See other Religion Articles
Title: The Christian Paradox
Source:
Harpers
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristianParadox.html
Published: Sep 28, 2005
Author: Bill McKibben
Post Date: 2005-09-28 23:36:45 by crack monkey
Keywords: Christian, Paradox
Views: 2792
Comments: 197
The Christian Paradox How a faithful nation gets Jesus wrong Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005. What it means to be Christian in America. An excerpt from this report appeared in August 2005. The complete text appears below. Originally from August 2005. By Bill McKibben. SourcesOnly 40 percent of Americans can name more than four of the Ten Commandments, and a scant half can cite any of the four authors of the Gospels. Twelve percent believe Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. This failure to recall the specifics of our Christian heritage may be further evidence of our nation’s educational decline, but it probably doesn’t matter all that much in spiritual or political terms. Here is a statistic that does matter: Three quarters of Americans believe the Bible teaches that “God helps those who help themselves.” That is, three out of four Americans believe that this uber-American idea, a notion at the core of our current individualist politics and culture, which was in fact uttered by Ben Franklin, actually appears in Holy Scripture. The thing is, not only is Franklin’s wisdom not biblical; it’s counter-biblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up. Asking Christians what Christ taught isn’t a trick. When we say we are a Christian nation—and, overwhelmingly, we do—it means something. People who go to church absorb lessons there and make real decisions based on those lessons; increasingly, these lessons inform their politics. (One poll found that 11 percent of U.S. churchgoers were urged by their clergy to vote in a particular way in the 2004 election, up from 6 percent in 2000.) When George Bush says that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, he may or may not be sincere, but he is reflecting the sincere beliefs of the vast majority of Americans. And therein is the paradox. America is simultaneously the most professedly Christian of the developed nations and the least Christian in its behavior. That paradox—more important, perhaps, than the much touted ability of French women to stay thin on a diet of chocolate and cheese—illuminates the hollow at the core of our boastful, careening culture. * * * Ours is among the most spiritually homogenous rich nations on earth. Depending on which poll you look at and how the question is asked, somewhere around 85 percent of us call ourselves Christian. Israel, by way of comparison, is 77 percent Jewish. It is true that a smaller number of Americans—about 75 percent—claim they actually pray to God on a daily basis, and only 33 percent say they manage to get to church every week. Still, even if that 85 percent overstates actual practice, it clearly represents aspiration. In fact, there is nothing else that unites more than four fifths of America. Every other statistic one can cite about American behavior is essentially also a measure of the behavior of professed Christians. That’s what America is: a place saturated in Christian identity. But is it Christian? This is not a matter of angels dancing on the heads of pins. Christ was pretty specific about what he had in mind for his followers. What if we chose some simple criterion—say, giving aid to the poorest people—as a reasonable proxy for Christian behavior? After all, in the days before his crucifixion, when Jesus summed up his message for his disciples, he said the way you could tell the righteous from the damned was by whether they’d fed the hungry, slaked the thirsty, clothed the naked, welcomed the stranger, and visited the prisoner. What would we find then? In 2004, as a share of our economy, we ranked second to last, after Italy, among developed countries in government foreign aid. Per capita we each provide fifteen cents a day in official development assistance to poor countries. And it’s not because we were giving to private charities for relief work instead. Such funding increases our average daily donation by just six pennies, to twenty-one cents. It’s also not because Americans were too busy taking care of their own; nearly 18 percent of American children lived in poverty (compared with, say, 8 percent in Sweden). In fact, by pretty much any measure of caring for the least among us you want to propose—childhood nutrition, infant mortality, access to preschool—we come in nearly last among the rich nations, and often by a wide margin. The point is not just that (as everyone already knows) the American nation trails badly in all these categories; it’s that the overwhelmingly Christian American nation trails badly in all these categories, categories to which Jesus paid particular attention. And it’s not as if the numbers are getting better: the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported last year that the number of households that were “food insecure with hunger” had climbed more than 26 percent between 1999 and 2003. This Christian nation also tends to make personal, as opposed to political, choices that the Bible would seem to frown upon. Despite the Sixth Commandment, we are, of course, the most violent rich nation on earth, with a murder rate four or five times that of our European peers. We have prison populations greater by a factor of six or seven than other rich nations (which at least should give us plenty of opportunity for visiting the prisoners). Having been told to turn the other cheek, we’re the only Western democracy left that executes its citizens, mostly in those states where Christianity is theoretically strongest. Despite Jesus’ strong declarations against divorce, our marriages break up at a rate—just over half—that compares poorly with the European Union’s average of about four in ten. That average may be held down by the fact that Europeans marry less frequently, and by countries, like Italy, where divorce is difficult; still, compare our success with, say, that of the godless Dutch, whose divorce rate is just over 37 percent. Teenage pregnancy? We’re at the top of the charts. Personal self-discipline—like, say, keeping your weight under control? Buying on credit? Running government deficits? Do you need to ask? * * * Are Americans hypocrites? Of course they are. But most people (me, for instance) are hypocrites. The more troubling explanation for this disconnect between belief and action, I think, is that most Americans—which means most believers—have replaced the Christianity of the Bible, with its call for deep sharing and personal sacrifice, with a competing creed. In fact, there may be several competing creeds. For many Christians, deciphering a few passages of the Bible to figure out the schedule for the End Times has become a central task. You can log on to http://RaptureReady.com for a taste of how some of these believers view the world—at this writing the Rapture Index had declined three points to 152 because, despite an increase in the number of U.S. pagans, “Wal-Mart is falling behind in its plan to bar code all products with radio tags.” Other End-Timers are more interested in forcing the issue—they’re convinced that the way to coax the Lord back to earth is to “Christianize” our nation and then the world. Consider House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. At church one day he listened as the pastor, urging his flock to support the administration, declared that “the war between America and Iraq is the gateway to the Apocalypse.” DeLay rose to speak, not only to the congregation but to 225 Christian TV and radio stations. “Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “what has been spoken here tonight is the truth of God.” The apocalyptics may not be wrong. One could make a perfectly serious argument that the policies of Tom DeLay are in fact hastening the End Times. But there’s nothing particularly Christian about this hastening. The creed of Tom DeLay—of Tim LaHaye and his Left Behind books, of Pat Robertson’s “The Antichrist is probably a Jew alive in Israel today”—ripened out of the impossibly poetic imagery of the Book of Revelation. Imagine trying to build a theory of the Constitution by obsessively reading and rereading the Twenty-fifth Amendment, and you’ll get an idea of what an odd approach this is. You might be able to spin elaborate fantasies about presidential succession, but you’d have a hard time working backwards to “We the People.” This is the contemporary version of Archbishop Ussher’s seventeenth-century calculation that the world had been created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and that the ark touched down on Mount Ararat on May 5, 2348 B.C., a Wednesday. Interesting, but a distant distraction from the gospel message. The apocalyptics, however, are the lesser problem. It is another competing (though sometimes overlapping) creed, this one straight from the sprawling megachurches of the new exurbs, that frightens me most. Its deviation is less obvious precisely because it looks so much like the rest of the culture. In fact, most of what gets preached in these palaces isn’t loony at all. It is disturbingly conventional. The pastors focus relentlessly on you and your individual needs. Their goal is to service consumers—not communities but individuals: “seekers” is the term of art, people who feel the need for some spirituality in their (or their children’s) lives but who aren’t tightly bound to any particular denomination or school of thought. The result is often a kind of soft-focus, comfortable, suburban faith. A New York Times reporter visiting one booming megachurch outside Phoenix recently found the typical scene: a drive-through latte stand, Krispy Kreme doughnuts at every service, and sermons about “how to discipline your children, how to reach your professional goals, how to invest your money, how to reduce your debt.” On Sundays children played with church-distributed Xboxes, and many congregants had signed up for a twice-weekly aerobics class called Firm Believers. A list of bestsellers compiled monthly by the Christian Booksellers Association illuminates the creed. It includes texts like Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen—pastor of a church so mega it recently leased a 16,000-seat sports arena in Houston for its services—which even the normally tolerant Publishers Weekly dismissed as “a treatise on how to get God to serve the demands of self-centered individuals.” Nearly as high is Beth Moore, with her Believing God—“Beth asks the tough questions concerning the fruit of our Christian lives,” such as “are we living as fully as we can?” Other titles include Humor for a Woman’s Heart, a collection of “humorous writings” designed to “lift a life above the stresses and strains of the day”; The Five Love Languages, in which Dr. Gary Chapman helps you figure out if you’re speaking in the same emotional dialect as your significant other; and Karol Ladd’s The Power of a Positive Woman. Ladd is the co-founder of USA Sonshine Girls—the “Son” in Sonshine, of course, is the son of God—and she is unremittingly upbeat in presenting her five-part plan for creating a life with “more calm, less stress.” Not that any of this is so bad in itself. We do have stressful lives, humor does help, and you should pay attention to your own needs. Comfortable suburbanites watch their parents die, their kids implode. Clearly I need help with being positive. And I have no doubt that such texts have turned people into better parents, better spouses, better bosses. It’s just that these authors, in presenting their perfectly sensible advice, somehow manage to ignore Jesus’ radical and demanding focus on others. It may, in fact, be true that “God helps those who help themselves,” both financially and emotionally. (Certainly fortune does.) But if so it’s still a subsidiary, secondary truth, more Franklinity than Christianity. You could eliminate the scriptural references in most of these bestsellers and they would still make or not make the same amount of sense. Chicken Soup for the Zoroastrian Soul. It is a perfect mirror of the secular bestseller lists, indeed of the secular culture, with its American fixation on self-improvement, on self-esteem. On self. These similarities make it difficult (although not impossible) for the televangelists to posit themselves as embattled figures in a “culture war”— they offer too uncanny a reflection of the dominant culture, a culture of unrelenting self-obsession. * * * Who am I to criticize someone else’s religion? After all, if there is anything Americans agree on, it’s that we should tolerate everyone else’s religious expression. As a Newsweek writer put it some years ago at the end of his cover story on apocalyptic visions and the Book of Revelation, “Who’s to say that John’s mythic battle between Christ and Antichrist is not a valid insight into what the history of humankind is all about?” (Not Newsweek, that’s for sure; their religious covers are guaranteed big sellers.) To that I can only answer that I’m a . . . Christian. Not a professional one; I’m an environmental writer mostly. I’ve never progressed further in the church hierarchy than Sunday school teacher at my backwoods Methodist church. But I’ve spent most of my Sunday mornings in a pew. I grew up in church youth groups and stayed active most of my adult life—started homeless shelters in church basements, served soup at the church food pantry, climbed to the top of the rickety ladder to put the star on the church Christmas tree. My work has been, at times, influenced by all that—I’ve written extensively about the Book of Job, which is to me the first great piece of nature writing in the Western tradition, and about the overlaps between Christianity and environmentalism. In fact, I imagine I’m one of a fairly small number of writers who have had cover stories in both the Christian Century, the magazine of liberal mainline Protestantism, and Christianity Today, which Billy Graham founded, not to mention articles in Sojourners, the magazine of the progressive evangelical community co-founded by Jim Wallis. Indeed, it was my work with religious environmentalists that first got me thinking along the lines of this essay. We were trying to get politicians to understand why the Bible actually mandated protecting the world around us (Noah: the first Green), work that I think is true and vital. But one day it occurred to me that the parts of the world where people actually had cut dramatically back on their carbon emissions, actually did live voluntarily in smaller homes and take public transit, were the same countries where people were giving aid to the poor and making sure everyone had health care—countries like Norway and Sweden, where religion was relatively unimportant. How could that be? For Christians there should be something at least a little scary in the notion that, absent the magical answers of religion, people might just get around to solving their problems and strengthening their communities in more straightforward ways. But for me, in any event, the European success is less interesting than the American failure. Because we’re not going to be like them. Maybe we’d be better off if we abandoned religion for secular rationality, but we’re not going to; for the foreseeable future this will be a “Christian” nation. The question is, what kind of Christian nation? * * * The tendencies I’ve been describing—toward an apocalyptic End Times faith, toward a comfort-the-comfortable, personal-empowerment faith—veil the actual, and remarkable, message of the Gospels. When one of the Pharisees asked Jesus what the core of the law was, Jesus replied: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Love your neighbor as yourself: although its rhetorical power has been dimmed by repetition, that is a radical notion, perhaps the most radical notion possible. Especially since Jesus, in all his teachings, made it very clear who the neighbor you were supposed to love was: the poor person, the sick person, the naked person, the hungry person. The last shall be made first; turn the other cheek; a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle. On and on and on—a call for nothing less than a radical, voluntary, and effective reordering of power relationships, based on the principle of love. I confess, even as I write these words, to a feeling close to embarrassment. Because in public we tend not to talk about such things—my theory of what Jesus mostly meant seems like it should be left in church, or confined to some religious publication. But remember the overwhelming connection between America and Christianity; what Jesus meant is the most deeply potent political, cultural, social question. To ignore it, or leave it to the bullies and the salesmen of the televangelist sects, means to walk away from a central battle over American identity. At the moment, the idea of Jesus has been hijacked by people with a series of causes that do not reflect his teachings. The Bible is a long book, and even the Gospels have plenty in them, some of it seemingly contradictory and hard to puzzle out. But love your neighbor as yourself—not do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but love your neighbor as yourself—will suffice as a gloss. There is no disputing the centrality of this message, nor is there any disputing how easy it is to ignore that message. Because it is so counterintuitive, Christians have had to keep repeating it to themselves right from the start. Consider Paul, for instance, instructing the church at Galatea: “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment,” he wrote. “‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” American churches, by and large, have done a pretty good job of loving the neighbor in the next pew. A pastor can spend all Sunday talking about the Rapture Index, but if his congregation is thriving you can be assured he’s spending the other six days visiting people in the hospital, counseling couples, and sitting up with grieving widows. All this human connection is important. But if the theology makes it harder to love the neighbor a little farther away—particularly the poor and the weak—then it’s a problem. And the dominant theologies of the moment do just that. They undercut Jesus, muffle his hard words, deaden his call, and in the end silence him. In fact, the soft-focus consumer gospel of the suburban megachurches is a perfect match for emergent conservative economic notions about personal responsibility instead of collective action. Privatize Social Security? Keep health care for people who can afford it? File those under “God helps those who help themselves.” Take Alabama as an example. In 2002, Bob Riley was elected governor of the state, where 90 percent of residents identify themselves as Christians. Riley could safely be called a conservative—right-wing majordomo Grover Norquist gave him a Friend of the Taxpayer Award every year he was in Congress, where he’d never voted for a tax increase. But when he took over Alabama, he found himself administering a tax code that dated to 1901. The richest Alabamians paid 3 percent of their income in taxes, and the poorest paid up to 12 percent; income taxes kicked in if a family of four made $4,600 (even in Mississippi the threshold was $19,000), while out-of-state timber companies paid $1.25 an acre in property taxes. Alabama was forty-eighth in total state and local taxes, and the largest proportion of that income came from sales tax—a super-regressive tax that in some counties reached into double digits. So Riley proposed a tax hike, partly to dig the state out of a fiscal crisis and partly to put more money into the state’s school system, routinely ranked near the worst in the nation. He argued that it was Christian duty to look after the poor more carefully. Had the new law passed, the owner of a $250,000 home in Montgomery would have paid $1,432 in property taxes—we’re not talking Sweden here. But it didn’t pass. It was crushed by a factor of two to one. Sixty-eight percent of the state voted against it—meaning, of course, something like 68 percent of the Christians who voted. The opposition was led, in fact, not just by the state’s wealthiest interests but also by the Christian Coalition of Alabama. “You’ll find most Alabamians have got a charitable heart,” said John Giles, the group’s president. “They just don’t want it coming out of their pockets.” On its website, the group argued that taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor “results in punishing success” and that “when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual.” You might as well just cite chapter and verse from Poor Richard’s Almanack. And whatever the ideology, the results are clear. “I’m tired of Alabama being first in things that are bad,” said Governor Riley, “and last in things that are good.” * * * A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.” Similarly, a furor erupted last spring when it emerged that a Colorado jury had consulted the Bible before sentencing a killer to death. Experts debated whether the (Christian) jurors should have used an outside authority in their deliberations, and of course the Christian right saw it as one more sign of a secular society devaluing religion. But a more interesting question would have been why the jurors fixated on Leviticus 24, with its call for an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They had somehow missed Jesus’ explicit refutation in the New Testament: “You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.” And on and on. The power of the Christian right rests largely in the fact that they boldly claim religious authority, and by their very boldness convince the rest of us that they must know what they’re talking about. They’re like the guy who gives you directions with such loud confidence that you drive on even though the road appears to be turning into a faint, rutted track. But their theology is appealing for another reason too: it coincides with what we want to believe. How nice it would be if Jesus had declared that our income was ours to keep, instead of insisting that we had to share. How satisfying it would be if we were supposed to hate our enemies. Religious conservatives will always have a comparatively easy sell. But straight is the path and narrow is the way. The gospel is too radical for any culture larger than the Amish to ever come close to realizing; in demanding a departure from selfishness it conflicts with all our current desires. Even the first time around, judging by the reaction, the Gospels were pretty unwelcome news to an awful lot of people. There is not going to be a modern-day return to the church of the early believers, holding all things in common—that’s not what I’m talking about. Taking seriously the actual message of Jesus, though, should serve at least to moderate the greed and violence that mark this culture. It’s hard to imagine a con much more audacious than making Christ the front man for a program of tax cuts for the rich or war in Iraq. If some modest part of the 85 percent of us who are Christians woke up to that fact, then the world might change. It is possible, I think. Yes, the mainline Protestant churches that supported civil rights and opposed the war in Vietnam are mostly locked in a dreary decline as their congregations dwindle and their elders argue endlessly about gay clergy and same-sex unions. And the Catholic Church, for most of its American history a sturdy exponent of a “love your neighbor” theology, has been weakened, too, its hierarchy increasingly motivated by a single-issue focus on abortion. Plenty of vital congregations are doing great good works—they’re the ones that have nurtured me—but they aren’t where the challenge will arise; they’ve grown shy about talking about Jesus, more comfortable with the language of sociology and politics. More and more it’s Bible-quoting Christians, like Wallis’s Sojourners movement and that Baptist seminary graduate Bill Moyers, who are carrying the fight. The best-selling of all Christian books in recent years, Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, illustrates the possibilities. It has all the hallmarks of self-absorption (in one five-page chapter, I counted sixty-five uses of the word “you”), but it also makes a powerful case that we’re made for mission. What that mission is never becomes clear, but the thirst for it is real. And there’s no great need for Warren to state that purpose anyhow. For Christians, the plainspoken message of the Gospels is clear enough. If you have any doubts, read the Sermon on the Mount. Admittedly, this is hope against hope; more likely the money changers and power brokers will remain ascendant in our “spiritual” life. Since the days of Constantine, emperors and rich men have sought to co-opt the teachings of Jesus. As in so many areas of our increasingly market-tested lives, the co-opters—the TV men, the politicians, the Christian “interest groups”—have found a way to make each of us complicit in that travesty, too. They have invited us to subvert the church of Jesus even as we celebrate it. With their help we have made golden calves of ourselves—become a nation of terrified, self-obsessed idols. It works, and it may well keep working for a long time to come. When Americans hunger for selfless love and are fed only love of self, they will remain hungry, and too often hungry people just come back for more of the same. About the Author Bill McKibben, a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, is the author of many books, including The End of Nature and Wandering Home: A Long Walk Across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. His last article for Harper’s Magazine, “The Cuba Diet,” appeared in the April 2005 issue.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: crack monkey (#0)
While I agree with much of what the author says about Christians today, this idea of helping the poor via government foreign aid or the forced taxation to enable government to be charitable and take care of the poor, etc., is wrong, wrong, wrong.......unless, of course, he can find the chapter and verse in the NT that shows where Jesus sought for government to take the role of what a follower of Christ was to have in his or her heart. Further, IIRC, we're told to help, but not to continue forever--something along the lines of not continuing to provide coats. I'm sure some of the more scholarly among posters can add a great deal. Oh, and as for capital punishment--it was God himself who established putting to death for murder. The punishment was to fit the crime--you killed a man's camel, you paid a fine and replaced the camel. I can't recall with specifricity the comment regarding turning the cheek and the context in which this was, but if some guy hit you and you're told to turn the other cheek, it wasn't murder--a capital offense. Maybe this means you let the jerk hit ya twice and then you kick ass! :) Nah===I don't think so!
Good thing you made the NT distinction because it was certainly in the OT. Joseph, after shaking down the Egyptians levied a tax of 10% grain to be paid henceforth IIRC. And moved the rural dwellers into the cities :( Oh, and as for capital punishment--it was God himself who established putting to death for murder. That's right. The Lord smote Er and Onan, the sons of Judah for being wicked in his sight. Kinda makes you wonder why he offered humanity free will if he just uses it as a justification to smite. And then will they not face judgement in the afterlife since they faced it once in the mortal life? Good thing Yahweh is entirely a literary construct, otherwise this could get confusing.
The problem with Christianity is that it doensn't make any sense. Let's face facts folks, "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" is quite simply the worst advice given in the history of the world. Nobody can live up to Christian ideals, which is just perfect from the point of view of power elites who like to bully and frighten and buffalo and hugger-mugger stupid people into specially constructed pens for future slaughter. Let's get to brass tacks: If you want to understand God and the universe and everything, it is absolutely necessary to totally discard absolutely everything about Christianity, and ALL Middle-Eastern religious fictions. It is a non-philosophy for non-people (i.e. "slaves") who can't hack it in this world so they spend their entire lives fantisizing about the next. It's pathetic, it's worthless, it's a mental virus designed to disarm freemen and render them into easily looted slaves.
#2. To: rowdee, Zipporah, Starwind (#1)
unless, of course, he can find the chapter and verse in the NT
#3. To: rowdee (#1)
 | Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#4. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
It is not very likely, IMO, that beliefs like a belief in a god can survive for millenia without, at minimum, not having much impact at all on survival value. A belief in a god probably has survival value, IMO. It might not always have survival value, and the question is distinct from the question of whether such a is true. It is probably true that all universalist ethical codes are at least impractical, and probably in the long run have negative survival value; a dual in-group/out-group code specifying different and worse (but not necessarily malevolent) treatment for competitors makes sense from an ecological point of view, and is by far the most common seen in actual behavior, which of course makes most professors of universalist creeds hypocrites to some extent. But holding a variety of opinions or beliefs that at bottom conflict is very human, and not particular to those of a religious persuasion.
The problem with Christianity is that it doensn't make any sense.
Although it is sometimes hard to see the humor in things, be assured it is all part of the Divine Plan, and tickles His funny bone.
#5. To: Moldi-Box (#2)
your screen name (g)
We're making enemies faster than we can kill 'em...
#6. To: crack monkey, rowdee, Zipporah, Elliott Jackalope, Moldi-Box, Tauzero, christine, *Bereans* (#0)
The author reasonably identifies a number of contradictions between how Christians act and how the Bible says they should act. But the author touches on a number of incorrect explanations and never seems to address the core reason. The answer, I believe as to what is the reason that underlies the seeming contradiction in the beliefs and behaviors of so called Christians, is that they're not all genuine Christians. Many may think they are Christian because they've been told (incorrectly) all they need to do is attend a Christian church, or just read the bible regularly, or "do" something Jesus said to do (give to the poor, visit the imprisoned etc). Some may claim to believe in Jesus, but if they were honest, they might admit they actually inwardly, silently doubt His existence, teachings and promises. But Jesus himself said (emphasis mine and all cites NASB): Mat 7:17-23 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. (18) "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. (19) "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (20) "So then, you will know them by their fruits. (21) "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. (22) "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' (23) "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' Jesus himself pointed out that there will be those who have a mistaken expectation that they were His followers. So what actually is the difference? To reinforce that there is an actual disconnect, a cognitive dissonance among those who have a mistaken understanding of their belief in Jesus, here are some anecdotal surveys that illustrate how much difference exists in what some believe and what the bible teaches: Research continues to reveal a steady theological collapse among professing Christians in America. SECULARISTS, LIBERALS, AND MUSLIMS DO NOT need to fear conservative Christians, says Dave Shiflett in The Wall Street Journal. Christians, he says, are not all that interested in converting the heathen. They don't really believe that there is such a thing as the heathen, tending to believe instead that every religion is equally valid. "Even the most feared of Christians52;the dread 'born-agains' who have cost the high priests at People for the American Way so much sleep52;often embrace the modern orthodoxies of tolerance and inclusion over the traditional teachings of their faith." He cites poll data from Christian researcher George Barna that 26 percent of born-agains believe all religions are essentially the same and that 50 percent believe that a life of good works will enable a person to get to heaven. He goes on, though, to cite data that cast doubt on whether some of these born-again Christians will be there. More than one in three (35 percent) born-again Christians do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. Isn't that a rather important thing to believe in? Especially in light of Romans 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" [that they do] "and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead," [this they do not do] "you will be saved" [so are they?]. Over half of born-again Christians (52 percent), according to Mr. Barna's data, do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a living entity. In Acts 19, the Apostle Paul came across a group of people who said that they were Christians, but they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. They had to be reevangelized and rebaptized. Slightly more born-again Christians believe in the devil than believe in the Holy Spirit, though 45 percent do not believe that Satan exists. Ten percent believe in reincarnation. Twenty-nine percent believe it is possible to communicate with the dead. As for moral issues, one out of three born-again Christians (33 percent), according to Mr. Barna's numbers, accept same-sex unions. More than one out of three (39 percent) believe it is morally acceptable for couples to live together before marriage. And, significantly, born-again Christians are more likely than non-Christians to have experienced divorce (27 percent vs. 24 percent). Mr. Barna defines "born-again Christians" as those who report having made a personal commitment to Christ and expect to get to heaven because they accepted Jesus. He has a subcategory of born-again Christians52;"evangelicals"52;who meet more stringent criteria of biblical faith. But these amount to only 8 percent of American Christians, with 33 percent being the less-orthodox "nonevangelical born-agains." Is this rampant unbelief among people who have accepted Christ an example of biblical illiteracy? Or is it a positive conviction that faith is a purely subjective experience rather than an appropriation of objective truths? Either way, this is strong evidence of how American Christianity is conforming to the dominant secular culture. It is all right to be religious, according to the dictates of postmodernism, as long as your faith exists just in your head. If you start claiming that your beliefs are more than just a private mental state that makes you feel good, asserting instead that what you believe is objectively real and valid for everybody, then you are an intolerant menace to society. Many Christians apparently agree, feeling solace in their own private mental decisions and mystical experiences, without reference to the God outside themselves who is revealed in His Word and in His slain and risen Son. Preachers sometimes exhort people to "invite Jesus into your heart" without proclaiming who Jesus is and what He has done for sinners. This is evangelism that forgets to preach the gospel. The result will be " nonevangelical born-agains." New Christians, like babies, need to be fed, taught, and cared for; otherwise, they will die in their cribs. They need intensive nourishment from the Word of God. At least Christians are not the only ones addled by their culture into holding contradictory beliefs. Atheists are just as confused about their theology. "Half of all atheists and agnostics say that every person has a soul, that heaven and hell exist, and that there is life after death," reports Mr. Barna. Moreover, "one out of every eight atheists and agnostics even believes that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible." They believe that accepting Christ can bring eternal life, even though they don't believe in Jesus Christ. Just like "nonevangelical born-agains." See also Barna's survey report at: Americans Describe Their Views About Life After Death The seeming contradictions between professed Christian action versusbiblical Christian action are resolved when one understands the distinctions between the two and what the Bible teaches is the experience of true Christian believers. A Christian is not someone who attends a Christian church, or gives money to Christian charities, or reads the Bible or much less, merely says they're Christian. A Christian is someone whom Jesus Christ "knows", who has accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and believes in Jesus Christ the person and all His commands and teachings. Jesus has taught and promised that when such a person believes in Jesus (and it obviously must be a sincere belief - God knows who is lying or self-deceived) they will be saved and among other things, receive the Holy Spirit: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 14:16-17 I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; (17) that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. This is important because it is the indwelling Holy Spirit (the promised Helper) that is the proof in God's eyes of a true believer - such a person is said to be "sealed with the Holy Spirit": 2Co 1:21-22 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, (22) who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. Eph 1:13-14 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, (14) who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory. A sincere believer in Jesus Christ is given the Holy Spirit as a seal (like a King's wax seal or royal mark) - a kind of spiritual"branding" to mark adoption by God into His family and that an inheritance is set aside for them. It is the presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit that transforms the person, gradually making them more Christ-like. In the passage below (Paul is writing to Titus) the phrase "by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" is this transformation. Titus 3:5-8 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, (6) whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (7) so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (8) This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God will be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men. The above is the theological underpinning of the phrase "born again" to which Jesus referred: John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (6) "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (7) "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' Inwardly, a "born again" person who is indwelt with the Holy Spirit knows it. It is an undeniable, recognizable, nearly tangible change in attitude. A surprising compulsion to stop swearing, bingeing, lying, cheating, etc. Suddenly, there is a desire to know more about God and to understand God's plan and to obey God, to be lead by the Holy Spirit. And there is an emotional, spiritual peace that defies the intellect; circumstances which logically should cause extreme upset and stress, instead are taken in stride. These changes are often "discernible" by other true believers who are likewise indwelt. Sometimes the Holy Spirit also gives "charisma" - spiritual gifts - intended to be used for furtherance of God's plan under the Spirits leading. But outwardly, there are signs as well. The fruit of the Holy Spirit: Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, (23) gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. People who know true believers have observed a behavior change about the time they were "born again". They begin to see the peace, the desire to know God, the beginning to abstain from sins, and the gradual increased expression of the fruit of the Spirit. True believers go from their former spiteful, materialistic, selfish, scheming behaviors to being patient, thoughtful, kind, giving, honest... etc. An observable change if one has the opportunity and knows the believer both "before and after" they were " born again". So, the point of all that above was to provide some anecdotal background in the survey data and establish the biblical basis to say there is very clear difference between people who think they are Christians and people who are transformed, Holy-Spirit indwelt, born again believers exhibiting the fruit of the Holy Spirit - ie, genuine Christians whom Jesus Christ will in turn confess to God: Mat 10:32-33 "Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. (33) "But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven. Once this distinction is understood, then the distinction in behaviors between false professors of Christ (for example those who claim to be Christian but don't believe Jesus Christ really was physically resurrected) and the behaviors of true believers makes more sense. The true believers behave and believe like genuine Christians, not in their own power or ability but because the indwelt Holy Spirit is actively transforming them. Whereas the false professors are similarly human with all the human foibles, but lack the Holy Spirit's functioning within them. The difference is God. The difference is the presence or absence of the Holy Spirit, as a result of belief or disbelief in Jesus Christ.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#7. To: Starwind (#6)
very clear presentation.
So, the point of all that above was to provide some anecdotal background in the survey data and establish the biblical basis to say there is very clear difference between people who think they are Christians and people who are transformed, Holy-Spirit indwelt, born again believers exhibiting the fruit of the Holy Spirit - ie, genuine Christians whom Jesus Christ will in turn confess to God:
#8. To: Starwind (#6)
i found that to be very surprising!
Atheists are just as confused about their theology. "Half of all atheists and agnostics say that every person has a soul, that heaven and hell exist, and that there is life after death," reports Mr. Barna. Moreover, "one out of every eight atheists and agnostics even believes that accepting Jesus Christ as savior probably makes life after death possible." They believe that accepting Christ can bring eternal life, even though they don't believe in Jesus Christ. Just like "nonevangelical born-agains."
#9. To: christine (#8)
Yes. I was surprised as well. Barna does some great surveys. i found that to be very surprising!
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#10. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#6)
Plenty of theologically correct Christians are jerks. A number of these are folks with essentially fascist personalities, and Jesus is their fuhrer. It is these folks in particular that Ben Franklin had in mind when he wrote "if men are so evil with religion, what would they be if without it", and warned against unchaining the tiger. People with "indwelt Holy Spirit" are noticably different, mostly in good ways, some mildly annoying. However, this is not unique to Christianity (and no offense intended at all, but those that have been newly infused with the Holy Spirit have the same look in the eye as a lot of gay guys. "These changes are often 'discernible' by other true believers who are likewise indwelt" sounds like gaydar.) Ecologically speaking, that the path is straight and narrow and only a few will be saved is tautological.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#11. To: Tauzero, Starwind (#10)
Throughout the Ages every religion offered its believers the same reward, to "live on after death". In ancient Egypt priests initiated "Mummification" as a passport to the "Afterlife". Hindu prelates promised "Nirvana" as a way for piety to escape the tedium of re-incarnation. In short, each faith pledges to cheat death by giving the faithful the prize of living on forever, and Christianity is no exception. This premise has become one of the most tenacious and unsettling concepts ever invented by man. The fear of death is so pervasive in the human mind that men will believe almost anything to deny the reality of ceasing to exist. Faith's objective is achieved by postulating that a Spiritual essence exists in the heavens above and a demonic phantom resides in the earth below. This fantasy is heightened by the promise of being "saved" in Paradise or the threat of being "damned" in Hell and each culture achieves its end with the aid of a book written by men who claimed they "knew" all about God. Fortunately, we live in America where freedom of religion gives us choices and if one chooses to believe this myth it is this prerogative. But if we invest a good deal of ourselves in a book, shouldn't we be certain that it represents God, as we believe God to be? Shouldn't that book portray a Being of the most pure moral and ethical qualities for man to worship? It should but as we've seen, our Bible fails to meet that objective. Instead, it presents a punitive god who is quick to anger, filled with terrible rage and showing little compassion for human fallibility. I have done my duty to God, as He is portrayed in the Old Testament, by refuting the accusations of biblical authors who falsely accuse Him and I feel satisfied that He has received due process. However, defending the deity of the New Testament will require a different presentation because the gospels depict a Personality that is the antithesis of Jehovah in compassion, love and tenderness. Still, I feel a defense is necessary in light of certain disturbing precepts that are incompatible with the sweet and forgiving nature of Jesus. I have therefore chosen to defend the "Son of God" by creating an imaginary trial held in ancient Rome after the Crucifixion. All of the testimony presented can be verified by a careful analysis of the four gospels. The Trial of the Apostles. [Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. The four were arrested and taken to the Forum to stand trial. All Rome fears the possibility of more crucifixions] Clerk: The Honorable Senators, Cassius, Marcus, Dimitrius and Augustus presiding. Be seated. [Cassius bangs his gavel and calls for order. The spectators become hushed. The Prosecutor Libus and defense council Marcellus are seated in their respective places] Cassius: Good morning Libus. Libus:Good morning Senator. Cassius: Good morning Marcellus. Marcellus: Good morning, Senator. Dimitrius: The Tribunal will hear opening statements. Libus: The State is ready Your Honor. Marcus: Is the defense ready? Marcellus: Senator, before we begin we must settle a matter of the oath. Augustus: The oath Marcellus? We have a problem? Marcellus: My clients are not Romans, Sire and in all good conscience they cannot swear an oath to Jupiter. They recognize Jehovah as God of the Jews. Cassius: Hmm. They are heretics. Then have them swear an oath to their god and let's get on with it. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. The defense can proceed. Marcus:The clerk will administer the oath. Clerk: "Do you swear to your god that the testimony you give this court shall be the whole truth? All: We swear in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Dimitrius: We'll hear opening statements now. Libus: Citizens of Gaul, the State will prove that the prisoners are traitors to Rome. They committed treason by trying to place the Jew, whom our Emperor Tiberius crucified two years ago, on the throne of the Roman Empire. These four men wrote gospels claiming that he was the Son of God, which raised a furor among the faithful. In addition, they claimed to be eyewitnesses to all the events they reported. In the interest of brevity, the State requests that the four prisoners testify together. Marcellus: Objection! The request challenges protocol. Augustus: Overruled Marcellus, we'll decide that. Request granted. Escort the prisoners into the witness box. [The spectators murmur as soldiers herd Mark, Matthew, Luke and John into the witness box. Their feet are shackled making it difficult for them to walk] Dimitrius: Let's have your opening statement now Marcellus. Marcellus: Noblemen and good citizens of Rome. The charges presented by the State are false. No witnesses have come forward to corroborate the allegations. The defense will prove that the prisoners acted in good faith as Apostles of the man from Nazareth. [As Marcellus concludes, Libus approaches the witness box] Libus: State your names and occupations. Matthew: Matthew. Tax collector. Luke: Luke. Doctor. Mark: Mark. Fisherman. John: John. We are fishers of men, Sire. Libus: Fishers of men, how quaint. Let me start with Luke whose gospel claims that from the beginning you all were eyewitnesses. He goes on to report that in the sixth month--let me quote: Chapter 1 verse 26: "The Angel Gabriel was sent from God to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph". In Verse 32: the angel tells Mary she will bring forth a holy son "and his name shall be Jesus". You say she was espoused to this Joseph and still a virgin? Luke: Gabriel appeared to Mary before she and Joseph came together. Libus: Really? Just how long had the two been-espoused? Marcellus: Objection to the snide innuendo Your Honors. Cassius: Sustained. Libus: Who else reports this Angel Gabriel visiting Mary? (No reply) Only you make this report Luke? None of your colleagues mentions this visit? Luke: No Sire. I alone reported Gabriel telling Mary. Libus: Your Honors, please notice that Matthew remains silent yet he too reported the incident. Matthew: Yes, but I stated the angel told Joseph not Mary. Libus: Told Joseph? Hmmm. Allow me to quote from Matthew Chapter 1-verse 20: "Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream saying Joseph--".(stops) Joseph was not awake at the time? Matthew: No sire. He was asleep. Libus: This angelic visit that you report, occurred in a dream? Matt: That is correct, Sire. Libus: How can one man know the content of another man's dream? Marcellus: Objection. That calls for speculation. Marcus:Sustained. Libus: But Senator, my question has great relevance. This event is the very cornerstone of Christianity. If, as Matthew claims, Mary did not receive the angel's visit and Joseph was asleep, can Matthew's report be considered viable evidence? Marcus: Dreams do not qualify as evidence Libus. Therefore, Matthew's report is considered "Hearsay". Only Luke's testimony is deemed relevant. Libus: Then I ask the tribunal to note we've only just begun and already we have discrepancies. Cassius: So noted. Continue please. Libus: Which gospel reports the birth of Christ in the manger? Luke: I report that glorious event, Sire. Libus: Only you again Luke? Matthew: Excuse me Sire. I report the star of Bethlehem and the wise men called the Magi. Libus: Yes Matthew, but you state that Jesus was born in their house not in the manger and Luke makes no mention of a house or of this-Magi. Now which version is correct? Luke: Mine Sire. As God is my judge, it was in the manger. Matthew: I disagree, Sire, Jesus was born in their house. Libus: Senators, another discrepancy for the record? Dimitrius: So noted, Libus. Continue. Libus: Were either of you present at the time? Matthew: I was not present. Luke: And I was not born yet, Sire. Libus: Then, Your Honors, is this not also considered hearsay? Marcus: If neither man were present, I would say it is. Libus: But, neither man was present at the angel's visit either. Augustus: Then "Hearsay" would also apply in that case unless-substantiated by another witness. Libus: I see. John, does your gospel report these events? ? ? John: No Sire, mine does not. Libus: Mark, does yours? Mark: No Sire. Libus: May I ask why not? Aren't they crucial to Christianity? Mark&John: Oh, most certainly, Sire Very important indeed. Libus: Then why have you two failed to mention them? Mark & John: (Silence) Libus: We'll come back to this. Matthew, I'm fascinated by your report. You write that the moment Jesus died, wait-let me quote this exactly: Matthew verse 50: "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many". Extremely powerful images you have described. Who else witnessed what Matthew reports? Luke? Mark? Luke: Not I Sire.? ? Mark: Nor I Sire. Libus: Come, come gentlemen, corpses strolling through the city? These are no everyday occurrences. (Silence) Senators, surely they must have noticed these walking cadavers. Marcus: You've made your point Libus. Now move it along. Libus: Mark. Tell us your recollections of these amazing events that Matthew describes. Mark: I recall seeing nothing like that Sire. Libus: You're testifying under oath that you recall no dead saints walking about the city? But Matthew claims they were "seen by many". Were you watching something else, Mark? Marcellus: Objection, he's badgering the witness. Dimitrius: Sustained Marcellus. Marcellus: Thank you Senator. Libus: But Senators, none of the witnesses corroborates Matthew's claims. Dimitrius: John has not testified to that effect. Libus: John, tell us what you recall about these unusual happenings. John: ( Silence) Libus: John? Senators, instruct the witness to respond. Cassius: The witness will answer the question. John: I say unto thee Senators, if what Matthew describes had occurred, I most certainly would have reported it. Libus: Then none of you corroborate Matthew's claims? John: Who knows Sire? Perhaps it did happen, perhaps not. I simply do not recall. Libus: Really? John, do you know your Ten Commandments? John: Verily I do. Libus: What is the fifth? John: Honor thy father and thy mother. Libus: Then let me read how Matthew quotes Jesus: 10-37, "He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me". Does that sound like honoring father and mother? Matthew: But Sire. What the master meant by that-- ? ? Libus: A simple yes or mo will suffice. ALL: But the master was only- Libus: Yes or no! Marcellus: Objection! He's being hostile. Marcus: Sustained. Libus: Did Jesus ever write a word himself for his followers? ALL: No Sire. // The master wrote nothing himself. // He instructed us to do so//We wrote everything that he said. Libus: Then we have no alternative but to accept your words do we? Luke: But we wrote what he taught. Libus: Perhaps you wrote what you thought he taught. Marcellus: Objection! They have already responded. Augustus: Objection sustained! Libus, our patience is being strained. Libus: Mine as well Your Honors. Just listen to Mark's report that Jesus rebuked a fig tree for being bare out of season-then cursed the tree for having no figs. Are we to believe that an intelligent being acted in that manner--toward a tree?? ? Mark: Tis the truth Sire. We all were present and observed it. Libus: You then write, "The tree withered away and died". Mark: It, it did, Sire. We watched it happen. Libus: What did your master say after that? Mark: He said, "Have faith in God". Libus: Hmm, perhaps it was only a fig-ment of your imagination Mark? (The spectators laugh) Marcellus: Objection! Senators, this is a court of law not a theater for amusement. The prosecution is making a mockery of this trial. Cassius: Sustained! Libus: Senators, he says I make a mockery? Then listen to this one. When the Apostles needed money to pay the tax collector, Jesus instructed Matthew in: 17-27: Here Matthew, since you wrote this you read it to the Tribunal. Matthew: (reads) "Lest we offend them, go thou to the sea and cast a hook and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: Take that and give it unto them for thee and me". Libus; Do you expect this learned body to accept such an inane story? Are we to believe a wise teacher that Christ was supposed to be, actually told you to do that? Matthew: T'is the God's truth Sire. I swear it! Libus: Of course, you swear it. You also swear he was the Son of God don't you? And John, you state that while Jesus was on the cross, one of our soldiers thrust a spear into his side and blood and water gushed out. John: Thou art correct Sire. That is what I wrote. Libus: I notice your three colleagues make no mention of that. Anyone care to substantiate John's testimony? All Three: Sire, I recall no spear // neither do I. // Nor I Sire. ? ? Libus: The three of you stood right next to John and neither of you saw blood and water spurting from the wound? Matthew, Mark and Luke: I saw no wound // Nor a soldier thrust a spear, Sire// I saw no blood or water. John: On my honor Senators, I saw it. God knows I do not lie. Libus: Your friends don't seem to agree, John. Marcellus: Objection. My client has implied no falsehood. Cassius: Sustained. Libus, it might be wise to leave this now. Libus: But Senators, this event cries out for confirmation. Marcus:Abandon it!! Libus: Yes Sire. Matthew and John, both of you report that eight days after the Crucifixion, Jesus walked through your closed door-and asked for food? Matthew: Verily Sire. Thou art correct. Libus: You're testifying that you actually saw him? John: Yes Sire. He came to us in Galilee. Libus: Then why have Mark and Luke failed to mention such an amazing happening? Luke and Mark: er, Our only concern Sire, was with his hunger. Libus: And that's why you didn't mention it? (They nod) Did you feed him? Matthew and John: That we did Sire He brought us a fish // We had some honeycomb and a bit of meat. He was famished Sire. Libus: Are these Senators to believe that after being dead for eight days he re-appeared and craved real food? John: Tis true, Sire. He said unto us "Handle me and ye shall see I am flesh not spirit". Libus: Wait. Let me understand this. He was flesh yet he walked through a closed door? He ate real food and Matthew says after eating he vanished right before your eyes. Was this the "Ascension" that you speak of? Mark: Not right then Sire. But both Luke and I reported the Ascension of Christ. Libus: The Ascension is a crucial tenet of Christianity isn't that so Matthew? Matthew: Oh yes, verily Sire. Verily. Libus: Do you agree John? John: Indeed I do Sire. Indeed. Libus: Then please explain why both you and Matthew didn't mention it? Matt & John: Oh, I believe we mentioned the Ascension. // Did we not, Sire? Libus: No. Not one word from either of you. Luke and Mark are the only two that reported the Ascension. Senators, isn't it amazing that that Luke and Mark continue to report issues vital to Christendom while John and Matthew fail to even mention the Ascension of Christ? John claims that Jesus bore his own cross while Matthew, Mark and Luke all identify Simon the Cyrenian as the bearer. We continue to hear one conflicting report after another. Whose testimony can the Court possibly believe? Cassius: That is for us to decide Libus. You know your role. Now move on. Libus: Yes Your Honor. John and Matthew, I've read and re-read your manuscripts with great care and noticed that both of you constantly talk about Hell and damnation. John: T'is true Sire! For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to save man from going to Hell. Matthew: And he that believeth on Him that sent Christ shall not be condemned to Hell but shall receive everlasting life. Libus: That's precisely what I mean! You two go on and on allegedly quoting Jesus about Hellfire and Damnation. For example, (flipping through the pages) here! "If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out (mumbles) whole body be cast into Hell" And here again "Hell" again "Hell", "Hell". (stops) You men are Jews; in fact all the Apostles are Jews and your master as well. You were raised with the Mosaic Code so where would Jesus have learned about Hell? There's no mention of Hell in the five books of Moses. These aren't Christ's words they're yours' aren't they? Be honest; he's not here to defend himself. Both: Sire, we simply report what the master------- Libus: Yes of course you do. And here again you make him say (reads) "Hell, Damnation, Hellfire, Hell where the worm dieth not. Again Hell, Damnation, and again! (he stops) Both you and John quote Jesus, constantly dwelling upon Hell and Damnation. You make him seem obsessed by it, consumed with it. (pause) It hardly seems reasonable that one who loved and sought only to do good would want to frighten those who believed in him. You said he wrote no word of his own so we only have your gospels to rely upon. These are your words aren't they? There's still time to recant your testimony. Marcellus: Objection! This is despicable! I have never seen such obvious intimidation. Libus: Senators, hear me out. When Pontius Pilate handled the Christ matter, I assumed the problem was resolved but when theses gospels surfaced in Rome their blasphemy created such a firestorm I had the prisoners arrested and brought this trial to the Forum. I was convinced they were heretics and traitors to our Emperor, Tiberius Claudius Nero. But now I feel impelled to uncover the truth before we act too hastily once again. The whole purpose of this trial is to separate fact from fiction and to be frank I am finding it hard to believe that a Being of such love and compassion could have this duel side to his nature. A man who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell. I reject the notion that Jesus was the author of Hell and Damnation and suggest that John and Matthew are the ones that created the concept. Senators, grant me a moment more and listen to the words of the man we crucified. (He reads) "Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you. Blessed be them that mourn for they shall be comforted. Blessed be the weak for they shall inherit the earth. If I, thy Lord and master, wash your feet ye ought to wash one another's feet. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me for I am meek and lowly of heart and in me ye shall find rest unto your souls. The son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister and give his life as a ransom for many. Resist not evil but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also and if a man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. Judge not and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned, forgive and ye shall be forgiven. Whosoever shall speak a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him. Love one another as I have loved you". ? ? Ibus: Senators, there have been so many inconsistencies in the testimony we've heard today that we don't seem to be talking about the same man. Matthew and John depict Jesus as a split personality, which I find completely inconsistent with the words I've just read. I may be Rome's Prosecutor but my concern is with the truth and I intend to uncover it before we act too hastily and make another mistake! Can any of the prisoners name the original twelve Apostles of Christ? Can any of the prisoners name the original twelve Apostles of Christ? Mark: Oh, yes, Sire, with the greatest of pleasure. ? (Alternating as they help each other) All four: Let’s see, there was: 1. Simon known as Peter Libus: Each one of your gospels contains a list of the twelve names you’ve just mentioned and one other gospel called “Acts” also lists those twelve. ALL: True, Sire true. Libus: Do the names Luke or Mark appear on any of those lists? John and Matthew: (startled) Why no, Sire they do not. ? Libus: In the gospels that Luke and Mark themselves wrote, do their names appear on those lists? Matthew and John: No Sire. They do not. Libus: I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of this crucial evidence.? ? ( (The four Senators rise) "The Tribunal takes judicial notice. Libus: Then would it be fair to say that both Mark and Luke were not members of the original twelve Apostles and therefore could not have been eyewitnesses to the events they reported? Matthew & John: (reluctantly) Yes Sire. It seems so. Libus: Members of the tribunal. In light of this incontrovertible evidence, the State moves that all the testimony of Mark and Luke be stricken from the record and declared to be "Hearsay". Now, only the testimony of Matthew and John is relevant in this trial and they scarcely agree on anything. John reports Jesus bleeding on the cross and Matthew sees no blood; Matthew reports dead saints walking and John sees none. There can be only one resolution to this matter and that is for Your Honors to decide. Cassius: The Tribunal revues these proceedings and will render its decision tomorrow morning. Take the prisoners away. [Everyone is shocked into silence as the soldiers lead the four men out of the witness box].? The End I need not defend Jesus now since Libus did it so eloquently- but let me repeat his words:"A Being of such love and compassion who forgave Sinners during life does not become a tyrant after death and pursue them beyond the grave to damn them to Hell". ? A Final Word Over the years the Bible has gone through numerous revisions yet each time the anger and threats of the deities have never been mollified. Religion would remain just as effective if the offensive portions of Scripture were expunged and no harm would befall the faithful if gods were portrayed with greater tolerance of man's weakness by transcending the pettiness of their own too human emotions. Depicting the Jews as "God's chosen people" offends the sensibilities of other ethnic groups and we know in our hearts that the Lord is not biased for we are all His children. And I believe we would feel more kindly towards one another if the violence and cruelty were culled from the text. We protest over violence in television, violence in movies and even violence in computer games but does religion truly need a god that commits mass murder, destroys a country, kills Egyptian babies, sends plagues that torment thousands, betrays Hebrews and drowns their pursuers? And that's mild compared to drowning the entire world because He was sorry He made man. How can man be happy feeling that God believed he was evil? To make matters worse the Creator of the Universe is portrayed as an insecure, almost paranoid Being who believes in witches and is obsessed with other gods. At the very least, isn't some of that text expendable? I'm past eighty now and fairly certain I won't see ninety but I'd like more of a choice than Hell or Paradise when I go. Now that we now know the Bible was created by a vote of Emperor Constantine's Cardinals, wouldn't we all be better off if other options were offered - or is fear of what happens after death the glue that holds it all together? I hope not because I believe better of God.
Here's an essay I think you'll find interesting. I apologize for the extra question marks you'll find throughout the essay. Some weird formatting took place somewhere along the line.
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
2. Bartholomew
3. James, brother of John
4. Simon the Canaanite
5. James, or Jude
6. Andrew Son of Alpheus
7. Philip
8. John
9. Matthew
10. Simon called Zeloites
11. Thomas and
12. Judas Iscariot
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#12. To: Elliott Jackalope (#11)
Preaching to the choir, as the saying goes. Two minor points though: 1) We don't have to restrict ourselves only to those beliefs that are provably true. 2) Even a false belief may still be useful, to those that believe it and those that do not. In my misspent "yout" I tried to unconvert some folks, pointing them to Ingersoll and other authors. Most were impervious, and it wasn't really worth the energy. Over the years I've come to agree with Franklin. Their belief does me far more good than harm. "Remember thou art mortal", and with mortal reason. Beware of unintended consequences in this sphere, as you would in the sphere of state action. Let the tiger be. Especially this one which, compared to those of earlier ages, is rather tame.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#13. To: crack monkey (#0)
I hate it when leftist Christians cite this. It may be true, but the context of the passage from which it was taken is worry about your own goddamn sins, not your neighbors', rich or not.
a rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle.
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#14. To: Tauzero (#10)
No offense taken. I've seen it many times myself, and often it seems to be a contrarian indicator - that the "decision for Christ" was more an emotional binge in someone who has a tendancy for emotional binges, this time merely for a different cause. They seem to fall away (apostasize) later on and seldom seem to consistently bear the fruit of the spirit. My conclusion: though there was a "burst of fervor" it was emotion and not a considered, informed, commited decision. It is hard (if not impossible) to humanly know a true conversion from a false - only God knows the heart. But in later years, more often than not, there are significant, indicative telltales that are observable. It is actually a combination of what the biblically-informed intellect assesses in someone's behavior, viewpoints, explanations, etc, combined with an inner spiritual intuition that someone else is a spiritual brother/sister. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit "testifies with our spirit": A tautololgy nonetheless can be true. The problem is a tautology can't be proven or disproven on logic alone and by itself a tautology offers little useful information. The distinction I would point out about salvation and the Bible versus a tautology is that the Bible is testable in some regards (historical/ archeological record, and fulfilled prophecies). What is often the stumbling block (and one I anticpated in this discussion) is that God has seemingly required faith (in God the Son, Jesus Christ) as a prerequiste to further provision and affirmation of the hidden spiritual things. A very unsatisfying answer, I understand. It was for me as well for a long time. I used to be a skeptic, what the Bible calls a worldly scoffer. For decades my life was about factual science, engineering, material/corporate success, etc. If it couldn't be measured by science it didn't exist in my worldview. I called people like me "bible thumpers", "holy roller", "misguided" etc. I could not tell (and didn't care) the difference between Christian, Morman, Hindu, Muslim, Buhddist, etc - they were all mislead - like flat earthers, it didn't matter which direction of the compass they had traveled. But I was always a 'truth seeker', in that I always wanted the most accurate honest correct understanding of any particular subject or problem that interested me and I didn't care where the truth was found, provided it was in fact the truth. I did not want to be deceived or stupid about something. I had always been honest with myself about what I knew or didn't know. A day came (to make a long story short) when a woman had said some things about what the Bible taught that I did not believe and I set out to prove her wrong by reading the Bible for myself to see what it in fact did say. Over a period of 10-months or more I read it all cover to cover and some parts repeatedly. I had a stack of notes an inch thick of "contradictions" I wanted to resolve. I hadn't understood all of it, but I did understand enough to know the woman had told me the truth, and that God had a large plan to correct human failings that all made sense to me - to me it was (and still is) "logical" from God's point of view. Another aspect of my personality is that in addition to being a 'truth seeker' I was always willing to take responsibility for my mistakes. I never expected someone else to fix my mistakes, pay my way, or take my punishment - I always expected to be accountable for my actions. What I realized upon my finishing reading the Bible, was that I had made mistakes (sin) for which I could never take responsibilty and live (eternally) to tell about it. Unbidden my me, Jesus Christ had sacrificed his royal surroundings to take the punishment that was intended for me, and all He wanted from me was my genuine gratitude and willing cooperation. I can't describe the moment I realized this, but I knew it was true and I knew Jesus had done, out of love, something for me I could never repay. Why did I believe this when so many others disbelieve? A) I was always a truth seeker and I really wanted to know the truth of God and the Bible even as I read it. Because I was really, sincerely seeking the truth about God and the Bible, as I read it, the Holy Spirit helped me understand how it was in fact true. Because I then believed that Jesus had in fact taken my punishment, something I never expected and never could repay, I genuinely wanted to honor His sacrifice for me. Because I sincerely believed Jesus had died for me, rose again, etc, etc, and I sincerely wanted to make amends to/for Him, my acceptance of Jesus Christ was sincere and real. And at that moment (what I later learned about the transformation I described above) began in me. I was surprised to experience it, but it was very reaffirming that yet another aspect of what the Bible teaches was true. The problem for this discussion is that, as I described above, my unprovable to you faith in Jesus preceded my likewise unprovable to you indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God wants us to operate on a trusting faith in Him. After we are adopted into His family, the proof that trust as well placed becomes evident. By analogy, you don't prove to the neighborhood kids that you can be trusted as a father. Your children (being in your family) already know that but likewise would have some difficulty proving your trustworthiness and your character to their friends in the neighborhood. But suppose in a moment of desperation, a local dirty, cold and starving orphan were to come to your door and say "Mr. Tauzero, your kids said you offered that I could come and live with you and you would take care of me, and I'm trusting you - if you'll say yes?". And you open the door, and file the adoption papers to make that child a legitimate member of your family. Contrast that with suppose they (in their same decrepit condition) had said "Yo, Tau dude, ma man. If you'll prove to me you're a good guy, I might let you take care of me" You're not likely to extend yourself proving what is already evident to your kids, and already evident to anyone observing your household and reading your essays about fatherhood. Accepting their untrust does not engender their continued future trust of you. They either trust or they don't. When does the proving stop? If your family is based on trusting you, a trust you have never betrayed, adopting an untrusting child would be a departure from your plan, and perhaps that untrust is merely indicative of a child that is always demanding that you appease their will and do things their way according to their expectations not yours, and you are after the all, the one putting the roof over their heads. Neither you, nor God, work that way. So, while that remains likely a less than satisfactory answer, hopefully is offers some insight into what appears a tautology about salavation is true nonetheless and God has His reasons, though they aren't always comprehensible by us early on, if ever.
However, this is not unique to Christianity (and no offense intended at all, but those that have been newly infused with the Holy Spirit have the same look in the eye as a lot of gay guys.
"These changes are often 'discernible' by other true believers who are likewise indwelt" sounds like gaydar.)
Rom 8:14-17 For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (15) For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" (16) The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, (17) and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
So, yeah, sorta like gaydar, but actually God's Holy Spirit confirming truth or falsehood. that the path is straight and narrow and only a few will be saved is tautological.
B) I had never convinced myself there was *not* a God, and I had been going through a period where it seemed God kept stepping in my path in subtle ways. I had even asked at one point, "OK if you're real, help me see it and understand". It was a few years later that I read the Bible.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#15. To: Starwind (#14)
Like the funny man said, I wish He'd cough, or something. In the past I've wanted to believe. While I view proof as sufficient but not necessary, I do require (as much as I can ferret out my own errors) that my beliefs be internally consistent, and Christianity doesn't cut it. The story of Jesus makes the most sense to me as god, having realized how screwed up the world he made was, came down to suffer as we suffer, i.e. died not just for our sins but his own sense of guilt. He couldn't live with himself. < /bat-a-ching>
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#16. To: Tauzero (#15)
The truth of something would be internally (as well as externally) consistent. So, inconsistency is a pointer to either a misunderstanding (in whole or in part), a lack of information, or perhaps a falsehood. And one studies and evaluates to what the inconsistency points to ferret out the error. You do this with technical analysis. I daresay you suspected EW and/or socionomics as being true (or at least having merit) without understanding every nuance or facet of it, or the theoretical fractal math that underlies it and you use it (trust it to a degree) without your understanding being fully internally consistent, right? But while you don't understand every nuance of it, it shows predictive value, it was believable in part even if not yet believable in whole (because you don't yet understand it in whole). The important part that was believable (that human emotion drives systems/ markets and not vice versa) does not prevent you from trusting wave theory in general or prevent you from seeking to understand wave sequences, shapes, probablities, etc in detail. God's plan is similar. Simple (but genuine) belief in Jesus Christ is the only important part. Everything follows gradually from that. You can wonder how could the red sea part, or how should Revelation be interpreted to make sense, or why did God allow ____, without invalidating a belief that trusting Jesus is prequisite and overriding - in a sense trusting Him thereafter to explain the details. Yes, you should expect the Bible and Christian theology to be internally and externally consistent. But while you acquire a consistent understanding gradually in other aspects of your life, you require a complete consistent understanding of God upfront? Is that not an inconsistent treatment? Where else in your studies do you require complete knowledge and comprehension upfront before you'll utilize a tool or principle in application?
I do require (as much as I can ferret out my own errors) that my beliefs be internally consistent,
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#17. To: Elliott Jackalope (#11)
This is a rather loosely, if not deliberately contrived series of strawmen. I've seen it before. There is not a lot of point in refuting strawmen, but just to demonstrate, lest there be any doubt, I'll address a couple: The Trial of the Apostles. Two years have passed since the Crucifixion. Four of Christ's Apostles have written gospels, which surfaced in Rome and caused a furor. This is the beginning of a strawman argument. Winchell sets up the four defendants Mark, Matthew, Luke and John as if they were all apostles. They are not. Next, Winchell stuffs a little more straw in, the noble defense likewise misrepresenting the four as all apostles: Marcellus: Noblemen and good citizens of Rome. The charges presented by the State are false. No witnesses have come forward to corroborate the allegations. The defense will prove that the prisoners acted in good faith as Apostles of the man from Nazareth. This particular defense is doomed from the start (but then defending strawmen always is), because having never been apostles, Mark nor Luke can't very well be proven to be apostles, can they. Neither Mark nor Luke were ever apostles, though they did write gospels. But there is no inconsistency in non-apostolic gospel authorship. There is no "rule" or biblical admonition that one must be an apostle to have chronicled Jesus mission and write a gospel. For example, much is made, needlessly, of Mark and Luke seeming not being cited as apostles when they never were in fact apostles. And John knew that, but it makes for better "courtroom drama" other wise, doesn't it. Here then are the passages in which Jesus appoints the twelve apostles (all cites NASB): Mat 10:1-4 Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. (2) Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (3) Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; (4) Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed Him. Mar 3:16-19 And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), (17) and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, "Sons of Thunder"); (18) and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot; (19) and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Him. Luk 6:13-16 And when day came, He called His disciples to Him and chose twelve of them, whom He also named as apostles: (14) Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James and John; and Philip and Bartholomew; (15) and Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon who was called the Zealot; (16) Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. Consistently then, the twelve are: Mark and Luke were saints, not apostles. A saint is a believer in and a follower of Jesus Christ, whereas an apostle is a person chosen by Jesus to represent Him in authority (like an ambassador). Mark and Luke can write their two gospels (and Luke can write Acts as well) and Mark can (possibly) be a scribe for Peter without needing to be chosen by Jesus to be apostles as well. Other non-apostolic, yet canonical writings include the epistles of James and Jude. Neither Mark, Luke, James (half brother of Jesus) nor Jude (brother of James, same half brother of Jesus) were apostles, but regardless, Mark and Luke were followers of Jesus and His apostles (they were "followers", believing members of Jesus' entourage, without being apostles) and they chronicled the events in their two respective gospel books. Note further, that of the apostles, only John and Matthew wrote gospels (good news), while Paul and Peter wrote epistles (letters). Libus: Then would it be fair to say that both Mark and Luke were not members of the original twelve Apostles and therefore could not have been eyewitnesses to the events they reported? Matthew & John: (reluctantly) Yes Sire. It seems so. And there we have it. Mislabel them as apostles and then argue with no biblical basis whatsoever that only apostles can be eyewitnesses and write gospels. QED. Depicting the Jews as "God's chosen people" offends the sensibilities of other ethnic groups and we know in our hearts that the Lord is not biased for we are all His children. This likewise is a misinterpretation of what God intended and what the Bible demonstrates (given a full reading). That being, God chose the Jews not for special privilege but for a special responsibility - to bear witness to God in heaven, and to bring forth the Messiah. Do the Jews often presume too much themselves about being "Gods chosen people"? Yes. Does that change what God's intended or expects? No.
Copyright Dr. Paul Winchell 2003
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#18. To: Moldi-Box (#2)
..."Good thing you made the NT distinction because it was certainly in the OT. Joseph, after shaking down the Egyptians levied a tax of 10% grain to be paid henceforth IIRC. And moved the rural dwellers into the cities :( "... I must be missing the point about 'shaking down Egyptians'. He was put in charge of planning for the 7 years of famine that were coming; he was the right hand man of the Pharoah. ..."That's right. The Lord smote Er and Onan, the sons of Judah for being wicked in his sight. Kinda makes you wonder why he offered humanity free will if he just uses it as a justification to smite. And then will they not face judgement in the afterlife since they faced it once in the mortal life?"... There was lots of smoting and smiting going on in the Old Testament. God often used opposing tribes to execute judgment against the idol worshippers. And what is interesting is it doesn't matter whether it is his chosen people or not...they get punished for false god worshipping. Or for things like presuming or pride. I was just reading today about the Judean King Uzziel/Araziah. He and the nation prospered incredibly well...but 11 years before he died, he decided he could be a priest as well as the king (something that God had kept separate). He entered the Holy Place to burn incense--something only consecrated priests were to do. When he became enraged at the priests who were trying to get him out of the forbidden to him place, he developed an instant case of leprosy as judgment. The last ll years of his life were spent as a co-king---one with leprosy who had to live separately--and when he died could not be buried in the tombs of the kings because of the leprosy. The way I see it, in order to be God, God can be, and is, anything he wants to be. He can be meaner than a junkyard dog, or as gentle as a breeze from a baby's breath. He can be tender or wrathful. He cannot be put in a box or any other container. I belive what people need to get away from is all the man-made hoopla, rituals, etc., and get back to reading, and actually understanding scripture. ..."Good thing Yahweh is entirely a literary construct, otherwise this could get confusing."... Obviously, we disagree hugely in this regard.
#19. To: Elliott Jackalope (#3)
..."Let's get to brass tacks: If you want to understand God and the universe and everything, it is absolutely necessary to totally discard absolutely everything about Christianity, and ALL Middle-Eastern religious fictions. It is a non-philosophy for non-people (i.e. "slaves") who can't hack it in this world so they spend their entire lives fantisizing about the next. It's pathetic, it's worthless, it's a mental virus designed to disarm freemen and render them into easily looted slaves"... I will never 'understand' God, yet I'm thankful He's there for me. I will also never understand the universe, but then outer space never interested me. And it's a given I won't understand everything--and thank goodness for that because if I did, I wouldn't need anyone else to be around. I certainly don't spend my life fantasizing about the next life. I'm too busy living today. I believe that much of what is being foisted off today as 'christianity' is worthless, unfortunately.
#20. To: Starwind (#6)
Thanks for inputting, Starwind. You speak so well for the topic, and explanations in general.
#21. To: Starwind (#17)
Have you read the Homeric epics like most of us? Have you read about the exploits of it's heros and dieties. The miracles and journeys and hisorical sites? Have you thought about the nuances of the personalities and how they reacted to one another, fought and played together? Have you carefully studied the validity of the texts and speculate on the differences in interpretations? Of course you haven't because, although it's good literature and highly important to cultures past at the end of the day it's bullshit. Something to think about.
#22. To: christine (#8)
Me, too.....very surprised.
#23. To: Starwind (#16)
It would be, if that's what I was doing. ( And I'm not really interested in discussing it further, because, well, I like you. )
Is that not an inconsistent treatment?
Cadet: Trust your feelings, Captain.
Duck Dodgers: No, I'm pretty sure I'm going to use this expensive targeting computer.
#24. To: rowdee (#18)
God often used opposing tribes to execute judgment against the idol worshippers. And what is interesting is it doesn't matter whether it is his chosen people or not...they get punished for false god worshipping. So the builder of perfect balance and sublime creation has a preference of one tribe and makes it's enemies his own? Sounds like something they wrote about themselves, justas every tribe of that day glorified themselves. In Exodus (somewhere in 12 I think) the Lord made mention of how the gods of Egypt would be judged harshly. Not idols mind you, but gods. Nobody these days believes in Ra, but Yahweh seemed to. That seems to mirror what the pre-scientific scribes would have thought far more then it would reflect the creator. Then he goes on to give instructions on how to properly keep slaves (perfect compassion and love anyone?), to arbitrate crimes involving oxen, how to build a synagogue with a proper tabernacle having the right amounts and forms of gold (which on the molecular level is nomore special than granite) and finally how to keep it lit with clean olive oil (I guess he didn't foresee Edison). Not to mention proper burnt sacrifice offering, not to plant diffeent crops in the same field (despite crop rotation being a proven method of increasing yield), and to keep ones hair long in the temples (Starvind might have an edge over you here). So thinking critically (I know it's hard, but try anyway) we see that this doctrine is not scalable, applicable or relevant to anyone outside of that time and region. The scientific misconceptions from the creation story hence are as laughable as any archaic mythology with monsters and talking animals and superhuman exploits. But many take this one seriously. Why? Out of habit.
#25. To: Moldi-Box (#24)
Interesting handle you've got there..
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#26. To: Starwind (#17)
No,but it's up to you to explain how they got the material for their gospels ,since they weren't present at what they write about ;Their writings must be heresay and not eyewitness accounts. Is heresay admissable in a court of law ?
And there we have it. Mislabel them as apostles and then argue with no biblical basis whatsoever that only apostles can be eyewitnesses and write gospels. QED.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
Something to think about.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#28. To: Steppenwolf (#26)
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? Your proof for example they weren't in the crowd at the feeding of the 5,000 or the healing of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus' robe, or the demoniac boy, or in the crowds who were shouting to Pilate for Barrabas to be exchanged for Jesus, etc? And, FWIW, yes there are instances where "heresay" is admissable in a court of law. And you're free to dismiss the argument as unproven.
since they [the gospel writers] weren't present at what they write about
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#29. To: rowdee (#20)
Thank you rowdee for your encouraging words.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#30. To: Starwind (#28)
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them. Nor were they translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts -- such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived. But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.
This is, of course, an unsubstantiated assumption on your part, unless of course you have some proof to post that they weren't ever eyewitnesses at any of it? ......No the writers of the Gospels were GREEK and wrote in greek. Enlighten yourself..... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#31. To: Starwind (#27)
What do you think of Matthew 27:52-53, where it says "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Do you believe that happened? Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#32. To: Steppenwolf (#30)
Disciples (followers) are not Apostles, and no they were not all fishermen: The Romans were occupiers of the country for several decades, and before that Alexander the Great in 332 BC conquered the country and began the Hellenization of the Jews which included imposition of Greek language and culture. So by Jesus day the culture was a mix of Jew, Greek and Roman, but Greek had become the universal and nearly international language in Palestine and elsewhere as a consequence of Alexander the Great's Hellenization program. Well considering John was the only Jewish Gospel writer and the imposition of the Hellenistic period and Romans, that's not terribly surprising. Further in Jewish culture, the writing skills (Aramaic) were predominantly found among the educated Pharisees and scribes and used largely to copy the Jewish religious scrolls and transcribe the teachings of the Hebrew sages. So given Aramaic was largely written by Pharisees and scribes, none of whom were Jesus' disciples, and that the gospel writers were all steeped in a Greek- language culture due to 300+ years of Hellenization, and except possibly for John, the gospel writers had "professional" as opposed to fishermen's backgrounds, it is quite natural the gospels were written in Greek. There is also the likelihood that because when the gospels were being written, Christ had already been crucified and resurrected and had commanded them to "make disciples of all nations", such discipling of all nations would be more effective in Greek than Aramaic.
Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen.
His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic -- the popular language of Palestine in that age.
But the Gospels are written in Greek -- every one of them.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#33. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
Yes, I take it on faith as true because I have no evidence of the bible being false (just miraculous) and I have other compelling evidence that some of the key bible teachings are verifiable and true - so I take as all true. It is a reasonable question. But there are many instances of something miraculous only being reported by one gospel writer: And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
Do you believe that happened?
Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
It wasn't ignored. It was written down once. But the real issue is would you believe it if only it had been written down four times?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#34. To: Starwind (#27)
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself wihch could have been written to make the pieces fit? And even Yahweh seems to have misconceptions as to what a year is. He told the Israelites a year begins on Passover, in Abib which would be late April right? Ask any farmer if he can consider April 25th the be the beginning of the year for planting purposes. Again science trumps baseless faith. And thanks for bringing up Jesus who taught that one shouldn't collect wealth in this life because this world is of the devil and that anyone who is rewarded here shouldn't expect to be rewarded in the kingdom of God. But OT Yahweh made Abraham, Isaac, Laban, Joseph, Jacob et all exceedingly rich. Did the devil inherit the world sometime after that point? And why does this world belong to the dark prince when God created it and allowed sin to enter against his (omnipotent) will? You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem.
it is true and verifiable.
#35. To: Starwind (#33)
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit?
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#36. To: Starwind, Elliott Jackalope (#33)
And the stare of Medusa turned men into stone. And the minotaur truly existed and was terrible to behold. And the sirens called unwary sailors from their charted course to be forever trapped. And I know Zeus is real because we have conversations every Thursday following prime time t.v. etc... etc... Mythology = mythology Yahweh has all the characteristics of what you would expect from a tribal diety - craving for burnt altar sacrifices, advice for situations of the day, a keen eye for pretty shiny things like gold, a wrathful temperment, a ornery disposition toward the lesser gods which he made note of many time (and whom created these lesser gods BTW). And why did this ostentatious diety stop making appearences in person and in burning bushes and pillars of fire and thunderous clouds at some point? Why did he send his son (which some fruitloops claim is really him) to do his talking for him in the NT, you know, the book where he ceased being an angry, warring, partial-to-one-tribe ruler and instead became perfect love, forgiving and compassionate?
Matt 9:27 Jesus heals many blind and mute Mark 7:31-37 Healing the deaf and mute man Luk 22:50-51 replaced the ear of the high priest's servant at Jesus arrest John 5:1-9 healing the paralyzed man at Bethesda pool
#37. To: Moldi-Box (#34)
You didn't read the link. Most of the essay is cites of extra-biblical historical records of kings that verify and corroborate the timeline of the biblical prophecy. lol - you definitely didn't read the link. If you would please, post exact quotes, from that link, wherein I danced around questions about the creation story, Adam naming creatures, Neanderthals, or dinosaurs. I know those questions aren't there, but you don't know that because you didn't read the link. You assumed and you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
Verifiable. Now I'm interested. What corroborating material confirms this except the bible itself which could have been written to make the pieces fit?
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#38. To: Starwind (#37)
Let's try again with less interference: If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)?
you're blowing smoke, hoping no one will notice.
#39. To: Moldi-Box (#38)
lol - what happened to your interest in verifiable corroborative material. That presumption that the bible was no different than mythical literature. When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject. 'smatter? Did you finally read the link and realize what a blunder you made, asserting that I had therein danced around questions that now you finally realize aren't there and never were?
Let's try again with less interference:
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#40. To: Starwind (#39)
No. The bible cannot corroborate itself. What other piece of contemporary record refers to Jesus' baptism. That's what I was asking for. You raised a dust could with your link thinking it would placate me. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation which made you angry, defensive and evasive. Like you're doing now when I asked similar questions which require answers to prove the validity of the OT and NT alike. (And which you want to divert the subject away from BTW) Go ahead now, floor's yours.
When given a link to something verifiable and substantive, you didn't read it, and when called on it, you're changing the subject.
#41. To: Moldi-Box (#40)
Man, what the hell are you smoking? You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking that, if real, would have you in an ICU...
if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#42. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#40)
By the way, I'm not trying to "win" or "prove" anything, my objective is to figure out the truth. I'm a big fan of truth, and I really like intelligent debate purposed towards finding the truth. I'm a lot less interested in "winning" or "proving" anything than I am in finding the truth. Starwind, I have a question for you. Have you ever heard of Abdul Bahá'u'lláh? He founded a faith called the Bahai. The reason I mention him is because of several things, first because his writings were actually written by him, within the last hundred years or so, there's no problem with translation errors or second hand accounts, what he wrote is what he wrote. Secondly, there are a number of miracles attributed to him that were witnessed by many people. Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, his writings are very inspirational and seem to have a great amount of wisdom behind them. The Bahai's that I've met have been extremely nice people, what could be called "salt of the Earth" types, generous, kind and wise. No, I'm not a Bahai, and I'm not trying to promote that particular faith. But if I were to embrace a faith, I'd be a lot more inclined to follow something where the words written down were actually penned by the prophet in question, where the teachings are filled with wisdom and inspiration, and where the idea is not to terrify people into believing by threatening them with the undifferentiated absolute of total awfulness for not prostrating themselves before the deity in question, but pointing out the wisdom of living life in accordance with Godly principles versus living life in the pursuit of selfish desires. Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment? Please don't use the ol' "God has his standards, we are not to judge them" argument. That is nothing more than intellectual prostration before yet another undifferentiated absolute, and I'm not going to go for it. Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant? Because to be perfectly honest, Christianity led me to hate God. Abandoning Christianity has allowed me to begin contemplating God again, and has allowed me to consider the possibility that perhaps God is not an evil tyrant after all, but a source of light and love and life. But then I go to read the Bible, and after just a few pages I find myself hating God again. Why is that? Why should a decent person find themselves hating God from reading the Bible? Could it have something to do with the cruel behavior and standards imposed by the God of the Bible? Perhaps the most "true" religion of all is the one that leads a person to God, and the most "false" religions are the ones that drive people away from God? Perhaps Christianity works for you, but it doesn't for me and for many others. Do you really believe God wants his children to hate and fear him? I don't, and for me Christianity leads me to hate God. Therefore I reject Christianity, because I would much rather have good feelings towards God, and aspire to grow nearer to Him than to push myself ever further away. Therefore I reject Christianity, and I reject Judiasm and I reject Islam, so there's at least two Hells waiting for me, simply because I'd rather like God and want to please him, instead of hating and cringing and fearing Him. P.S. You want to know my real opinion on "life, God, the universe and everything" (TM)? Here's what I think. Religions have real power because they start with real experiences that people have, experiences that through whatever mechanism or method allow people to momentarily see beyond the veil of reality and perceive the larger reality that this world is a subset of. These experiences change these people profoundly, and change the lives of people around them as well. Then others begin to move in on the action, creating ritual and legend and mythos surrounding the original revelation, and after enough time the ritual and legends and mythos become institutionalized religions, with all of the politics and statecraft and intrigue and generic human grotesqueness that comes along with the behavior of those more interested in power than they are in truth. And so the original power of the vision becomes diffused and dimmed and distorted, and the institution becomes more corrupt and oppressive and worldly. This is why people who are religious have the depth of faith that they do, because when you unwrap all of the nonsense piled on by people over centuries you'll find a core of real truth there, and this is also why those who disbelieve any particular religion have the convictions they do, because there are very good reasons to not believe once one has seen what the original vision led to. Well, that's my essay for the evening. Apologies to all who waded through all of this and found it lacking in value. At least know that I did my honest best to speak what I think is the truth.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#43. To: Axenolith (#41)
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning? The one where he dodges explaining why man-like hominids are on the fossil record? Maybe you can pick up for him there.
You are undergoing a rhetorical ass kicking
#44. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Excellent post EJ. Near as I can tell there are only ever two impetuses for being Christian: self-preservation (avoiding hell) and for gain (glorious afterlife), rarely if ever for any other sake. How noble is it to live life simply to stay out of jail or flatter a wealthy benefactor in hopes of an inheritance? To the philosophic mind there must be something more. Of course, maybe this is why per Revelations only 144,000 names will be written in the book of life - because the other hundres of millions of Christians really arent?
Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant?
#45. To: Elliot Jackalope, Starwind (#35)
EJ. the apostles nor disciples were joined at the hip, thus each seeing everything exactly the same. Recall that after the crucification that a number of them saw the resurrected Jesus, and doubting Thomas said he wouldn't believe it unless or until he could put his fingers in the nailprints. When Jesus next appeared, He encouraged Thomas to do so. Additionally, there can be tons of witnesses to an event. Some will say they didn't see anything. Others saw a dark blue car, for instance, while another swears it was black, and yet another would say it was red. Or that a perp was wearing jeans and a sweatshirt, when he was wearing khaki shorts and a polo shirt. Did any of the witnesses write down what they saw? Chances are there is at least one that would have--because they figured they would need it to refresh their memories should they be required to testify in court. I did this a whole lot when I was younger. I was trained in stenography. From when I first began training, I would write down things I observed or listened to--all in the chickenscratching called Gregg's shorthand. It got to be a habit. Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it.
#46. To: rowdee (#45)
Would resurrected saints appear to non-believers or skeptics? I personally doubt it. Question: Since this event is supposed to have happened at the time of the crucifixion, the total number of believers in Christianity numbered what, less than a hundred? Maybe less than twenty-five? So your argument is that these saints were resurrected, but didn't appear before any non-believers? So they were resurrected for the behalf of a tiny group of people, but stayed hidden (or were non-visible) for everyone else? Hate to say it, but that just doesn't make any sense, and your argument is actually a good example of the kind of mental and logical gymnastics people go through when trying to make sense of the nonsensical. Yet another reason why I'm not a fan of religion, because every belief system comes with a set of shared beliefs and shared denials, and I'm just not willing to turn a blind eye to inconvenient facts.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#47. To: Elliott Jackalope (#46)
Jesus Christ had more followers, it seems, than 100. It isn't recorded how many saints, or which saints, resurrected, nor to who all they appeared. I could speculate that some saw them for the purpose of uplifting spiritually the new Christians. Why would you believe resurrected saints would appear before non-believers? Would they have recognized them as saints? I could also speculate that resurrected saints could have included the likes of Daniel, King Hezekiah, Aaron, etc. It's my understanding that a 'christian' is a follower of Jesus Christ. I personally believe the word has been bastardized in the modern times due to the many who use and abuse it---sort of like the bastardization of the word 'conservative'. However, just because this has been done doesn't mean that I am going to throw away my core beliefs. I certainly don't march in lock- step with any religious sect or demonination. And I definitely don't play the 'to be a christian you do do this and don't do that' routine. I'm still very new at this. While I grew up in a protestant church, shortly after my teen years, I was out of it and stayed away and out of it (a long story). I know the events I've been involved in over the last 7 - 8 years are real, not some fignment of my imagination. I'm the first to tell you that I am weak, I am a long ways from perfect, that God really has his work cut out in trying to perfect me as a saint. It seems like I go 2 steps forward, and then somehow fall back a step. My falling back may be different than yours or someone elses'. I'm not your judge....hell, I'm not even my own judge. He'll handle that. But in the mean time......when it is all said and done, living a christian life isn't bad or not fun. There's lots of people that try to make it that way, but they are wrong.....they are sticking man-made rules out there to live by. I refuse to do that. Ya know, growing up we were not allowed to dance. Never had a legit reason as to why we couldn't, but some bullshit about it being sinful. Well, la te dah, Mom and Dad.........King David, the beloved of God, DANCED! And how he danced, and sang, and played music! And celebrated! And threw a party! Why do christians have to be painted as mournful, dour, miserable people? Others may feel somewhat differently than I. I'm comfortable in my shoes, though I have some issues to work through with Him. I need to get off here and into MY bible study.......I'm behind already. Will check in later.
#48. To: Starwind (#33)
There is absolutely nothing to show that these Gospels -- the only sources of authority as to the existence of Christ -- were written until a hundred and fifty years after the events they pretend to describe. Walter R. Cassels, the learned author of "Supernatural Religion," one of the greatest works ever written on the origins of Christianity, says: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Christ." How can Gospels which were not written until a hundred and fifty years after Christ is supposed to have died, and which do not rest on any trustworthy testimony, have the slightest value as evidence that he really lived? History must be founded upon genuine documents or on living proof. Were a man of to-day to attempt to write the life of a supposed character of a hundred and fifty years ago, without any historical documents upon which to base his narrative, his work would not be a history, it would be a romance. Not a single statement in it could be relied upon.
And all of it did make an impact on society. News of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth changed the world.
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#49. To: Moldi-Box (#43)
The part where you enter the fray with a stick up your ass for Christians, and then wander aimlessly off topic to try to change the subject of the discussions original intent. You could have entered the fray intelligently, but you reeked of disingenuity. AFAIC, the creation story of Genesis doesn't specifically preclude the preexistence of the earth. Understanding Genesis is not a prerequisite to believing or accepting the New Testament and the sacrifice of Jesus. That event is easy to understand, and the occurances and characters within the event are also described by extra-biblical sources. When you read a description of the history of the earth from the standpoint of the fossil record, your reading a distillation of a hell of a lot of information. As in any materially physical subjects operating theory, the ones constructing it tend to collect the supportive data and discard the non supportive. There's nothing wrong with that if the resultant theory works (i.e. you can find oil with it, or construct a continental evolutionary model which concludes with accepting plate tectonics). You still have periferal data (like finding penecontemporaneous fossils which are generally accepted to not have existed at the same time or mineral asseblages in which different components date differently) that doesn't fit in, so it's not like the secular model of the Earth is set in stone...
Okay Dudley, if you say so. But out of curiousity, what point(s) specifically is Starvind winning?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#50. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
Just a few words -- this is exactly and precisely where I come from. And Western Culture knows a great deal less truth than it thinks it does.
... I love truth, I hate lies ...
#51. To: Elliott Jackalope (#42)
This is scary, I think you and my husband are one and the same. This is a description of him and he's expressed these same sentiments and questions to me and others verbatim. You know, EJ, I've said this many times. It's as simple as this, imo. You either believe that the bible is the infallible, divine word of God, or you don't.
Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment?
#52. To: Axenolith (#49)
Sorry I made it so simple. Too simple maybe, but prophesy is easy after the fact. Sheeit, I can even tell you who won the AFC championship last year. See. That's why I asked Starvind for something corroborative. To which he pointed to a link with, you guessed it bible verse. I asked other questions because I'm legitimately curious and the burden of proof is squarely on the believer. AFAIC, the creation story of Genesis doesn't specifically preclude the preexistence of the earth. Understanding Genesis is not a prerequisite to believing or accepting the New Testament and the sacrifice of Jesus. Original sin is highly in doubt when we know, factually that meat-eating animals preceded humans. The latter supposedly being responsible for natural disharmony. Prior to Adam and Eve, green herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Explain then why T. Rex had large sharp teeth and I'll be sold on the religion without all the interference. No original sin = no need for redemption. Simple, huh?
The part where you enter the fray with a stick up your ass for Christians, and then wander aimlessly off topic to try to change the subject of the discussions original intent.
#53. To: Elliott Jackalope (#35)
I just wanted to say that, speaking for myself, the lack of contemporary references to some of the miracles supposedly done by Jesus is a major reason why I am not a believer. There were a number of historians and writers who lived around that time, some pro-Rome, some anti-Rome, some Jewish, some Gentile, yet none of them recorded dead saints being resurrected at the time of the crucifixion. Doesn't that concern you even a little bit? As you are obviously aware, outside the Bible and the writings of the church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, there is scant historical record of Jesus, let alone any miracles. I've listed below what I consider to be the best historical sources but they are references to Jesus' historicity rather than any miracles. Regarding your specific issue with no historical references to: Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many. Drawing some insights from other bible passages, chiefly the resurrection of Lazurus of Bethany (John 11:1-44) and the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31), I would suggest a couple things: The point being, as stunning an event as it is, it would only be recognizable as such if one happened to see a tomb open and a body rise or if one happened to recognize someone known to be deceased. It isn't clear either how many such saints arose. Does "many" means a few dozen, a few hundred, thousand, ten thousand...? What does puzzle me (and the bible is silent on this) is what happened to those risen saints later? Did they live out normal lives or did they " ascend" when Jesus ascended? I dunno. But if they lived out normal lives after having been resurrected, then the lack of any further mention or historical reporting of their experience would be very puzzling. One assumes the risen saints would spread the story themselves if they had an opportunity to do so. OTOH, the Pharisees (and Romans) were discrediting Jesus as it was, and after His crucifixion only His true followers continued to believe, assemble and speak out (and some were martyred for it). So perhaps the rest of the unbelieving population was cowed into silence. Again, I dunno. Considering also that in the 1st century, there were no printing presses or typewriters, news papers, internet blogs; there were just handwritten letters and books, so it is not surprising there are so few contemporaneous records at all beyond the Christian and Jewish writings. Keep in mind too that Jesus' ministry (and miracles) only spanned about 3.5 years and were spread over an area less than the size of New Jersey, and for the 1st year or so Jesus was trying to keep a low profile. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) if, for example, Josephus had written that there had been reports of deceased people visiting families shortly after Christ's resurrection, is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? What evidence is enough? That is a sincere question. I'm trying to gauge how far you need to take this evidentiary requirement until you believe. Below then are the extra-biblical historical records I believe are reliable. Josephus, Jewish Antiqities (english) (18,63) SEDITION OF THE JEWS AGAINST PONTIUS PILATE. CONCERNING CHRIST, AND WHAT BEFELL PAULINA AND THE JEWS AT ROME, [63] Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities (english) 20, 200 CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA. [197] AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, 1 who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Mara bar Sarapion (see page 21-22) 60;What good did it do the Athenians to kill Socrates, for which deed they were punished with famine and pestilence? What did it avail the Samians to burn Pythagoras, since their country was entirely buried under sand in one moment? Or what did it avail the Jews to kill their wise king , since their kingdom was taken away from them from that time on? God justly avenged these three wise men. The Athenians died of famine, the Samians were flooded by the sea, the Jews were slaughtered and driven from their kingdom, everywhere living in the dispersion. Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato; nor Pythagoras, because of Hera57;s statue. Nor is the wise king, because of the new law he has given.61; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1:25. (this letter is supposedly in the British Museum) Pliny, Governor of Bithynia: Letter to the Emperor Trajan ...These first said they were Christians, then denied it, insisting they had been, "but were so no longer"; some of them having " recanted many years ago," and more than one "full twenty years back. " These all worshiped your image and the god's statues and cursed the name of Christ. But they declared their guilt or error was simply this---on a fixed day they used to meet before dawn and recite a hymn among themselves to Christ, as though he were a god. So far from binding themselves by oath to commit any crime, they swore to keep from theft, robbery, adultery, breach of faith, and not to deny any trust money deposited with them when called upon to deliver it. This ceremony over, they used to depart and meet again to take food---but it was of no special character, and entirely harmless. They also had ceased from this practice after the edict I issued---by which, in accord with your orders, I forbade all secret societies. Suetonius (see pp 17-18) He expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus. "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44) If you're interested in further study, you might consider the following. I suggest them not because their content is particularly compelling, but because they are balanced discussions of the differing viewpoints, but what I always find most useful are the footnotes and bibliographies which identify where to get more details. Theissen, Gerd & Merz, Annette Merz; The Historical Jesus - A comprehensive Guide; Fortress Press, Minneapolis - 1996. (read a review here) Bruce, F.F. New Testament Documents - Are They Reliable? 6th Ed.; Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids Michigan - 1981 And here are a couple websites with similar (but far less) bibliographical information. Intellectual Foundations of the Christian Faith Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus Existence (pp 15-29)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#54. To: Starwind (#53)
The risen saints would (like Lazarus of Bethany after being resurrected) have normal physical bodies and accordingly would not appear odd to anyone. Bullfeathers. If nobody knew they had been dead, their appearing to many would have little significance and sure wouldn't require that special qualifier. I mean what good is Ancient Near-East fanfare if nobody bows in somber humility? The risen saints would likely have gone to see friends and family, either to those who disbelieved that there was a 'place of torment' for which they were destined (as the rich man wanted to warn his brothers about), or to those who would be comforted knowing eternal life in Jesus was true. Comfort knowing Jesus is the true redeemer? You mean there are people who could disbelieve such a solid testament? The fuck you say. Maybe it's the lack of modern day miracles like the stopping of time, animals with human voices and personal appearances of the almighty. While I understand your desire for proof (and you seem to have hung a lot on this particular event) Translation: How dare you keep questioning one of many highly doubtable points of my religion. People can live inside whale stomachs for an extended period of time, a darkness covering an entire land can exclude itself from chosen people's dwellings and the creator can appear in person and order Ezekiel to eat doo-doo. is that all it would take for you to believe or are there yet many more evidentiary hurdles? Why, you trying to gain converts? You have one right here if you can prove meat-eating animals did not precede humans and thus giving validity to the concept of original sin. Go!
Mat 27:52-53 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; (53) and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
#55. To: Starwind (#32)
There is also the likelihood that the Gospels were written by men who lived long after Jesus death and were writing from wild stories they'd been told .I don't think there is any proof the writers were Jesus contemporaries.
There is also the likelihood that because when the gospels were being written, Christ had already been crucified and resurrected and had commanded them to "make disciples of all nations", such discipling of all nations would be more effective in Greek than Aramaic
God bless the postman , who brings the mail. God bless the cowboy , out on the trail. Bless the circus acrobat, never let her fall. God bless the folks I love, God bless them all !!!
#56. To: All (#54)
Just a quick observation on libertarians (god, i despise political labels).
I find it amusing that Libertarians are tolerant of most things; one can
crawl across the border and be given full access to our system. Drugs? No
problem, take them as needed. Moral standards? No thank you, they aren‘t
necessary. But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration
stops dead in its tracks. I have no idea if the bible is the word of god or
not, but I don’t disparage those who believe it is. Hell, for all I know they
might be right. Right?
#57. To: Starwind (#53)
The writings of Joesphus that you cite have been used by Christian apologists for centuries. However, they are rather controversial, and many scholars believe them to be a "pious fraud" inserted into later translations of his work by Christian monks. Being as Josephus was known for writing entire chapters about relatively minor characters, it's rather puzzling that he would expend such a scant effort writing about a major prophet. The other references you cite are interesting, and I'll have to look into those further before making any sort of judgement on them. However, there is no debate as to whether or not there were early Christians in Rome after the time of Jesus, so referring to works that cite instances involving activities of Christians in and of themselves is of limited usefulness in determining the divinity of Jesus.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#58. To: Elliott Jackalope (#57)
You might find the books I referenced useful as they weigh the pros and cons of the argument, coming down on the side of reliability as you might imagine, but they do fairly and comprehensively explore the more scholarly objections. You'll find therein a few extra-biblical sources I did not mention (like the Babylonian Talmud and "Thallus") where, at least to me, the case for reliability is too questionable. Also, as I mentioned, the bibliographies are excellent leads to dig deeper into whatever interests you, pro or con. Of course I would not expect any secular writing of any period to be useful in determining Jesus' divinity. The Bible alone declares that to be true, non-secular writings debate that pro and con, but secular writings are largely on the sidelines, whether of the 1st or 21st century. Secular writings (including the historical and archeological record) only serve to corroborate the Bible's references to historical events. That Jesus actually lived, for example, as a real person somewhere, sometime in history can be supported by the writings of Josephus, et al. One can debate Jesus's divinity, but then the debate is thus around a person who lived and did something debatable.
The writings of Joesphus that you cite have been used by Christian apologists for centuries. However, they are rather controversial, and many scholars believe them to be a "pious fraud" inserted into later translations of his work by Christian monks. Being as Josephus was known for writing entire chapters about relatively minor characters, it's rather puzzling that he would expend such a scant effort writing about a major prophet.
However, there is no debate as to whether or not there were early Christians in Rome after the time of Jesus, so referring to works that cite instances involving activities of Christians in and of themselves is of limited usefulness in determining the divinity of Jesus.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#59. To: crack monkey (#0)
The definition of being a Christian in America, is to be a useless dupe, for the Israeli Proxy state, and a sheep that is fleeced with great regularity.
 | So many morons, so few bullets. |
#60. To: Jethro Tull (#56)
Agreed. They're not terribly useful or informative, not even "Christian" labels. :-/ Agreed again. While the Bible does make radical claims that jar ones human preconceptions, one would think "libertarian toleration" would explore those claims with less hostility.
god, i despise political lables
But when one mentions religion and the bible, libertarian toleration stops dead in it's tracks.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#61. To: Starwind (#60)
I find it curious that anyone could dismiss, with the flick of the hand, the
life and teaching of a man who *did* live and die with what I consider a
virtuous philosophy. This argument isn’t about dinosaurs and DNA. It’s about a
belief system that has endured for more that 2,000 years. Perhaps, there’s
something to it. An open mind is a terrible thing to close (g)
#62. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
Yes, perhaps :) Classic keeper quote! I'll add it to my collection. Your's or does attribution go to someone else (even anonymous)?
Perhaps, there's something to it.
An open mind is a terrible thing to close (g)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#63. To: Starwind (#62)
No, it's mine. As far as I know.
#64. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
So you consider a "virtuous philosophy" to be one that threatens those who disagree with violent, horrifying and eternal punishment? For example, say I'm a proponent of "Jackalopism", which states that everyone should be kind and courteous and virtuous, and anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before the Jackalope shall be burned to death. Would that be something that you would consider a "virtuous philosophy"?
I find it curious that anyone could dismiss, with the flick of the hand, the life and teaching of a man who *did* live and die with what I consider a virtuous philosophy.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#65. To: Elliott Jackalope (#64)
Nope. "Jackalopism" would not have survived the test of time. OTOH, Christianity has.
For example, say I'm a proponent of "Jackalopism", which states that everyone should be kind and courteous and virtuous, and anyone who doesn't prostrate themselves before the Jackalope shall be burned to death. Would that be something that you would consider a "virtuous philosophy"?
#66. To: Jethro Tull (#65)
As has Islam and Judaism.. Interestingly, all surround one man in the Old Testament. Being more than simply a set of written laws, Christianity is the most unique and complex of the three.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#67. To: Jethro Tull (#65)
By that metric, we would have to concede the "truth" of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judiaism, Islam, Shinto, animism and goodness knows how many other belief systems, most of which conflict with and contradict each other. Not a very convincing argument.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#68. To: Jethro Tull, Starwind (#56)
Starwind is a Libertarian ;)
#69. To: Jhoffa_ (#66)
Bingo J. I believe Jesus lived, walked among us, and died a horrific death. Why is it one man has had such a profound influence on so many? I haven’t a clue, this after a childhood of boneheaded religious indoctrination (Catholic school). Anyway, I can’t help but feel sorry for those who think that this life is all that there is. Not to say St. Pete will have the doors open for me when I depart, but religion, at best, is a hedge bet for the wise.
#70. To: christine (#68)
LOL! Exposed!
Starwind is a Libertarian
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#71. To: Elliott Jackalope (#67)
Whatever floats your boat. All of the above work for those who are adherents. I have NO problem with their belief system, nor do I care.
By that metric, we would have to concede the "truth" of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judiaism, Islam, Shinto, animism and goodness knows how many other belief systems, most of which conflict with and contradict each other. Not a very convincing argument.
#72. To: Jethro Tull (#69)
Very impressive and very thoughtful.. especially considering your indoctrination. I wish you well in your Christian endeavor.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#73. To: Starwind, Jethro Tull (#60)
I don't think it's libertarians, per se, that are intolerant of christians and disparage them. I think it's more accurate to say that atheists are likely to be intolerant and critical of christians. Most of my christian patriot friends are of the libertarian persuasion.
#74. To: christine (#68)
There you go...bring factual data into a fine argument. Have you no shame???????
Starwind is a Libertarian
#75. To: Jethro Tull (#74)
i'm arguin' with you in #73. :P
#76. To: christine (#73)
Yep.
I think it's more accurate to say that atheists are likely to be intolerant and critical of christians
#77. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#73)
Hence the problem with labels and broad-brush depictions. :-/
I don't think it's libertarians, per se, that are intolerant of christians and disparage them. I think it's more accurate to say that atheists are likely to be intolerant and critical of christians. Most of my christian patriot friends are of the libertarian persuasion.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#78. To: christine (#75)
argue THIS.
i'm arguin' with you in #73
#79. To: Jethro Tull (#76)
It wasn't athiests who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake, or who forced Galileo under threat of burning at the stake to recant his view that the Earth moved around the sun.
I think it's more accurate to say that atheists are likely to be intolerant and critical of christians
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#80. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#73)
I'm an atheist and a libertarian, and when I attack "Christians" it's not because of their religious beliefs, it's because they are hiding behind their religious beliefs to advance their political agenda, although I must admit I go a bit overboard from time to time. For some religion is a great thing, but I'm afraid for most it is simply another vicious pack which they can be a part of.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#81. To: Starwind (#60)
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
While the Bible does make radical claims that jar ones human preconceptions, one would think "libertarian toleration" would explore those claims with less hostility.
#82. To: Elliott Jackalope, Dakmar (#79)
To cherry pick historical obscenities to advance an argument is nuts. I won’t do it. I despise many of today's so called Christians. I simply put forward tolerance to those who believe.
It wasn't athiests who burned Giordano Bruno at the stake
#83. To: Jethro Tull (#61)
Believing this system requires one to place faith inordinately ahead of the intellect. That's a sin because the intellect is what drives progress of makind. Not willful ignorance. It's time we put pre-scientific, ignorant and paranoid rantings where they belong. It’s about a belief system that has endured for more that 2,000 years. Perhaps, there’s something to it.
And yes, dinosaurs (and pre-human hominids) do matter to this discussion because they disprove, entirely any notion of original sin. Even Starvind's mentor Gerald Schroeder knew this and laughably attempted to explain their place in Genesis in the Science of God.
Starvind on the other hand dances around the issue like Fred Astair.
#84. To: Jethro Tull (#69)
There you have it. The religious pine for post-mortem ethereal real estate. I'd better change my tune and get my bid in because the point of all sublime creation might actually be a celestial time-share.
but religion, at best, is a hedge bet for the wise.
#85. To: Moldi-Box (#83)
And faith is inappropriate? Who are we to dismiss a belief system?
Believing this system requires one to place faith
#86. To: Moldi-Box (#81)
Because, no doubt, in His compassion He uses your silliness to induce others to read Ezekiel, and thus learn the truth for themselves, and expose your illiteracy and deception for all to see in the process.
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#87. To: Moldi-Box (#84)
That's your choice. But to dismiss (and disparage) those who believe is intolerant. Why do you give a shit?
I'd better change my tune and get my bid in because the point of all sublime creation
#88. To: Jethro Tull (#85)
And faith is inappropriate? When it impedes progress and proliferates ignorance, yes. Who are we to dismiss a belief system? Pragmatists. That's who. I dismiss many belief systems and so do you. Santaria, Voodoo, paganism, polytheists, the Cult of Bush. I could go on for days. A sociology teacher once noted that even though everyone might be equally entitled to a belief that does not mean all beliefs are of equal value.
#89. To: Jethro Tull (#87)
Because I care about honesty. I've never seen a philospher pass a collection plate or a scientist ask for a 10% per annum tithe.
Why do you give a shit?
#90. To: Starwind (#86)
4:9 Take thou also unto thee wheat, and barley, and beans, and lentiles, and millet, and fitches, and put them in one vessel, and make thee bread thereof, according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon thy side, three hundred and ninety days shalt thou eat thereof. and thus learn the truth for themselves, and expose your illiteracy and deception for all to see in the process.
4:10 And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.
4:11 Thou shalt drink also water by measure, the sixth part of an hin: from time to time shalt thou drink.
4:12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
4:13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
The floor is yours Starvind. Point out my deception.
#91. To: Moldi-Box (#90)
Here is a more accurate (and obvious) NASB translation: Your illiteracy is in your inability to understand that when one bakes with "dung" it is like baking with electricity or gas, it doesn't mean one has added electricity or gas to the cake, let alone dung. But then perhaps your tastes vary. Your deception is in your deliberate trying to find the worst possible way to assert your viewpoint, and ignoring hundreds of years of commentaries that could have enlightened you, were that possible.
What universal need is met by the almighty all-compassionate creator ordering Ezekiel to eat doo-doo?
Eze 4:12 "You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung."
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#92. To: Starwind (#91)
I C&P'd that directly from the KJV. But let's see what's more common with google returns: search terms: ezekiel "4:12" "over human dung" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ezekiel+%224%3A12%22+%22over+human+dung%22&btnG=Search for 101 returns search terms: ezekiel "4:12" "with dung" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=ezekiel+%224%3A12%22+%22with+dung%22&btnG=Search for 1,380 returns So who's being dishonest now, Starvind? Even if I concede the point (which I don't need to since "eat it with dung" is over 10x more common), why would the almighty have people playing with, on or around doo-doo whilst cooking?
Your illiteracy is in your inability to understand that when one bakes with "dung" it is like baking with electricity or gas, it doesn't mean one has added electricity or gas to the cake, let alone dung.
#93. To: Starwind (#92)
Oh yeah, and while you're at it find the NASB translation for the verse following what we are arguing over: 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. So indeed the Lord was asking for something freaky, otherwise this addition wouldn't be necessary.
#94. To: Moldi-Box (#93)
That's that deception again.
So indeed the Lord was asking for something freaky, otherwise this addition wouldn't be necessary.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#95. To: Moldi-Box (#92)
lol - but then no where does the bible say "eat it with dung", but rather "eat it as barley cakes" ... and "bake it with dung" But then your illiteracy and deception doesn't let you see your own mistakes, now does it.
(which I don't need to since "eat it with dung" is over 10x more common),
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#96. To: Starwind (#94)
Do explain. We know by that passage that something unusual (and unnatural) was afoot. What did he mean by: 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. if the Lord was only asking him to eat barley cakes...
That's that deception again.
#97. To: Starwind (#96)
Well, I guess if you cant answer what I asked in #96 then you're the deceiver. You've adopted textbook Badeye-style. Accuse others of what you're guilty of (dishonesty in this case), and if you can't defend a point then divert, ignore or pretend it never happened. One more time: Do explain. We know by that passage that something unusual (and unnatural) was afoot. What did he mean by: 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. if the Lord was only asking him to eat barley cakes...
#98. To: Moldi-Box, starwind (#97)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Eze/Eze004.html I haven't read the whole thread but, God clearly tells Ezekiel to eat "Dung Bread"....what's this all about? (gettin hungry , Starwind?)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#99. To: Moldi-Box (#97)
I guess everybody's entitled to their opinion. As for me I concluded a long time ago that you're a no-good naysayer simply speaking doubt because you don't have anything better to do. now I see that your screen name is appropriate - because nothing good will come out of that moldy box. When your lid is opened just a foul smell comes out, nothing more.
Well, I guess if you cant answer what I asked in #96 then you're the deceiver.
#100. To: Moldi-Box (#88)
god, moldi, you're putting me in the position to defend
something I'm not enamored with. Proliferate THIS…… right or wrong,
Christians are here to stay. How they got here is a miracle, no? Could
falsehoods and lies sustain it for 2,000 years?
Santaria, Voodoo, paganism, polytheists, the Cult of Bush
#101. To: Flintlock, moldi-box (#98)
Now that's just all kinds of weird. This is why I stay away from dogma.
Malachi 2-3: Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#102. To: Dakmar (#101)
Witch, Imp. No question a familiar.
#103. To: Dakmar (#101)
The whole thing is a little too Static-X for me
Now that's just all kinds of weird.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#104. To: Jethro Tull (#102)
Wow, they ripped that off from Slayer I think.
Leviticus 16:27 The bull for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried forth outside the camp; and they shall burn their skins, their flesh, and their dung with fire.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#105. To: Flintlock (#103)
Is that the opposite of Active-X?
Static-X
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#106. To: Jethro Tull (#102)
I'm working under the assumption you are joking, would that be a correct assumption? I'm not used to you sounding like b.Yelstin is all.
Witch, Imp. No question a familiar.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#107. To: Dakmar (#105)
Demon seed. Please don't direct your hate toward me. You know what I mean,,,
#108. To: Jethro Tull, dakmar (#107)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#109. To: Flintlock (#108)
Yes, Dakmar knows he's evil. I need to spit. BRB.
#110. To: Red Jones (#99)
now I see that your screen name is appropriate - because nothing good will come out of that moldy box. When your lid is opened just a foul smell comes out, nothing more. Fantastic. Is there a particular point you want to discuss or just stick with the ad hom?
As for me I concluded a long time ago that you're a no-good naysayer simply speaking doubt because you don't have anything better to do.
#111. To: Flintlock (#108)
Ooh, there's a good way to spread disease and psychosis.
Jeremiah 9:22 Speak, Thus says Yahweh, The dead bodies of men shall fall as dung on the open field, and as the handful after the harvester; and none shall gather them.
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#112. To: Jethro Tull (#100)
god, moldi, you're putting me in the position to defend something I'm not enamored with. That's your fault for trying to play Voltaire junior. Proliferate THIS…… right or wrong, Christians are here to stay. That's a new point to this thread. And it's true. It doesn't mean the concept of prostrating oneself before a tempermental sky-emperor who's personally offended by graven images, pork products and scientific achievement is justified. But okay. How they got here is a miracle, no? Not if you've studied the history of Eastern civilizations, mysticism and behavior. Basically every tribe thought it was chosen by their god(s) and their god(s) christened everything solely for their benefit. Instinsic in the development of this mysticism is the need for a benefactor in the flesh; a messiah. Ideally one who sacrifices for his cause, speaketh whole truth, and a miracle or two doesn't hurt either. Maybe Jesus was a idealistic man in the right place at the right time. Why else do the texts skip out on 30+ years of his life? The Greeks had this, the Carthaginians did, the Babylonians, the Mohammedians, the Mesopotamians, the Montenegrins. One caught on in the world at large and while better than the flavor of the day (Greek polytheism), it is nonetheless laughable given what we now know of Cosmonology, Physics, Atomics, Anthropology and Biology. Why did it catch on? Maybe the Hebrews had and continue to have good P.R. Could falsehoods and lies sustain it for 2,000 years? Given it's propigation from fear of punishment, ignorance, promises of bliss and the dishonesty of it's proponents (many of whom benefit monetarily). Then yes. You bet your ass.
#113. To: Moldi-Box (#110)
I'll say it flat-out (since you're dense); you're a liar and a naysayer. halleluliah jesus is king and you are not.
Fantastic. Is there a particular point you want to discuss or just stick with the ad hom?
#114. To: Flintlock, Starwind, all (#98)
That's what a brotha's trying to get an answer to and it's making other posters here mighty ornery. wtf?
I haven't read the whole thread but, God clearly tells Ezekiel to eat "Dung Bread"....what's this all about?
#115. To: Red Jones (#113)
you're a liar and a naysayer. And you reek of fermented juniper berries and reclaimed water. halleluliah jesus is king and you are not. Then shouldn't you have capitalized his name at least?
#116. To: Moldi-Box (#114)
And around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around and around we go. Man, religion is like an unsolvable puzzle for speed freaks. Watch people fritter away days, weeks, even years...
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#117. To: Elliott Jackalope (#116)
True. But part of finding ones own faith/philosophy/belief system is asking questions. The answers and disposition of it's believers is the most telling thing... If there's a hell, I'll be there with great writers like Twain and London, philosophers like Nietzsche and Schopenhauer and artists like Da Vinci (the Last Supper included scathing satire ). OTH, Starvind might be strolling the golden streets of Heaven with Tomas Torquemada, The Reverend Sharpton, Jimmy Swaggart, hordes of medieval ignorami, and one GW Bush who names Jesus Christ as his favorite pholosopher. I won't hedge my bets (like Jethro called it) on a doubtable promise of the post-mortem luxury suite. That would be selfish and childish.
Man, religion is like an unsolvable puzzle for speed freaks. Watch people fritter away days, weeks, even years...
#118. To: Moldi-Box (#117)
And many others. WTF are you posting here? Go back to whatever forums from which you were banished, with a new name, and stop posting your dreck here. Thanks much.
And a little child shall lead them.
#119. To: lodwick (#118)
Go back to whatever forums from which you were banished, with a new name, and stop posting your dreck here. Thanks much. Why the hostility Jim? If you don't want me posting then do what ElPee'rs do. Cry to a mod.
WTF are you posting here?
#120. To: Moldi-Box (#112)
Angry, vicious, anti-Christian. No problem with me, however, do this to a Jew and you’d be on report (g)
#121. To: Jethro Tull (#120)
Come to think about it, most of my beef on this thread was with the Old Testament. Uh oh.
Angry, vicious, anti-Christian. No problem with me, however, do this to a Jew and you’d be on report (g)
#122. To: Moldi-Box (#89)
Because both of those professions are able to parasitize us via the handouts of government. At least Christians ask... :-)
I've never seen a philospher pass a collection plate or a scientist ask for a 10% per annum tithe.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#123. To: Moldi-Box (#92)
Because excrement is commonly used as fuel in the Mideast and Africa.
Even if I concede the point (which I don't need to since "
eat it (you didn't even use that in the search!) with dung" is over 10x more common), why would the almighty have people playing with, on or around doo-doo whilst cooking?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#124. To: Moldi-Box (#110)
ARF! You're to much Yeasty-Boy...
Is there a particular point you want to discuss or just stick with the ad hom?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#125. To: Elliott Jackalope, Rowdee, *Bereans* (#42)
You have some incorrect premises and presumptions about God, If you would please, let me try to explain God's big picture. To understand what God expects and why, we begin with God's character attributes, from which everything else follows. God is: God is loving. Somewhat like a human who wants a faithful loving spouse on whom to lavish affection, gifts and kindness, God wants to lavish His love and gifts on someone. It is the very nature of Love to want to be loving, but on what? The answer is on mankind. God's creation is both spirit and flesh; spirit to be able to commune with God and love and worship God, but also flesh that is not equal with God but yet whom God cares about and whom God will eventually set over angels to judge. God, being Spirit, created man in His own image (a likeness to God's spirit but with a physiology that God the Son Himself, Jesus Christ, would eventually 'wear') to be loved by God, and to worship and love God in return. But to genuinely love requires free will. A preprogrammed or forced "love" is not love at all. So for God to be genuinely loved by His creation, that creation must have the free will to disobey as well as to love in return. But God is perfect. Disobedience is sin and God will not tolerate sin and sin cannot exist in God's presence. Somewhat like a deep sea diver, when surfacing, is killed by any excess nitrogen in their blood "boiling over", similarly, sinful man can not survive in the presence of God because God's holiness "boils over" any sin and kills the sinful man. The sin must be removed for the man to survive in God's presence, as well as for the man to be acceptable to God. God has perfect foreknowledge. God is 'outside of time' and knows the future, including the decisions we will or will not make. God foreknew when He created mankind (to be loved and to genuinely love God in return) that mankind would freely, willingly disobey and commit sin instead of love God. God is sovereign and has established laws of holy behavior (like the 10 commandments) and God is just. God cannot allow lawbreaking and sin to go unpunished. God does not let people off, plea bargain, waive penalties, or grant parole. And each of us, all of us (for there is no one righteous) freely, willingly have sinned and sold ourselves into eternal spiritual bondage. It was not what God wanted, but rather our disobedience (sin) was our own free will choice. We chose to disobey God instead of love God. And God knew that we would. But God is also merciful. God wants to forgive the disobedience and remove the sin from whomsoever freely and willingly wants the sin to be removed and to be forgiven. But the only person who can 'pay the death price' of sin (for the wages of sin are death) and still live afterward, is God. And so in an amazing act of mercy, love and self-sacrifice, God would sacrifice Himself (in Jesus Christ) on the Cross to pay the death penalty imposed by His own justice for all the sins of all mankind for all time. So, in God's plan, He chose Israel to be His people, to be both a living testimony of God's existence and character, and to bear the Messiah (God's salvation) Jesus Christ. And through the Hebrew people, God has demonstrated His character and offered salvation to all the world, first to the Jew then to the Gentile. That offer of salvation (redemption) is open to anyone who will accept. Anyone. But to make good on the offer of salvation, all of humanities sin's must be punished and paid for (because God is just). Because only a human can stand in humanities' place of punishment and only God's infinite perfection can afford to pay the price to redeem all humanity, God would sacrifice Himself as Jesus Christ. To do so, Jesus (and only Jesus) is 100% God and 100% human, both together. God substituted Himself as sinless Jesus on the Cross for us. Jesus got the sinful punishment due to us, we in exchange got Jesus' sinless perfection in God's eyes; quite an amazing, loving and merciful deal for us wouldn't you agree? The only expectation from God is that we (of our own God-given freewill): This goes back to the Old Testament sacrifices. Blood means and provides "life", while Sin results in "death". Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness for sin - that is what God has said in the bible. When someone offered a sacrifice they had to lay their hands on it in the presence of God and the high priest. The unblemished animal (a lamb of man, raised and brought by a man) was offered (killed, it's life blood drained out) as a substitute for their sin; an unblemished, innocent physical life exchanged for a guilty, blemished spiritual death. Laying their hands on their sacrifice was how they identified their personal guilt & sin with their personal innocent sacrifice - not for God's benefit but for their own acknowledgment and admission. Likewise, "acceptance" of Christ's sacrifice and offer of salvation is this same identification of each person's guilt of sin with their personal sacrifice, Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God. But in the Old Testament sacrifices, a mere animal was not sufficient to permanently pay for sin, it only "rolled it over" for another year. However, it taught the Israelites (and us): To disbelieve Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the Cross is to reject the only intermediary that stands between you and God's lawful righteous justice and penalty for sin. To reject Christ means to stand on your own two feet - without Him - at the white throne judgment. For those who reject Christ's offer, imagine the anger of a father whose son sacrificed his life in a war for a neighbor's kid and that kid says to the grieving father, "I didn't need or want your son to die for me, I can defend myself. Thanks but no thanks. Besides, you never really had a son, you old liar. " Now keep in mind God the Father experienced God the Son's suffering (both physical and spiritual) on the Cross and the Father also knew the Son's obedience and faithfulness (Christ shed His divine robes to take on human form). So also try to imagine God the Father's ultimate anger at those who would dismiss Jesus and His suffering as nonexistent, needless or trivial, or worse, try to exploit it for self-gain or to oppose God's purposes. The Lake of Fire awaits them. But for those who turn to Jesus, they do so because God's Love wins them over. Loyalty not taken in fear, but given in love. They think about: It's somewhat like Prince Charming finds (Sin)derella after the ball; she is dirty, filthy and oppressed by her wicked stepmother and stepsisters, despairing and hopeless in her condition; but the Prince, love in his eyes and heart, sees her for who she truly can be (a pearl of very great price), and so the Prince walks in, buys out the stepmother & stepsisters and says "I love you Cinderella. Please marry me, but wait for me (and only me) because I'll come back to get you and take you home with me to my kingdom and castle". That is something like what Jesus is offering us. Would you not shout His name to the rooftops for the kind of wonderful person He is? Christ's sacrifice was a redemption of us, like that of buying slaves (us) off the auction block from Satan. Believers in Christ were formerly captives to sin, while unbelievers still are captive to sin (and fear and pride as well), enslaved to both a sinful nature (a fleshly, carnal proclivity to disobey God's law) and destined for the ultimate penalty of eternal spiritual death, which is separation from God. That separation is possibly what Jesus experienced on the Cross when He cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Jesus' humanity was perhaps thinking: Where are you God? My entire eternal existence up to now was in close intimate contact with you, Abba (Daddy), but now I'm alone, in spiritual darkness, cutoff from contact. If it tormented Jesus, imagine the eternal torment of those condemned. But while we were yet slaves to sin on Satan's auction block, the only person who could afford the price stepped up and bought us. We were slaves. We had no say in the matter. Satan had no legal grounds to object, the asking price was offered. In fact Satan was delighted thinking Christ would be dead and Satan left to rule the slaves anyway. But God, raised Jesus from the dead. And Satan, who as the father of sin bore responsibility for Christ being accused, scourged, and crucified, Christ (who unlike anyone else in all history was perfectly innocent and blameless of all the charges Satan had brought against Jesus) was now Satan's downfall, because for the first time Satan had effectively accused and convicted an innocent man. But God, (in Jesus) alive and risen now 'owns' the slaves and Satan is guilty of false accusations and murder and destined for the Lake of Fire. God is just. Jesus not only redeemed all humanity but He turned the heavenly legal tables on Satan. So, God in His foreknowledge and all knowing omnipotence, looks to the heart to see if the confession and remorse are sincere and genuine. Liars and fakers are seen by God for what they are, and God drums his fingers and waits for them to get honest and sincere. Those who are sincere, God forgives, notes their names in the Book of Life, gives them the Holy Spirit as a kind of 'down payment' to seal the deal and regenerate their spirit (so as to eternally cancel the second death), and then begins the process of life transformation within the new believer - they are "born again of the Spirit" and their subsequent Christ-like or spirit-lead works demonstrate their genuine faith - the fruit of the Holy Spirit transformation is evident in their works, in their entire life. But the transformation is gradual, it is a process. The deep sea diver is not instantly brought to the surface nor is all the nitrogen removed at depth. It is gradually removed in a slow steady ascent. There are obviously false Christians, teachers and ministers, like there are false anything's. Anyone can claim anything. But the evidence is in their fruit or our fruit. Look at the gifts and judge the fruit and know whom is truly following Christ. Transformed believers do not continuously sin. We make mistakes. We fall back. But we get up, seek God's help to be better and "be do'ers of the Word" as James says. We decrease sinful behavior, striving (but seldom achieving) to stop altogether. We strive to be more holy & righteous. Our own sin becomes loathsome and we despair as did Paul when we do what we don't want, and don't do what we do want. Humility and brokenness are the sign of a Spirit-indwelt transformed life. God wanted to lavish His love on His creatures and be loved by them in return. He created them with free will, knowing they would sin, knowing He would sacrifice His Son for that sin, knowing how narrow was that gate and knowing (sadly) that only a few would choose it, prefering instead the broad road to destruction. "What is life, but preparation for eternity" as Erwin Lutzer put it. A series of good works prepared before hand that we might lay up treasure in heaven - a training ground for our minds, souls and spirits, to observe and learn God's ways and prepare to co-reign as His Bride for all eternity. God has offered the greatest gift of all, His own Son died for you that you might have eternal life. Arguably, eternal punishment can equate to infinite cruelty. But then a choice for eternal blessing and infinite happiness is in front of you. And no, you should not worship God as a tyrant. Where has God subjected you to His tyranny? God does not want your fear. God wants your love, freely earned and given. He has offered to free you from the fearful consequences of your sinful choices, but the choice is yours. Do you find yourself hating the writers of the Constitution? Do you mistakenly blame the authors of the Constitution for what Bush, Clinton, et al have done to it? Of course not. Do not blame God for what Jews and Christians have done in God's name. God's standards are exacting and to our human sensibilities sometimes seemingly unfair. But we're not God and whatever unfairness has been meted out to you, God has noted and will judge the wrong doers as evenly as He'll judge you for the unfair wrongs you have done. But it doesn't have to come to that. He knows your weaknesses, your desires, your failed attempts, your anger, and your heart. However stern a taskmaster you think Him, He is offering through Jesus to reveal Himself to you and cleanse you of all unrighteousness and seat you with Him in the heavenlies. You are mistaken about Him, but the only way you can approach Him and learn the truth is through Jesus. Choose not out of fear of a wrong choice but instead choose out of love that a choice (a second chance really) was offered at all.
Simply put, I refuse to be cowed by fear, I refuse to cringe before my maker, eternally apologizing and begging forgiveness for my sins, when I'm guilty of nothing more than being a man. I'm not perfect by any means, and I freely admit that I fall far short of any Godly ideal. But I love truth, I hate lies, I love kindness and generosity (people who know me say I'm generous to a fault) and I hate greed and selfishness and cruelity. I'm also someone who deeply loves nature and animals, who will take the time to escort a bug out of my house to gently put them outside. Yet, according to Christianity, because I reject Jesus I'm going to spend eternity burning right next to sadists and Satanists and murderers and pederasts. Now doesn't that sound just a bit out of whack to you? Furthermore, does anyone, even the worst of the worst, deserve eternal punishment?
Please don't use the ol' "God has his standards, we are not to judge them" argument. That is nothing more than intellectual prostration before yet another undifferentiated absolute, and I'm not going to go for it. Eternal punishment is infinite punishment is infinite cruelity. Should I worship God as a tyrant? Because to be perfectly honest, Christianity led me to hate God. Abandoning Christianity has allowed me to begin contemplating God again, and has allowed me to consider the possibility that perhaps God is not an evil tyrant after all, but a source of light and love and life.
But then I go to read the Bible, and after just a few pages I find myself hating God again. Why is that? Why should a decent person find themselves hating God from reading the Bible? Could it have something to do with the cruel behavior and standards imposed by the God of the Bible?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#126. To: Starwind (#125)
More thanks to you, Starwind. It encourages me to read writings such as yours into even more studying and reading. And it is good for me to see questions others raise, although in some cases I'd prefer they not be so antagonistic- seeming. I've read through the Bible numerous times (several in my youth when I was into religion because of my parents. But reading it does not equate to studying, or understanding it. One thing I've learned is that you can't read it as a novel, or as a textbook on things like science, medicine, agriculture--although there are sections that pertain to these areas. While I love history, I tended to rush through all that blood and gore stuff (sacrifices and offerings), but learning the symbolism of the various sacrifices and offerings makes it understandable. We tend to think of matters in todays mindset--the here and now or the just recent past. And that is not the way it was back then. Like the poster that mistook (innocently or intentionally) cooking with dung as cooking dung. It wasn't all that long ago that pioneers throughout Kansas and Nebraska were using buffalo dung or 'chips' for fuel to cook with--there was nothing else available. Anyways, thank you again.
#127. To: Moldi-Box (#117)
Imo, you're being judged, by some, on your choice of screen name rather than on the merits of your argument. It seems to be influencing their perception of what you say. Fwiw, I've enjoyed the debate.
#128. To: rowdee (#126)
I believe God will guide all seekers of truth, even those who are angry at God and disillusioned, provided they sincerely want to know the truth. Yes. Often understanding meaning is dependent on knowing the culture and mindset and colloquiallisms of the day. In that particular instance, I think "negligently" might be more apt. :-/ Your very welcome. And thank you, again.
And it is good for me to see questions others raise, although in some cases I'd prefer they not be so antagonistic- seeming.
We tend to think of matters in todays mindset--the here and now or the just recent past. And that is not the way it was back then.
Like the poster that mistook (innocently or intentionally) cooking with dung as cooking dung.
Anyways, thank you again.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#129. To: Starwind (#125)
Beautifully and clearly explained. Thank you for your time and effort.
#130. To: christine (#129)
That is, in all honesty, an example of Holy Spirit leading. Not my intellect, but His. For my willingness to do the keystrokes, you're very welcome.
Beautifully and clearly explained.
Thank you for your time and effort.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#131. To: Starwind (#130)
I could feel that.
That is, in all honesty, an example of Holy Spirit leading.
#132. To: Moldi-Box, Elliott Jackalope (#89)
Philosophy and the practice of science are social activities, like any other. The claim that scientists and philosophers are more honest, disinterested, or altruistic is a self-serving pretension promulgated by the academy. Make no mistake, scientists and philosophers, of the academy in particular, also form a priesthood, complete with fire-and-brimstone sermon and prophecy, punishment of heresy, and subsistence secured through deception and compulsion. Otherwise we'd see scenes like this more often: Unemployment Insurance Clerk: Occupation?I've never seen a philospher pass a collection plate or a scientist ask for a 10% per annum tithe.
Comicus: Stand-up philosopher.
Clerk: What?
Comicus: Stand-up Philosopher! I coalesce the vapor of human experience into a viable and logical comprehension.
Clerk: Oh - a Bullshit Artist!
Comicus: Hmmmmmm....
Clerk: Did you bullshit last week?
Comicus: No.
Clerk: Did you try to bullshit last week?
Comicus: Yes!
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#133. To: Starwind (#125)
Very nice essay. I'm going to want to discuss a number of points you make in this, but I don't have the time right now to properly go into it. Hopefully I can take this on later this evening.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#134. To: christine (#127)
No big deal. They can judge all they want IMO the most religious folks are the most judgemental. I regged Moldi-Box some time ago when we were having fun cutting on TOS2. Someone regged "Pregnant Cousin of the Ghost" and I regged this. So when I suicided my normal 4um password, I'm still able to post.
Imo, you're being judged, by some, on your choice of screen name rather than on the merits of your argument. It seems to be influencing their perception of what you say. Fwiw, I've enjoyed the debate.
#135. To: Axenolith (#123)
Dude they're not cooking with it, their using it in their food. Why else would Ezekiel have said this in the next passage: Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
Because excrement is commonly used as fuel in the Mideast and Africa.
#136. To: Starwind (#125)
Nice, but why did Ezekiel have to eat the dookie, Starwind?
#137. To: Elliott Jackalope (#31)
The short answer is that life is liberated. This is not a literal event in the way you have asked the question. The really long answer revolves around Pascha and the Passion of Christ. I'll do my best to shorten the long answer. Before I do, I think it is important I provide a disclaimer about myself. I am not Eastern Orthodox, not yet anyway. Though I have been (practicing) it for two years. (I'll stop here as it gets complex in my life as to the whys and hows and I'd rather not go into that on a public forum at this time) This is to say I can give you a reasonable account of the Eastern Church's response to your question. Christ the Savior presented the Gospel. From this there are two choices. Believe or don't believe. There is the "Great Week". This is Christ's entrance into Jerusalem: the events of this week up to Great and Terrible Friday and the ressurection of our Lord on Sunday. Among those who did not believe Christ's message, arose people who mocked, scorned, ridiculed, hated, etc. the message of the Gospel. We see the worst of humanity: deceipt, cowardece, slander, betrayal, rejection and hostility These things became evident especially during Great Week. We see the false piousness unmasked. We see the awesome fury of evil laid bare on the cross. All of these things are rendered powerless by the love of God. Christ is victorious as death is swallowed up. As I mentioned above, we see the tombs are empited as life is liberated. Not only life of those present, but of those past and those to come. You would say death whereas I would say sleep or sometimes repose. This verse you ask of represents the victory of the saints who have triumphed over this world. If Augustine were alive and writing to you, he would probably tell you the "holy city" represents heaven. Regardless, this is about victory. The liberation of the life giving cross: the mercy of God- those kinds of things. There is much, much more I can and should add to this, but I need to go.
What do you think of Matthew 27:52-53, where it says "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." Do you believe that happened? Because that's a really tough act to ignore. Walking resurrected saints would tend to make quite an impact on a society, yet nobody else reported that happening. Not even the other authors of the gospels. Doesn't that make you wonder just a bit?
#138. To: Moldi-Box (#136)
I'd rather not get into personalities, but you have made that unavoidable, haven't you. Truly, I don't know that I have ever encountered someone as stubborn and stupid as you are. You've been told and shown Ezekiel did not eat dung, and yet you persist in your cyber tantrum. You don't seem to have either the mental acuity or the attention span to figure this out on your own. Here then is Ezekiel 4 from "The Message" translation. It's not a very accurate translation, but then it will do all your thinking for you: 4"Next lie on your left side and place the sin of the family of Israel on yourself. You will bear their sin for as many days as you lie on your side. 5The number of days you bear their sin will match the number of years of their sin, namely, 390. For 390 days you will bear the sin of the family of Israel. 6"Then, after you have done this, turn over and lie down on your right side and bear the sin of the family of Judah. Your assignment this time is to lie there for forty days, a day for each year of their sin. 7Look straight at the siege of Jerusalem. Roll up your sleeve, shake your bare arm, and preach against her. 8"I will tie you up with ropes, tie you so you can't move or turn over until you have finished the days of the siege. 9"Next I want you to take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, dried millet and spelt, and mix them in a bowl to make a flat bread. This is your food ration for the 390 days you lie on your side. 10Measure out about half a pound for each day and eat it on schedule. 11Also measure out your daily ration of about a pint of water and drink it on schedule. 12Eat the bread as you would a muffin. Bake the muffins out in the open where everyone can see you, using dried human dung for fuel." 13GOD said, "This is what the people of Israel are going to do: Among the pagan nations where I will drive them, they will eat foods that are strictly taboo to a holy people." 14I said, "GOD, my Master! Never! I've never contaminated myself with food like that. Since my youth I've never eaten anything forbidden by law, nothing found dead or violated by wild animals. I've never taken a single bite of forbidden food." 15"All right," he said. "I'll let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human dung." 16Then he said to me, "Son of man, I'm going to cut off all food from Jerusalem. The people will live on starvation rations, worrying where the next meal's coming from, scrounging for the next drink of water. 17Famine conditions. People will look at one another, see nothing but skin and bones, and shake their heads. This is what sin does." No doubt after my placating your clamor for attention, you'll indignantly demand that someone explain to you why God had Ezekiel do this. Continuing then to think and research for you, here then is Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 4:9-17: Your immaturity on this thread stands in stark contrast to your pretensions to debate scripture, creation, salvation, or frankly any topic requiring more than a 6th grade education and a modicum of honesty. If you want your posts to be respected as an adult, then behave and think like an adult.
Nice, but why did Ezekiel have to eat the dookie, Starwind?
http:// bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Eze%204&version=65 Ezekiel 4
This Is What Sin Does
1"Now, son of man, take a brick and place it before you. Draw a picture of the city Jerusalem on it. 2Then make a model of a military siege against the brick: Build siege walls, construct a ramp, set up army camps, lay in battering rams around it. 3Then get an iron skillet and place it upright between you and the city--an iron wall. Face the model: The city shall be under siege and you shall be the besieger. This is a sign to the family of Israel.
http:// www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1128386743-4952.html 3. For the dressing of it, he must bake it with a man's dung (v. 12); that must be dried, and serve for fuel to heat his oven with. The thought of it would almost turn one's stomach; yet the coarse bread, thus baked, he must eat as barley-cakes, as freely as if it were the same bread he had been used to. This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it, that in the extremity of the famine they should not only have nothing that was dainty, but nothing that was cleanly, about them; they must take up with what they could get. To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet. This circumstance of the sign, the baking of his bread with man's dung, the prophet with submission humbly desired might be dispensed with (v. 14); it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution, for there was a law that man's dung should be covered with earth, that God might see no unclean thing in their camp, Deu. 23:13, 14. And must he go and gather a thing so offensive, and use it in the dressing of his meat in the sight of the people? "Ah! Lord God," says he, "behold, my soul has not been polluted, and I am afraid lest by this it be polluted." Note, The pollution of the soul by sin is what good people dread more than any thing; and yet sometimes tender consciences fear it without cause, and perplex themselves with scruples about lawful things, as the prophet here, who had not yet learned that it is not that which goes into the mouth that defiles the man, Mt. 15:11. But observe he does not plead, "Lord, from my youth I have been brought up delicately and have never been used to any thing but what was clean and nice" (and there were those who were so brought up, who in the siege of Jerusalem did embrace dunghills, Lam. 4:5), but that he had been brought up conscientiously, and had never eaten any thing that was forbidden by the law, that died of itself or was torn in pieces; and therefore, "Lord, do not put this upon me now." Thus Peter pleaded (Acts 10:14), Lord, I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. Note, it will be comfortable to us, when we are reduced to hardships, if our hearts can witness for us that we have always been careful to abstain from sin, even from little sins, and the appearances of evil. Whatever God commands us, we may be sure, is good; but, if we be put upon any thing that we apprehend to be evil, we should argue against it, from this consideration, that hitherto we have preserved our purity - and shall we lose it now? Now, because Ezekiel with a manifest tenderness of conscience made this scruple, God dispensed with him in this matter. Note, Those who have power in their hands should not be rigorous in pressing their commands upon those that are dissatisfied concerning them, yea, though their dissatisfactions be groundless or arising from education and long usage, but should recede from them rather than grieve or offend the weak, or put a stumbling-block before them, in conformity to the example of God's condescension to Ezekiel, though we are sure his authority is incontestable and all his commands are wise and good. God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16.
I'm sorry there aren't any pictures.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#139. To: Moldi-Box (#135)
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
#140. To: rowdee, Starwind (#139)
Nope Ezekiels response explained thusly doesn't stand to reason if all God was asking was for him to eat cakes composed of the following: (from Starvind's translation) Next I want you to take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, dried millet and spelt, and mix them in a bowl to make a flat bread. This is your food ration for the 390 days you lie on your side. 10Measure out about half a pound for each day and eat it on schedule. Except for the last ingredient noted later (If dung were the only fuel available, the lord wouldn't need to make special mention of it. It would go without saying) there's nothing that would prompt that response from Zeke out of the blue about a totally different topic altogether (preparing Kosher by Rowdee's interpretation) What gives?
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves.....nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
#141. To: Moldi-Box (#140)
Read 138--several times if need be. Read beyond just the selected words you are choosing to challenge or make an issue of. It doesn't matter if there were even natural gas or electricity available at the time for fuel. Ezekiel's God had told him to use dung, human dung later changed to cow dung--and there was a purpose behind it. Starwind's comments will tell you a bit about camp cleanliness rules/regs/statutes. Just for the record with others who are reading and not responding. God had all these prohibitions, etc., for a purpose. Not because he was trying to lord (pardon the pun) it over everyone. But back then, they didn't have a lot of medical understanding, diseases, etc. If you put yourself back in those days, in their shoes so to speak, while at the back of your mind knowing what we do about trichomoniasis (sp ?), dysentery, etc. God was protecting the people he has chosen to use as an example to the rest of the world. Meanwhile..... When you first started this business about what Ezekiel was eating, I honestly thought you were confused as it regarded what he ate, because I've just recently finished reading, I believe it was Kings, where Ezekiel had taken off to the southern kingdom (Judah) to avoid Jezebel's desire to have him killed. God had told him to camp out some place by a brook and that ravens would bring him food, and the brook would provide water. From there he went to Horeb and was given more directions by God. I've not done study in the book of Ezekiel yet. But just from what I've studied to date, especially through the Pentateuch, it was obvious that Ezekiel was saying that he hadn't broken any of God's commandments and statutes regarding foodstuffs (eating an animal found dead, or one killed by predators or other animals, or eating ones forbidden such as pigs, camels, etc. He was not saying he was a vegetarian or a shit-eater!
#142. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee (#140)
What gives is your continued stubborn stupidity. I gave you the answer in #138. To: Moldi-Box (#136) to your own question: And I quoted the entire chapt 4 of Ezekial 4 and provide a commentary on Eze 4: 9-17 in an apparently futile attempt to show you dung was never eaten anywhere by anyone. It was used as fuel for the cooking fire. Rowdee gave you the answer in #139. To: Moldi-Box (#135) to your own question: Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. You asked about Eze 4:14 and you highlighted neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth. To which rowdee corectly answered #139. To: Moldi-Box (#135) And not only was rowdee's answer correct, but the same explanation is given in Henry's commentary which I posted to you post #138: But in yet another stunning display of stupidity, you demonstrate: You've been given the correct answer that 'Ezekiel did not eat dung' three times and what 'abominable flesh' is twice. Clearly, not eating dung is a concept well beyond your understanding. The only one eating dung on this thread is you.
What gives?
Nice, but why did Ezekiel have to eat the dookie, Starwind?
Why else would Ezekiel have said this in the next passage:
what he was saying was that he didn't eat animals that died by themselves..... nor did he eat ones that had been killed by other animals.....NOR did he eat abominable flesh, i.e., pigs and other unclean animals.
and had never eaten any thing that was forbidden by the law, that died of itself or was torn in pieces;
You were told twice what the answer was before you posted your asinine response. But you didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.
You can't read, you can't distinguish different numbers like post #136 vs post #135 or Eze 4:12 vs Eze 4:14, and you refuse to think.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#143. To: Starwind (#142)
Quick joke: What's brown and sounds like a bell? Dung. Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun. We now return to our regularly scheduled theology discussion.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#144. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
No problem. It was a much needed humor break, 'cause the rest of this dung ain't funny.
Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#145. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
hahahahaha :P
#146. To: rowdee (#141)
But in the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur. to paraphrase: God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo. Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty. If it makes sense to you that's fine. But it's one of inordinate points that make no sense in contemporary understanding. To use your example of trichinosis, what was God trying to do? Protect people? He didn't have to invent the affliction if that were so. Or, like sin is it something that entered the world against his will? Or maybe he made pigs just to hate on them. I know, you can't claim to know the mind of God. But we aren't discussing the mind of God, rather the minds of paranoid Asiatic tribesmen as they defined God. Why else would he put forth creatures to multiply in Eden without regard to Malthusian considerations? Or curse the ground, all flora and fauna because man fucked up? or threaten to lay the hurt down on Egyptian gods? Or make a mistake by creating imperfect man and drown the rest of earthly creation as a result? Or create a dozen or so test-runs of hominid man before humans who never get discussed relative to the creation story? Or have an attitude adjustment between Testaments where he no longer makes personal appearances, gives bread-baking or tabernacle making instructions and becomes perfect compassion even though just prior to this he enjoyed sacrificial offerings and smiting the enemies of his people (sic)? I suppose it is antagonistic to demonstrate point by point how one's religion is fantasy, just like showing a D&D geek how their level 26 half-elf Ranger has no life in the real world. But as long as we're all acting like mini-Voltaires and respecting one anothers viewpoints, I would note this is how my journey is unfolding. I seek answers and don't pull punches when I come across bullshit. If Starvind's gets sand in his vagina as a result, so be it.
that Ezekiel was saying that he hadn't broken any of God's commandments and statutes regarding foodstuffs (eating an animal found dead, or one killed by predators or other animals, or eating ones forbidden such as pigs, camels, etc.
#147. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, Starwind (#140)
Moldi's posts are the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). Moldi, you need to get a life, and as my 93 year old grandfather would say, regardless of your current spiritual underpinnings, DON'T take the mark! When that comes along, there's no going back after that.
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#148. To: Starwind (#142)
Again, as I pointed out to the other guy
In the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur.
to paraphrase:
God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo.
Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty.
It's a given that they used dung for fuel all the time. Why then would these simple barley & bean cake instructions be so shocking to Zeke?
#149. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee (#146)
As I predicted in my post #138: And here you go: And the answer you still haven't read (again from my #138): http:// >http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1128386743-4952.html This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it, that in the extremity of the famine they should not only have nothing that was dainty, but nothing that was cleanly, about them; they must take up with what they could get. To the hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet. This circumstance of the sign, the baking of his bread with man's dung, the prophet with submission humbly desired might be dispensed with (v. 14); it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution, for there was a law that man's dung should be covered with earth, that God might see no unclean thing in their camp, Deu. 23:13, 14 God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16. No doubt after my placating your clamor for attention, you'll indignantly demand that someone explain to you why God had Ezekiel do this.
But in the context of the chosen passages it is a non-sequitur.
to paraphrase:
God: Make cakes of barley and beans and such and bake it over doo-doo. Zeke: But Lord, I've never eaten anything freak-nasty.
If it makes sense to you that's fine. But it's one of inordinate points that make no sense in contemporary understanding. To use your example of trichinosis, what was God trying to do? Protect people? He didn't have to invent the affliction if that were so. Or, like sin is it something that entered the world against his will? Or maybe he made pigs just to hate on them.
I know, you can't claim to know the mind of God. But we aren't discussing the mind of God, rather the minds of paranoid Asiatic tribesmen as they defined God.
Continuing then to think and research for you, here then is Henry's commentary on Ezekiel 4:9-17:
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#150. To: Axenolith (#147)
the typical crying out of one for an immaculate secular proof of the existence of the Biblical God That's a far more noble pursuit than you might realize. At least grant that. so that there'll be hope of something on the other side of a miserable existence Actually, that's where Christianity started. Miserable slaves who needed hope of something better. Jesus taught reward was in the next life, not this one. Anyone who lives in luxury in this life should have no expectation of reward in the hereafter. Now think about your & my standard of living versus even kings of those days. We have it pretty good, did we forfeit our reward by so doing? Are you one of those folks with the Shiny new chromed Toyota Sequoia with the Jesus fish on it, just assuming the salvation applies to you. After all it only applies to 144,000 people in all human history (if we are to believe Revelations). (which I infer from the nasty attitude, correct me if I'm wrong...) other than extinction and rotting in mud or possible damnation. Damnation is not a part of my system of beliefs. It's too miserable a creed, but some of you like to make threats of such when ridiculed. I picture Jesus the same way too, btw. It's not as if any of us who number among believers are going to have a crisis of faith from the ramblings, particularly ones so poorly executed, disingenuous, and bereft of logic (ironic, coming from someone who touts "science" and "rationality" as their foundation to boot...). If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you? Should I have phrased my questions more cordially? Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable? (Badeye would say it's too late, can't answer, we already got off on the wrong foot)
#151. To: Moldi-Box, axenolith, rowdee (#150)
You might at read the entire answers, and think. I'm done with this moron.
Should I have phrased my questions more cordially?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#152. To: Starwind (#149)
This nauseous piece of cookery he must exercise publicly in their sight, that they might be the more affected with the calamity approaching, which was signified by it But we've already established this was standard fare, doo-doo was used for cooking throughout the region for lack of wood. Ezekiel was taken aback by something. Surely not by a request to use standard fuel! it seemed to have in it something of a ceremonial pollution No shit. :) God allowed Ezekiel to use cow's dung instead of man's dung, v. 15. This is a tacit reflection upon man, as intimating that he being polluted with sin his filthiness is more nauseous and odious than that of any other creature. But before relenting, it was God's idea to use human dung. Ah yes, let's toss in another point for failure and redemption. It's a statement about humanity. That's it. If this is such a vile request, what does that say about the scatalogical almighty? Would it honestly have made a difference what sort of doo-doo was cooking the food if none got included in the recipe? How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16. Okay, then I'd take issue with the manufacturer.
#153. To: Starwind (#151)
Don't be mad. WWJD?
I'm done with this moron.
#154. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
Dung. Sorry, just felt the need to insert a quick pun. HA! So glad you spared us the "Dong" joke! TIA
Quick joke: What's brown and sounds like a bell?
#155. To: Moldi-Box (#146)
Well, naturally. Half-elf rangers are limited to level 16 (assuming normal prime requisites.)
just like showing a D&D geek how their level 26 half-elf Ranger has no life in the real world.
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#156. To: Axenolith (#147)
But.. Think of the tax advantages. (sarcasum tag needed, I did not think so)
and as my 93 year old grandfather would say, regardless of your current spiritual underpinnings, DON'T take the mark! When that comes along, there's no going back after that.
#157. To: Tauzero, all (#155)
Ah, well I was assuming some special dork-modifiers. And maybe monetary tribute to the proper dieties (oops) But getting back to topic, AFAIC human doo-doo and cow doo-doo are nasty on an equal scale. Any perfect, beautiful, eloquent Almigthy that needs to illustrate the point of human frailty vis-a-vis butt mud has a barbaric, uncouth following that I need to part of.
Well, naturally. Half-elf rangers are limited to level 16 (assuming normal prime requisites.)
#158. To: tom007 (#156)
And savings on car insurance!
Think of the tax advantages.
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#159. To: Moldi-Box (#157)
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins. Works for rats...
You can purchase first and second trust deeds. Think of the foreclosures! Bonds! Chattels! Dividends! Shares! Bankruptcies! Debtor sales! Opportunities! All manner of private enterprise! Shipyards! The mercantile! Collieries! Tanneries! Incorporations! Amalgamations! Banks! You see, Michael, Tuppence, patiently, cautiously, trustingly invested In the, to be specific, In the Dawes, Tomes, Mousely, Grubbs Fidelity Fiduciary Bank!
#160. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#152)
Okay, then I'd take issue with the manufacturer. GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens. (I think the book of Job is the most ancient writings of the Bible, and came from todays's Yemen, and has characteristics of Arabic origin).
How much more abominable and filthy is man! Job 15:16.
#161. To: tom007 (#160)
Any more receipts are rarely necessary, but in this case the guys at the customer service desk are getting mighty pissy towards me. I recommend you just go with the program...
GAD as usual, I lost my reciept!! GEEEZ I hate it when that happens.
#162. To: Elliott Jackalope (#143)
Very good...........LOL
#163. To: Moldi-Box, Starwind (#146)
When you're ready to be grown up on a thread like this, I'll be happy to continue to respond to you as best I can. I'm still working on trying to have the patience of Job; Starwind seems to be there.....but me.....I'm tired of biting my tart tongue! Good evening.......and good wishes.
#164. To: Starwind (#149)
Are you Job?
#165. To: Moldi-Box (#150)
Actually, this type of thread isn't a "having a good old time" thread for me, and I couldn't care less if you think you're "winning". Your debate style proved your credibility was near zero. Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. Similarly, while many Christians fret and worry over timing of the return of Christ, AFAIK, that could be at the heat death of the universe. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Any other of the details I can sort out by study, or they'll reveal in time. What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP?
If I was getting my ass handed to me like you said earlier then you and your clique would be enjoying this and having a good old time. The way I see it, someone's getting rubbed the wrong way. What really bothers you?
Fine, then why, sir did bloody warring animals, insects and organisms precede man if the concept of original sin is correct and applicable?
Government blows, and that which governs least blows least...
#166. To: Tauzero, Moldi-Box (#159)
Are you Chinese by chance? The reason I ask is that several years ago I received a book from the now deceased Dr. Ensminger, who was a prominent professional in the field of agriculture, teaching, as well as an author of numerous books. Dr. Ensminger had received the ok from the Chinese government to visit China to view, review, and study their agriculture industry. In this book, he and his wife wrote about what all they had found. One item of note was a 'stacked' system of cages with beast or fowl in each level. And they only fed the ones in the top cage; the rest of the cages below ate what fell their way--perhaps a bite of grain that fell out of the upper feed tray....but mostly it was the dung from the previous layer. Amazingly, all the animals were healthy and grew well. And even the lowest level of critter's dung was of value..........it was all washed out and down to ponds which contained fish. And if I recall correctly (its been some 15 years since I read the book) the mulberry trees used by silk worms received nutrients from the water of the pond.
My theory on the dung thing is fecal vitamins.
#167. To: rowdee (#166)
Yeah -- Riley is my slave name. (I'm Irish.) It wasn't intended as a serious answer. For all I know it's a cosmic inside joke. Besides, there are much worse things in the OT than this bit about dung. I dunno why someone would harp on it, unless they just like running their mouth.
Are you Chinese by chance?
New Orleans. Bridge. Liquor Store! Say it with me!
-- Dora the Looter
#168. To: Axenolith (#165)
Starwind actually took the time and effort to meticulously respond to you, and you were, to put it coarsely, a dick. All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies. As I stated early on, I personally don't see the Genesis story absolutely precluding the pre-existence of some prior world construct. And this interested me. Prior to original sin, everything was in harmony. Green Herbs were as meat unto all creatures. Notwithstanding the Malthusian problems of creatures that go forth and multiply and never die, fight or kill in a finite space (the borders of Eden are referenced in Gen), the point is man (which "man" btw, Sapiens who are the dozenth type of hominid) created the dischord and thereby cursed everything. So if this pre-existence did contain warring creatures then the world wasn't so perfect and original sin doesn't hold water. Unless someone can reconcile it for me. I'm thoroughly convinced of the life, death and ressurection of Christ as the redeemer of man. Good for you. I was once thoroughly convinced of the existence of Santa Claus until my intellect developed and could sort out the problems of one man delivering goodies to all of humanity (roughly Jesus' gig too, btw). What does what Badeye think have to do with the price of tea in China? Did he chase you off of LP? Because a number of 4umers were acting like textbooks bots: they see a buddy under fire, drop in and deliver a few blows on his behalf and leave. You are the only one, Starvind included who has even attempted to address the "Original Sin" point and I'm still waiting for that reconciliation that has you convinced. Out of curiousity.
#169. To: Moldi-Box, Axenolith, rowdee (#168)
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link, but even when it is broken down into "pithy, readable points" 2 or 3 times for you, you still don't read it! LOL! The problem is not that you're an admitted dick who plays by his own terms, the problem is you're an illiterate, lying admitted dick who plays by his own terms. And since your terms preclude reading more than 2 or 3 pithy points in front of your nose (and being honest about what you've read), your whining isn't taken seriously. You've demonstrated you're simply sucking bandwidth and trolling for a flame war.
All Starwind ever does for the first 3 or so posts is put up a link and tell you to read it. Bullshit. I don't link to http://athiests.org to refute anyones point. And then if they don't read it I start calling them an idiot. I break it down in pithy, readable points. I play on my terms. I know that makes me a dick and I give no apologies.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#170. To: Starwind (#169)
Not true. I have read and absorbed your last link and deduced that when one "snaps a brown-eye" then one should listen carefully for the voice of God. For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct? And nothing but the poo-challenge would have driven the point home.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
#171. To: Starwind (#169)
Well....at least your new 'friend' has given up on eating shit and is concentrating on the area of original sin. :) The internet highway would end before his every question, objection or complaint could be answered--I was going to say satisfactorily, but that would be when Hades goes into its glacial period.
#172. To: Starwind (#169)
Opps! I spoke too soon, it seems! LOL.
#173. To: rowdee (#171)
and is concentrating on the area of original sin. Well it is arguably the most important tenants of Christianity and nobody seems to know what to make of the fact that evidence disputes it. has given up on eating shit None of my spiritual/philosophically-based texts even make reference to poo, but if it works for you, more power to ya.
#174. To: Moldi-Box (#170)
You lied in your post #34: You lied again in your post #40 Then in post #91 your were given 1 pithy, readable proof that you had misread Ezekiel, but you ignored it. Then in your post #92 you lied about what Ezekiel said. You ignored again the 1 pithy readable correction in post #95. Then in your posts #135 & #136 you continue to ignore those 1 pithy readable corrections. You ignored the entire chapter and commentary in post #138. You were given another 1 pithy readable explanation in post #139 which you again ignored in your post #140. And in your post #148 you ignored having all that laid again for you in post #142. Your ignore or distort the answers you'r given and then you lie about it. e It wasn't until your post #152 that you finally gave up and stopped denying that Ezekiel wasn't eating dung. No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless.
But given the links, you still nonetheless claim to have read them (repeatedly) and then you lie about what is or is not at a link
Not true.
Liar. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
The only thing I saw on that link was you tap-dancing around legitimate questions that hoist doubt onto the creation story. If all things which creepeth upon the earth were brought before Adam to be named, do you suppose Neanderthals and other primitive hominids were among them? How about dinosaurs? Did bloody strife among animals precede "original sin" wrought by man (which presumably is Sapiens)? Yes it did. Uh oh. That's a big f**cking problem. I read more of the link and if I were you I wouldn't draw attention to it beacuse you got owned. One poster brought up repeated questions about the creation
For this is one vehicle in which he's chosen to teach the faithful. That's the purpose behind the whole "human poo vs. cow poo cooking fuel" parable, correct?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#175. To: Starwind (#174)
Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:1 refers to the era prior to quark confinement, i.e., the first hundred-thousandth second of the universe; and he claims that this era precedes the first day of Genesis. Moreover, he claims that the line which says that the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (RSV) refers to the inflationary expansion of the universe prior to the era of quark confinement. The interpretative links here are incredibly tenuous: any one-time phenomenon which occurs before the era of quark confinement could, with equal plausibility--or better, with equal implausibility--be taken to be under description: for example, according to standard theory, at the end of the Planck era, gravitational radiation comes out of thermal equilibrium with the rest of the universe; and there is also a symmetry-breaking phase which shatters the electroweak force well before the era of quark confinement. (Of course, there are also delicate questions about the correct translation of the original texts which need to be discussed: if--as my RSV version of the Bible has it--Genesis 1:1 is committed to the existence of water in the earliest phase of the universe, then there is no question of trying to reconcile this with Big Bang cosmology. Given the role that water played in other early cosmological myths and speculations, it seems very plausible to suppose that the references to water in Genesis 1:1 and 1:6-1:7 are intended literally. A similar problem arises with the very first sentence of Genesis: if heaven and earth really are created in the beginning--i.e., in the era prior to quark confinement--then they exist at that time. On p. 8, Schroeder reads the opening sentence in a way which makes it clear that he takes 'the earth' here to refer to our planet. Yet later, when he gives the mapping onto Big Bang cosmology, it is clear that he can't understand the reference to 'the earth' in the opening sentence in this way. If you allow yourself unconstrained and inconsistent interpretation of a text, you can read anything you like into it.) Schroeder claims that Genesis 1:11 tells us (correctly) that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water. (The most recent evidence is that life appeared 3.8 billion years ago, almost immediately at the time that liquid water appeared.) Even by his lights, this claim must surely appear dishonest. After all, it does not say in the account of the third day that God made vegetation immediately after he made the dry land appear; all that we are given is a list of things in the order in which they were done on the third day. On his account, the third day covers a time span of 2 billion years; as far as I can see, his interpretation leaves it open that vegetation could have appeared at any time in that 2 billion year period. Note, in particular, that there is just as much reason to hold that God made the birds--or, as Schroeder would have it, the flying insects--immediately after he made the sea creatures on day four--but that is in sharp disagreement with the evidence. (The same point also applies to the creation of man on day five; that it would be inconsistent with other aspects of Schroeder's interpretation to say that God made man immediately after he made the other animals is surely evidence that he should not say that Genesis 1:11 tells us that life appeared immediately after the appearance of liquid water.) Schroeder claims that dinosaurs are mentioned in Genesis 1:21, since there is a reference there to big reptiles. (The RSV says 'great sea monsters,' but I'm prepared to accept that Schroeder has the translation right.) How is this a reference to dinosaurs? Well, "the biggest reptiles were the dinosaurs"! This is pretty dire. Why not argue as follows: there are references in Genesis to animals; dinosaurs were animals; so there are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! Or as follows: throughout the Bible, there are references to the things of this world; dinosaurs are among the things of this world (in the relevant atemporal sense); so these are references to dinosaurs in the Bible?! (Surely it is far more plausible to think that the 'big reptiles' which the writers of this text had in mind are crocodiles, large lizards, and the like! Indeed, a list which seems to say exactly this is given in Leviticus 11:30.) Schroeder's claim that archaeopteryx is mentioned at Leviticus 11:18 and Leviticus 11:30 is no more plausible, but also for a different reason: why on earth would anyone bother to proscribe the eating of something which had been extinct for around 150 million years? Schroeder claims that prehuman hominids are referred to--or, at any rate, alluded to--in several places in the Bible. Questions about interpretation come up in every case. At Genesis 12:5, Schroeder takes "Abraham took ... the souls they had made..." to entail that possession of a soul requires belief in a universal, noncorporeal God. (Why not just read it as "Abraham took ... the people they had converted..."? This is much closer to the RSV version, and would surely fit within permissible bounds of translation.) Schroeder notes that Genesis 1:26 talks about 'making' mankind, whereas Genesis 1:27 says that God 'created' man, and insists that, since both verbs characterize our origins, there must be an essential difference in their import. (But why not think that the words are interchangeable, and chosen for purely stylistic reasons, or for no reason at all? After all, it is not unusual for many words to be interchangeable in a given context.) Schroeder notes that an exact translation of Genesis 2:7 would give "man became to a living soul," and then observes that Nahmanides speculated that the redundant 'to' might indicate that the addition of soul transforms one kind of complete creature into a quite different kind of complete creature. (But why rest weight on Nahmanides opinion? There are, after all, other possible explanations of the origins of that redundant 'to' during early transcriptions of the text. Why suppose that it has any significance at all?) Schroeder claims that a careful reading of Genesis 4:25 and Genesis 5:3 reveals that there was a period in which Adam had sexual relations with nonhuman creatures. The allegedly crucial point is the appearance of the word 'again' in Genesis 4:25: "Adam knew his wife again and she bore a son." Isn't the "again" superfluous, and doesn't it tell us that Adam had been playing the field? (I can't see it. We might just as well infer that they'd been struggling for 130 years to have a child to replace the one they had lost. They tried yet again.) And so on. It is very hard to resist the conclusion that Schroeder is trying desperately hard to find anything at all which can be twisted to support the case that he wants to make. So much for the kinds of questions which I might raise about Biblical interpretation. Since I have no claims to expertise on these matters, I shall not put any more weight upon them. At the very least, I think that it is clear that many of Schroeder's claims stretch credulity--and also that it is hard to find a good motivation for them. Given the concession that the text cannot be given a straightforward literal interpretation--not least because, as Schroeder points out (pp. 10-11), it is multiply inconsistent--what harm could there be in supposing that much of it is best interpreted as myth? Reconciling science and Bible does not require finding science in the Bible; rather, it requires reading the Bible in ways which generate no inconsistencies with the well-established teachings of science. Moreover, this position is consistent with--though it does not require--the further claim that the teachings of the Bible are morally authoritative. (Schroeder assumes without argument that morality must have a Biblical foundation--see, e.g., pp. 1, 2, 4, 18, 40, 81-2, 137. This seems to me quite wrong; but I shan't try to dispute it here.) No. You still don't get it. God isn't using Ezekiel to teach the faithful. God is using Ezekeiel to warn the faithless. Through the vehicle of filth and in a way that certainly could have been done in a more eloquent manner. But then, look at the types this mythology appeals to.
You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity.
#176. To: Moldi-Box (#175)
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it. No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Here's something for you to think about. The Bible contains a prophecy given from God and written over 500 years in advance that foretold of the Messiah Prince that would come 483 years following a decree to rebuild Jerusalem, a Messiah who would then be "cut off" and have nothing. That 500+ year-old prophecy was fufilled with the baptism of Jesus Christ in 26 AD (exactly 483 years after Artaxerxes I decreed in 458 BC that Jerusalem be rebuilt) and with His subsequent crucifixion (being cut off and having nothing). And unlike fictional literature, it is true and verifiable. You can read about it here at God's Signature of Authenticity. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-09-30 21:20:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Schroeder is an unmitigated quack, let link to reviews of his works at http:/ /infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html
#27. To: Moldi-Box (#21)
Something to think about.
You lied in your posts #34 & #40 that you had read the link I gave you. You're still lying.
The proof of your lies are in your above post #175 wherein you erroneously refute work done by Gerald Schroeder. But nowhere in the link I gave you is either Schroeder's work discussed, nor anywhere in that essay nor it's sublinks, but that hasn't stopped your fixation on Schroeder and Genesis and your blind arrogance.
Had you actually read God's Signature of Authenticity and the thread, you'd know that. But like the liar you are, you're just blowing more smoke and hoping no one will notice.
You have assumed God's Signature of Authenticity is about something else. You have assumed (without checking your facts, as you inevitably forego) that my link was something about Schroeder's work on Genesis 1. when in fact (had you checked) my link was about Dan 9:25-26.
The Daniel 9 prophecy about the Messiah is not the Genesis 1 account of the 6- day creation.
And this is now the 3rd time that has been pointed out in several pithy readable posts (which you claim is all you need, on your terms no less - lol).
You lie and you're too incompetant to recognize the difference between words like Daniel and Genesis or Prophecy and Creation, and you're too lazy to read, think or even do a simple search to see what is or isn't on a thread.
You are a lying, illiterate, admitted dick.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#177. To: Starwind (#176)
No where on this thread did I mention Schroeder or his writing about Genesis, nor did I offer that in my first post to you. I offered an essay about a verifiable prophecy of Jesus Christ: Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http://www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1 In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :) Oh, and a link to http://www.jeramyt.org/ who appears to be some sort of ecclesiastical gay-rights activist. I would note your own web page http://star.wind.mystarband.net/ has all of 13 hits which is pretty sad considering such important material, but I digress. Despite the pissing contests and theories, I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am. It funny how quickly a devout Christian like you can disregard all the tenants of your impossible to follow religion. Let's take a look: Matt 5:22 "but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (you failed this one) Matt 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (this one too) Luke 6:29 "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other;" (hate to tell you) Matt 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." (to be fair, you might have heard "Blessed are the Cheesemakers") So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw. But if you can live with the glaring discrepancy between what you claim to believe and how you really act, fine. But "No man can serve two masters" (Matt 6:24) and if you serve the Lord as vigorously as you serve your own ego then you must be doing fine. Kindest Regards, MB
Proof that you are a moron and don't read a link and continue to lie about it.
http://www.jeramyt.org/pride-rt.gif
#178. To: Moldi-Box, rowdee, axenolith (#177)
Right. You didn't read it. You assumed you knew and then you lied, repeatedly, to cover up your assumption. Its only taken what, a few dozen posts for you to finally figure that out and admit it? And now the excuses for your lying about why you didn't read it, but you did lie repeatedly that you had read it, and your reasons for lying don't matter one wit, because they can't be believed, now can they. And you're still wrong. The corroboration is there. But because you didn't read it, you're still lying about having looked. The issue, as you well know, is not that you ask questions, its that you lie repeatedly, knowingly, deliberately, even calmly about the facts and the answers. You are a liar. The fact that you lie so calmly suggests you are a pathological liar. When you stop lying and start being genuine in your questions, you'll get respect. Not before. Probably say something like: Pro 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly. Only you and Dude Lebowski. And we both know why, don't we Dude. It's in the thread above, and the other threads where you boastfully backed yourself into a corner.
Ah, you'll forgive me (WWJD?) for confusing that with your other link: http:/ /www.freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=6940&SC=1&EC=40#C1
In fact I didn't regard the "God's Signature" link because I don't see anything to corroborate the Baptism, except the Bible itself and maybe the Jews for Jesus faq page :)
I think if you were as secure in your position as you think you are you wouldn't be getting so upset at people asking questions. I'm perfectly calm despite posters like Red and Assnolith chiming in to say what a fuckhead I am.
WWJD?
Do you not know that it is written?
So for all you're high minded ideals, your are a belligerent and impatient hypocrite and I've amply pointed this out through your own behavior. I've seen you insult other posters on similar threads too, btw.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#179. To: Starwind (#178)
ROTF........ Why did I just know it would come down to something like this........the whining about you and your ilk being hypocrits for reacting so nastily! I admire you for not bringing up the little detail that 'this thread has been going on for 6 days now. Not exactly 'quickly' to my way of thinking. Nor did you bring up casting pearls before swine--but then that would have been misconstrued as well by our friend. Quirks, Quarks, Quantums, Primordeal (sp) soup, perhaps other 'goodies' that can't be seen or experienced but to some appear more believable than a living God who created it all, the evidence, or footprints, of this being all around us, and in us. The scriptures weren't written for, nor meant to be, a textbook for the scientific community, the medical community, the agrarian community, etc., though there elements of them to be found--I think that is what is being overlooked by many. I don't see God as worrying about time; it's an element that apparently means little to Him. Things will occur on his time schedule/frame. Just as Huldah had prophesied to Josiah, God was angered at Judah and they were going into judgment BUT because he did right in Gods' eyes and followed the ways of David, that Josiah would not live to see this happen. IIRC, he lived something like 11 or 19 more years before he died. And even after he died, there were men of God warning the people and kings to turn back to following God's commandments and statutes--and it was another 20 years or so after his death. Much like the parent that tries to talk to the recalcitrant child, eventually patience is lost and out comes the paddle. Thank goodness, God has much patience with his people and gives us chances.
#180. To: Starwind (#178)
Fantastic. Another nice illustration, apparently teaching down to his base, the Hebrew's God makes vomit and poo articles with which to teach his students. Can you find one about snot and we'll hit the trifecta of nasty? That's fitting. And you can have it. A hypocrite like you who preaches out of one side of his mouth while holds a stick behind his back is no shining example. It's funny how even angry assholes (you) who put up a Jesus website assumed salvation applies to them, when clearly only 144,000 names will be written in the book of life. Oh, well. C'est la via. Take care my hypocrite "friend".
Pro 26:11 Like a dog that returns to its vomit Is a fool who repeats his folly.
#181. To: rowdee (#179)
You're right. It is in us. Evolutionary evidence, a long painstaking process of trial and error. Not instant creation. A distinct tailbone like the lower forms, Appendages like a chimpanzee (with whom you share nearly 99% of your DNA makeup btw), body hair from when it was our clothing, the appendix is an evolutionary throwback (unless you would argue that God had spare parts and a purpose in mind for this), if you've had wisdom teeth removed you should know they grew in impacted because the jawbone was once longer. There's no denying it unless you're a tool.
more believable than a living God who created it all, the evidence, or footprints, of this being all around us, and in us.
#182. To: Moldi-Box (#181)
what a great handle. And you are right. If this planet was 1,000 miles further from the sun, we would not be here to argue about this. Me, I have joined the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult. Say Ramen, and bless his noodly appendages.
#183. To: Mekons4 (#182)
LMAO. Thanks for the link.
Me, I have joined the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult. Say Ramen, and bless his noodly appendages.
#184. To: Starwind, Rowdee, Axenolith, *Raelians* (#0)
New ping list fellas PM me if you want on!
*Raelians* Like the Bereans but with better social events and more evidence to support our cause.
#185. To: All, Moldi-Box, Dude Lebowski, Rowdee, Axenolith, Elliott Jackalope, Steppenwolf, Tauzero, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah, Flintlock, Red Jones, lodwick, crack monkey, Phaedrus, TommyTheMadArtist, Jhoffa_, Dakmar, scooter, tom007, Mekons4, *Bereans* (#178)
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved. The Bible teaches (Pro 15:1) "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger". This simple truth was very much in evidence on this thread. This thread could have been an enlightening, informative discussion of viewpoints both pro and con, but instead became a non-discussion of the ridiculous and meritless, and my harsh words perpetuated the rancor. As a professed believer in and follower of Jesus Christ I should set a better example than I did. I should and could have made the same points in exposing Moldi-Box/Dude Lebowski's erroneous Bible interpretations and other misrepresentations, but done so without being caustic and vitrolic in my language. I encourage all to *not* follow my example above. I have often said to others, "it isn't what you say so much as how you say it". In this regard I failed to follow my own counsel. In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process. Again, I apologize to all.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
#186. To: Starwind (#185)
I think this confirms your human credentials Mr. starwind. Humility is a plus. Arrogance & pride are a negative. Why did god choose Moses to communicate with when he gave 'the law' to the hebrews? Because Moses was the most humble person.
#187. To: crack monkey (#0)
Theological discussions always get my eyes red, make me giggly and give me the munchies while I stare at inanimate objects.....
"I want the American people to know that our dreams are gone, our work was in vain. There will be no future for our children and our grandchildren in the new Iraq. The future is for the clerics. This is not the democracy we dreamed of. "--Dr. Raja Kuzai
#188. To: Starwind (#185)
I find your posts interesting from the perspective of watching blind dogma in action; you don't owe me an apology. Just remember: you'll never get into Valhalla on your knees!
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#189. To: Starwind (#185)
fuck off.. Just kidding. I was thinking after your post: Someone goes to all the effort you did, 5 paragraphs, mentions proverbs in context, explains in detail how they feel and it only takes an asshole 2 seconds to type a flame.
"When the government FEARS the People, there is liberty, but when the People fear the government, there is tyranny."
#190. To: Starwind, all (#185)
No need to apologize, Starwind. I find the back and forth, on both sides, quite civil and very interesting.
#191. To: Starwind (#185)
Starwind, as long as you always speak the truth as you see it, you'll never have reason to apologize to me.
| Gold and silver are real money, paper is but a promise. |
#192. To: Starwind (#185)
Frankly, I see nothing to apologize for. However, I am not your conscience-- God and you will handle that. My problem is having very little patience, since my youngest daughter forced me to use them all up. I think I learned that in struggling to grow some more patience that one way for me personally to deal with such as this is to refuse to respond. The other way, of course, is to merely tell them to go F* themselves. :( Not a smart or wise choice--especially on a thread like this. Folks like this delight in jerking chains, trying to break that last thread of patience, etc., and then jump one's ass for stumbling. Whatever ya do, Starwind, please keep posting. :)
#193. To: crack monkey (#0)
Jesus was a typical man - they always say they'll come back but you never see them again. God meant for us to be rich...LOL
A rich man came to Jesus one day and asked what he should do to get into heaven. Jesus did not say he should invest, spend, and let the benefits trickle down; he said sell what you have, give the money to the poor, and follow me. Few plainer words have been spoken. And yet, for some reason, the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to “preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history”—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be “making permanent President Bush’s 2001 federal tax cuts.”
A religious war is like children fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend.
#194. To: Starwind, All (#185)
The Bible teaches (Pro 15:1) "A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger". This simple truth was very much in evidence on this thread. This thread could have been an enlightening, informative discussion of viewpoints both pro and con, but instead became a non-discussion of the ridiculous and meritless, and my harsh words perpetuated the rancor. As a professed believer in and follower of Jesus Christ I should set a better example than I did. I should and could have made the same points in exposing Moldi-Box/Dude Lebowski's erroneous Bible interpretations and other misrepresentations, but done so without being caustic and vitrolic in my language. I encourage all to *not* follow my example above. I have often said to others, "it isn't what you say so much as how you say it". In this regard I failed to follow my own counsel. In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process. Again, I apologize to all. That's big of you. And I sure didn't expect it. If I may reciprocate by offering my apologies for what people here considered being antagonistic... I guess it boils down to us all being in search of answers. I'm glad you found yours.
I want to apologize, to God especially, and everyone on this thread for my contributions to the unseemly flame war into which it devolved.
#195. To: Starwind (#185)
no problem, your forgiven. Can I have a dollar?
"A functioning police state needs no police." - William S. Burroughs
#196. To: Starwind All, Moldi-Box, Dude Lebowski, Rowdee, Axenolith, Elliott Jackalope, Steppenwolf, Tauzero, Jethro Tull, christine, Zipporah, Flintlock, Red Jones, lodwick, crack monkey, Phaedrus, TommyTheMadArtist, Jhoffa_, Dakmar, scooter, tom007, Mekons4, *Be (#185)
Again, I apologize to all. (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news) Starwind posted on 2005-10-07 16:04:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply Well, I have to respond that I have not followed this thread much. But this is the third time in six years of netting that someone has had the sense and humility to say "maybe I was wrong" etc. Rather than scratching like mad cats to cover the hastely made comment, whatever that was. Starwind, I do not even know what the issue is, but I commend you highly for this act of great introspection. By doing this you have pissed off your enemies, and amazed your friends. Koudos.
In the future when the situation warrants, I will likewise expose error and deception, but I will be more gracious in the process.
#197. To: Starwind (#185)
You didn't offend me in the least, so no need to apologize to me. Everyone is free to believe what they want, that's per God's permission to have free will. My belief in God is unfazed. My belief in Jesus is unfazed. My belief in organized religion is non-existent, because of the lies, their agendas, and the fact that none are to be trusted. NO FAITH CAN BE TRUSTED SO LONG AS THEIR AGENDAS GO AGAINST GOD, OR THE FREEDOM OF ALL PEOPLE.
| So many morons, so few bullets. |
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest