point to a comment from you and explain why I objected to it.

Indeed, very interesting. GnI did attack your argument and did suggest that its flaws stemmed from a lack of knowledge about a specific item in history, yet I have not seen him call you any names or imply anything personal about you. ...

You read far too deeply into it, and yet, not far enough in the first post.

Perhaps YOU think someone suggesting that your opinions are based on "a general apathy towards knowledge," is not an implied insult. I thought it was intended as a negative.

Perhaps we should take a poll?

QUESTION:
If someone says you might hold your opinion because "you have a general apathy towards knowledge," they meant?

A: They meant it only in the nicest way and it addresses the opponents argument directly in a constructive way.

B: It attacks the person negatively and does NOT even mention the persons' position on the issue.



(and p.s., you do take instance with vague references, that's irrelevant to the issue here.)

Jesus didn't teach communism, capitalism or any ism or economic model.

Hasn't that been acknowledged already?

But, his teachings do fit well with a theoretical communistic model of an economy and if people followed his teachings, it would LOOK a lot more like what communism SAYS it is about that capitolism.

I think that's really what the 'debate' has been about, no?

Jesus didn't teach communism, capitalism or any ism or economic model.

Hasn't that been acknowledged already?

But, his teachings do fit well with a theoretical communistic model of an economy and if people followed his teachings, it would LOOK a lot more like what communism SAYS it is about that capitolism.

I think that's really what the 'debate' has been about, no?

I objected to GnI saying Jesus was a communist, and, a textbook communist, and that his teachings read like a communist manifesto. GnI refuses to retract any of it.

As to YOUR assessment you just wrote here, I would not argue with what you wrote. If it 'looks' like something in the end result, or doesn't look like something is not suggesting how it got there, both versions attempt to describe a paradise that would have it citizens live in a society where no need goes unmet. I agree with that.

You read far too deeply into it, and yet, not far enough in the first post.

Perhaps YOU think someone suggesting that your opinions are based on "a general apathy towards knowledge," is not an implied insult. I thought it was intended as a negative.

Perhaps we should take a poll?

QUESTION:
If someone says you might hold your opinion because "you have a general apathy towards knowledge," they meant?

A: They meant it only in the nicest way and it addresses the opponents argument directly in a constructive way.

B: It attacks the person negatively and does NOT even mention the persons' position on the issue.



(and p.s., you do take instance with vague references, that's irrelevant to the issue here.)
Option C: They were snarkily expressing frustration at the person's refusal to present an argument that actually conforms to available facts as well as the person's apparent habit of taking remarks out of context.

The comment about apathy towards knowledge was part of a two-clause statement. GnI was asking whether you were familiar with Eurocommunism, which many younger people may not be familiar with, as it is not widely mentioned in schools these days. Unless you do advanced study in political history or political science, it is a term one may not have heard before. You could have just answered his question with a yes or a no, as in: "Yes, I know about that and it doesn't change anything for the following reasons;" or "No, I have not heard about that; please give me more information."

You did neither, even after he prodded you a couple of times, so yes, GnI did try to prod you more forcefully with sarcasm by wondering a bit facetiously whether it was all knowledge or just this one bit you felt like ignoring. Sarcasm does not automatically equal a personal attack.

As for me taking "instance" (do you mean "issue"?) with "vague references," I refer you back to the non-vague posts I linked to. I do not think your remark that I admitted to being "guideless" is vague. I think it is fictional, actually. I never said any such thing. Not following a scripture =/= being "guideless" anywhere but in the context of your personal presumptions about what constitutes a guide. And, if you care to recall, my objection was that you were saying something about me based on your own assumptions, not on fact, which you did not bother to try and learn (and still haven't).

Hm, GnI's question becomes more pointed by the moment.

I objected to GnI saying Jesus was a communist, and, a textbook communist, and that his teachings read like a communist manifesto. GnI refuses to retract any of it.

As to YOUR assessment you just wrote here, I would not argue with what you wrote. If it 'looks' like something in the end result, or doesn't look like something is not suggesting how it got there, both versions attempt to describe a paradise that would have it citizens live in a society where no need goes unmet. I agree with that.

I personally do not care what side of the political fence anyone puts Jesus on, but, to clarify one small point, which I think is one of the keys to this argument:

A communist manifesto =/= "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx.

Maybe early Chrisitanity was enthusiastic, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Basically:
The pastor lied that the government was oppressing his congregation.
The congregations took this as an oppourtunity to "stick it to the (invisible) man" and sing REAL LOUD in defiance of teh ebil government.
Zilam is somehow praising his pastor and his congregation for doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Jesus did.

To wit:
Rome was oppressing Jews/Early Christians and Jesus praised rome.
America is not oppressing Christians and the pastor lied and said it was.
Rome arrested Jesus and he surrendered.
If America DID ask these people to tune their services down ONE TIME, then they should have surrendered, following Jesus' example.

thats not the impression i had from zilams original post.

removing the scummy actions of the minister from the equation--we both agree that he was wrong in his actions...

zilam's congregation was told to keep it down. they started out quiet but the whole (bogus) situation caused them to catch a feeling of the holy spirit and they felt moved to go beyond the normal lackluster service they have. they got more involved than ever and began singing loudly not so much to stick it to the man but because they felt moved to do so.

zilam may well have misiterpreted his emotions but im willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. i dont think that jesus would have expected them to keep it down. he wouldnt have wanted them to cut off anyone's ear but i cant see him saying that they should reject this gift of the holy spirit.

The Holy Sprit isn't bogus.

A priest and a publican, I think. The Pharisee proclaiming his thanks for being much less sinful than the plebs, while the publican pleads for merciful treatment for his sinful soul... maybe? I can't quite recall right now.

I've made the argument before that Christianity went to hell in a handbasket the minute Jesus' body was cold. I don't hold that something would have been 'alright by Jesus', just because it is in Acts... indeed, I believe the young Christian church had basically reverted to most of the practises Jesus decried, by the time Paul and his buddies started penning their texts.

I think Jesus made quite a big deal about personal faith, and about keeping it personal... decrying those who made it evident they were fasting, that stood in the streets proclaiming their good works. He urged those who fasted to make every appearance of NOT fasting, and those who might be stood on street corners, he urged to their 'closets', to engage directly with God... without the recognition of the world.

again, its not that i disagree with your point. i dont see the jesus of the bible as a guy who proclaimed himself divine and expected all future generations to worship him. i dont see him wanting to create a new religion at all. (leaving out the part where i dont think that jesus existed at all. not relevant to my point)

however, it seems that the apostles DID think that and that they DID want to start a new religion. i dont think it is wrong of a christian to follow the example of the earliest christians. (the part where i think that they had a worship style long before they made up the stories about jesus and what he thought makes this opinion much easier to hold.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PootWaddle
Right.

I see your inability to focus on the question in hand (if Jesus preached communism it would have been sedition against the state of Rome, since it is known that Rome dismissed charges of sedition against Jesus, including the Tax question, then Jesus must not have been preaching Communism in the Roman province) is matched only by your incessant need to make personal insults...

How boorish.

If you took one comment to be a personal insult, that would still not qualify as 'incessant'.

Grave,.. Poot, like MOST folks in these fora, are unbelievably "sensitive" in seeing "insult" whenever it suits them.

The reason it "suits them" so much is that it's an easy excuse to ignore ANY amount of sense (or at least potential sense) from "the other side" of the conversation (I have a problem calling what goes on in here "debate").

They fail to realize that if they simply explain themselves, disregarding the perceived "insults" from their "opponents", they would come off as sounding EXTREMELY POWERFUL in their arguments!

But the juvenile mind has a VERY difficult time getting past it's own ego component, and understanding that "insults" (when done "well" :)) are merely "prods" to empower the opponent into putting a little "energy" into his end of the conversation.

Don't be too hard on him.



It is not I that has failed to keep track of the argument... although you now appear to be pretending you posted Luke 23 as something other than a rebuttal.

Your argument that Jesus would have beenm prosecuted is obviously false - so long as Jesus preached paying taxes, and respecting Roman authority (which he did - which, of course, is just further evidence he was not Messiah), it seems unlikely that Rome would have CARED what he preached to the Jews.

Thus, Rome not prosecuting Jesus speaks nothing to the CONTENT of what he preached.

You fail to make any logical connection, and I won't just accept your opinion on faith.

The Holy Sprit isn't bogus.

who said it was?

Additionally, I would still like to see how and where Jesus advocated democracy.

Well, he advocated equal rights for everyone - regardless of religion, race, or gender. Sounds like, in his world, everyone would have an equal say, almost like a 1-person, 1-vote kind of system... Wonder what could be used to describe that?

who said it was?

I'll say it if you want. =)

The Holy Spirit is bogus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashmoria
who said it was?

I'll say it if you want. =)

The Holy Spirit is bogus.

D'Oh..!!!

What's this "holy spirit" thing...?


Father (god) - Up (pole/axis)
Son (Jesus) - Center (inside/instance)
Holy Ghost (?) - Plane (outside/field-of-action)

Comments? :)

The Holy Sprit isn't bogus.

Its got about the same credibility as casper really

Its got about the same credibility as casper really

and a much worse agent. you'd think after all these years of only getting roles of making people roll on the floor and gibber like morons, hs would fire that bastard and find somebody that can break him into the moving picture industry.

Its got about the same credibility as casper really

Yeah but at least Casper slept with Christina Ricci. What's the Holy Spirit got? The Virgin Mary. No poon for 2000 years hence.

Really? You attempted to publicly speculate negatively on another person's intelligence and ability to act upon knowledge, via your implied diminishment of their age, and you claim this was the 'kindest' way you could attack me instead of my argument? Interesting. And sad.


I didn't attack you.

I asked how old you were, because if you were less than... say, 25 years old, the days of the strength of eurocommunism would have been before your time.

That isn't an insult on your intelligence, it is just asking if you were even AROUND then. I've already stated this, although you seem to be pretending I haven't.

Take it as an ad hominem attack if you wish, but there is nothing about the comment itself that suggests such a thing.


If you didn’t mean to say it necessarily ‘endorsed’ Christianity and Christianity’s message, then do you mean that Jesus’ endorsed Democracy through Eurocommunism?


I have no idea what you are asking for here. Did you read the link?

You said that communism has some anti-religion agenda, I pointed out that at least one form of communism (to whit, eurocommunism) does NOT have that bias.

I don't know where you got to 'does Jesus endorse eurocommunism?" or "does eurocommunism endorse Christianity?"... or whatever the question is you are trying to ask.

I'm speaking to your fallacious assertion that communism is equal to destructive to religion - other than that, I don't really care, although if you explain what it is you want, I'll see if I can answer.


If so, why didn’t you just simply say Jesus was a eurocommunist instead of saying Jesus was a communist? Because the people that called themselves eurocommunists seem to think the name differentiates them from other communists, or else they wouldn’t have bothered to think up a new name for themselves when they invented eurocommunism and would have just called themselves communists, if there was no difference between them and communists.


Eurocommunist ARE communists.

The French are a democratic nation, but not ALL democratic nations are French.

Eurocommunists are communists, but not ALL communists are eurocommunists.

The one here who keeps speaking in absolutes about the 'rules' of communism, is you. The only 'absolute' I've touted is the 'means of production' thing, what with that being the practical definition.

Was Jesus a communist? Yes. Was he eurocommunist? Probably not, although the models have similarities... for one, he wasn't a euro... but, more importantly, he didn't lean as heavily on the often nationalistic sentiments that became involved in the 'politicisation' of eurocommunism.

You read far too deeply into it, and yet, not far enough in the first post.

Perhaps YOU think someone suggesting that your opinions are based on "a general apathy towards knowledge," is not an implied insult. I thought it was intended as a negative.

Perhaps we should take a poll?

QUESTION:
If someone says you might hold your opinion because "you have a general apathy towards knowledge," they meant?

A: They meant it only in the nicest way and it addresses the opponents argument directly in a constructive way.

B: It attacks the person negatively and does NOT even mention the persons' position on the issue.



(and p.s., you do take instance with vague references, that's irrelevant to the issue here.)

As Muravyets has already pointed out, you dissected a collection of clauses to arrive at the perceived insult.

I asked if you had the chronological capacity to have witnessed a certain chain of events. You could have said no - instead, you made it 'irrelevent'.

Fine - okay, you don't want to discuss your age. I really don't care - I've had low quality debates from some of the oldest posters I've debated with, and high quality debates from some of the oldest posters I've debated with.

Sometimes I've had both 'qualities' from the same poster.

On the other hand, some of the very BEST debates I ever encountered, transpired to be the work of a thirteen year old girl (Suicidal Librarians, for anyone who remembers her - she rocked).

I don't consider 'age' to be an insult, on it's own. I wonder why you do?

So - you don't want to discuss the issue... well, I'm left thinking you have a blank spot in your history, if you've never encountered eurocommunism.

(I know you've not encountered it previously, or else you would never have made half of the claims you've made about what must be 'true' for communism).

So - I say, is this a whole in your history knowledge... or do you just not care?

Take that as ad hominem if you like. You seem to be complaining a whole lot about your perceptions of my attacks on your weaknesses.... and a whole lot of time NOT addressing those weaknesses.