What Would Convince You Jesus Was Here?

[gmc]

posted by anastrophe

we will have to agree to disagree. i have nothing more to discuss with you on these matters; we are diametrically opposed and unlikely to influence each other. i wish you the best in all your endeavors


Maybe not influence each other to change opinion but thinking requires constant practice to be and remain any good at it. I always think there is little to be gained by just talking to people you agree with, for one thing yoiu never learn to appreciate anothers point of view even if you do think it a load of rubbish. Bigots don't want conversation because thinking hurts too much.

posted by telepaquacky

GMC- you are without question one of the most thoughtful writers I have ever encountered. I read the “Fundy” website and both giggled with glee and flushed with embarrassment about how very true it is. Don’t forget that the people described in that piece are people I also have engaged in patient but futile debates- so I recognize (In America we spell recognize with a “z”) all those tactics and attitudes. I say “embarrassment” because I know the moment I wave a Bible in the air, I get lumped in with all those people- wrongly I might add!




Change the word from religon to politics and you can see the same pattern try debating with a revolutionary marxist and you will see what you mean. Different subject same mentality. I'm right, you're wrong. It's a human trait and a depressing one. too many regard tolerance as a sign of weakness rather than just tolerance of others.

Political or religious extremism I regard as the same phenomenon.

After Henry V111 published the bible in english he gave serious thought to recalling all the copies as so many fights were breaking out caused by arguements over the meaning contained in the words. Nothing much changes does it.

[anastrophe]

gmc wrote:

Maybe not influence each other to change opinion but thinking requires constant practice to be and remain any good at it. I always think there is little to be gained by just talking to people you agree with, for one thing yoiu never learn to appreciate anothers point of view even if you do think it a load of rubbish. Bigots don't want conversation because thinking hurts too much.


all true; however the concrete difference is if someone refuses to discuss *from the start*. i don't think i'm guilty of that. as i said, i had no interest in *further* discussion of the matter; i've stated my opinions on the matter, my interlocutor has as well (while employing some rhetorical trickery i find loathesome). i've discussed these matters elsewhere ad nauseum; i've had scripture quoted back to me ad nauseum.



i'll let others try their hand at it, assuming i'm not the lone voice in the woods.

[gmc]

posred by anastrophe

all true; however the concrete difference is if someone refuses to discuss *from the start*. i don't think i'm guilty of that. as i said, i had no interest in *further* discussion of the matter; i've stated my opinions on the matter, my interlocutor has as well (while employing some rhetorical trickery i find loathesome). i've discussed these matters elsewhere ad nauseum; i've had scripture quoted back to me ad nauseum.

i'll let others try their hand at it, assuming i'm not the lone voice in the woods.


Wasn't accusing you. I still enjoy having a go.

Jehovah's witness, "Do you believe in God"

reply: "No, I believe in the cosmic comedian, life's a joke, we just don't know the punchline"

Works with Mormons as well, although i suspect being from Utah they have difficulty with the accent which may explain the blank look..

[mominiowa]

hmmm I would have to say - If HE cold walk into the Childrens Hospital and all His little angels would be cured and not laying there in pain - with diseases and tumors growing from places I didn't know tumors could grow..Or take the lady I sat to a couple weeks ago and make her baby come out healthy and not with a tumor in her little brain.....Other then that - NOTHING... :-1

God forgive me if I am wrong...

[Ted]

Jesus never referred to homosexuality in any way, shape or form. He was totally silent on the issue and it was at the same level in society then as it is now; somewhere around 10%.

Just because a man is homosexual why should he have to give up a loving relationship with a partner. It is not required of the heterosuxual. There is nowhere in the Bible where celebacy is ever required. That RC priests are required to be celebate is pure nonsense.

If we go back to Leviticus it says that homosexual behaviour is an abomination. It also says that to eat shellfish is an abomination and so is the wearing of clothing of two different fabrics or materials. The word abomiation does not mean sin. If it did then the whole world would indeed be sinning because most folks wear clothing that is a mixture of fibres and even different parts of their costumes are made of different materials.

The Bible does not condemn homosexual practise. What it does condemn is sexual immorality: promiscuity would fit that better.

It is time for all Christians to face up to the fact that homosexual practise between two loving committed adults is a clear display of love and is not to be denied to anyone. If we are to deny that then we must also deny heterosexual practise; end of the population problem for sure.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[mominiowa]

Beautiful Ted....... :-6 I have several friends that are gay - one is serving in Iraq now and her partner is left with nothing if something were to happen...To each his /her own..and if you are happy in your life then so be it..

[capt_buzzard]

anastrophe wrote: since i have never read the bible, nor do i have one handy, can someone quote where jesus stated that he would "come back" to earth and there would be a rapture?



i think the whole rapture thing is poppycock. either jesus is alive, here, now, within your heart, or you're busy kidding yourself about something external that is meaningless. god does not exist 'outside'. if god is not within you, then it's not god you're thinking about.



imnsfho, of course.Paul, I have never read anything about a rapture. But He did state that He will return in the close of this age in our history. Matthew chapter 24.

[john8pies]

Now of course a lot of this has to do with whether you believe every word in the Bible or not, or whether you even think it should even be acknowledged. That having been said, it seems a bit strange to use the Bible to actually defend homosexuality as I`m sure there are at least 2 references against it (`Sex is for the procreation of the human race` being one - since buggery could not possibly result in procreation; and ` all sins can be forgiven, except the sin against the flesh` being another). So whilst personally I don`t condemn gays, I think it`s wrong for them to say the Bible justifies it, since it actually appears to condemn it. I thought the contemporary church teaching was along the lines of `It`s okay to BE gay, as long as you DON`T indulge in homosexual sex"?

[anastrophe]

john8pies wrote: Now of course a lot of this has to do with whether you believe every word in the Bible or not, or whether you even think it should even be acknowledged. That having been said, it seems a bit strange to use the Bible to actually defend homosexuality as I`m sure there are at least 2 references against it (`Sex is for the procreation of the human race` being one - since buggery could not possibly result in procreation; and ` all sins can be forgiven, except the sin against the flesh` being another). So whilst personally I don`t condemn gays, I think it`s wrong for them to say the Bible justifies it, since it actually appears to condemn it. I thought the contemporary church teaching was along the lines of `It`s okay to BE gay, as long as you DON`T indulge in homosexual sex"?
well, let's not forget, that in certain churches, as a matter of policy, it is also apparently okay for priests to sexually molest small children, so long as they aren't caught. if they are caught, they are simply moved to a different part of the country, where they can begin re-molesting small children again, so long as they aren't caught.



since this is a policy followed by several churches apparently, it must have a basis in scripture. otherwise nice folks like Cardinal Law of Boston would have been defrocked (and handed over to the authorities for being an accessory to crimes).



i'm still waiting for the biblical justification for committing horrible crimes against small children. true, i haven't bothered to read the bible. but we seem to have plenty of scripture-spouters here, so maybe one of them can produce the justifying passages i'm looking for.

[lady cop]

anastrophe wrote: well, let's not forget, that in certain churches, as a matter of policy, it is also apparently okay for priests to sexually molest small children, so long as they aren't caught. if they are caught, they are simply moved to a different part of the country, where they can begin re-molesting small children again, so long as they aren't caught.



since this is a policy followed by several churches apparently, it must have a basis in scripture. otherwise nice folks like Cardinal Law of Boston would have been defrocked (and handed over to the authorities for being an accessory to crimes).



i'm still waiting for the biblical justification for committing horrible crimes against small children. true, i haven't bothered to read the bible. but we seem to have plenty of scripture-spouters here, so maybe one of them can produce the justifying passages i'm looking for. *applause*!!!

[Jives]

A little science should help....approximately 12% of every population of mammals on the Earth is homosexual. There are homosexual horses, cats, pigs, mice, dogs, lemurs, elephants, ,,,even whales.

I always thought that, although men and women have different bodies, and hormones, the brain, itself, was the same in both genders. That is now known to be untrue. The study of structures in the brain show clearly that a female has certain structures that a male does not. A male has structures and connections that a female does not.

So if you've had a tough time understanding the other sex, it's not just because they don't have the same points of reference, the entire brain is built differently and operates differently.

Recent research has proven that what would seem to makes sense is actually true. Males born genetically homosexual have female structures in their brains. They are literally "women in men's bodies" Females born genetically homosexual have the male structures.

This makes this whole discussion a moot point. Homosexuality is a birth defect. One shared by all mammals. It's similar to webbed feet or autism. There may be those who choose the lifestyle intentionally, but a great many have no option but to be what they were born as.

Science is breaking down the misconceptions of Religion and Mythology. You can turn your back on it, say, "Evolution isn't real", decry DNA-based genetics, and believe that the wold is flat....

Or you can accept the truth. If yo do, welcome to a greater, larger, more sensible Universe.

[anastrophe]

Jives wrote: A little science should help....approximately 12% of every population of mammals on the Earth is homosexual. There are homosexual horses, cats, pigs, mice, dogs, lemurs, elephants, ,,,even whales.

has this actually been established? i question the validity of it, and let's not forget i'm of the 'leave homosexuals alone, it's their life, so butt out' faction. i know it's been established that in densely overpopulated areas of a given species, homosexual behaviors have been observed. but not that in the general population of a given species homosexual behaviors have been observed. i also question the use of 'every'. it's been confirmed in every one of the some 5,000 species of mammals? i highly doubt that.





I always thought that, although men and women have different bodies, and hormones, the brain, itself, was the same in both genders. That is now known to be untrue. The study of structures in the brain show clearly that a female has certain structures that a male does not. A male has structures and connections that a female does not.



So if you've had a tough time understanding the other sex, it's not just because they don't have the same points of reference, the entire brain is built differently and operates differently.



Recent research has proven that what would seem to makes sense is actually true. Males born genetically homosexual have female structures in their brains. They are literally "women in men's bodies" Females born genetically homosexual have the male structures.it may be recent research, and i haven't read the actual results, but i think it's flawed. to bifurcate people into 100% male, 100% female as being the normal state is incorrect. we all are partly the other sex, that's a matter of science as well. the glans of the penis is the homologue of the clitoris. in the womb, we start out undifferentiated, and as the fetus grows, the various structures form out of the same 'parts'. there are surprisingly large populations of people who fall in between, the 'hermaphrodytes', who suffer terrible identity problems. at best, i think one might say that homosexuals have *more* of some structures than the strictly heterosexual.



the fact is, science hasn't got a clue about gender, really. oh they can do all sorts of research, and more is learned as the decades pass. but gender, identification with same, and the fact that humans fill the spectrum between the extremes, tells me that science isn't going to answer why some people are attracted to their own gender. the fact is, there have been men i've known who i was nearly as attracted to as women. i had no desire to have sex with them, but just wanted to be around them. 'attraction' is something that science will never define.







This makes this whole discussion a moot point. Homosexuality is a birth defect. One shared by all mammals. It's similar to webbed feet or autism. There may be those who choose the lifestyle intentionally, but a great many have no option but to be what they were born as.i question the validity of calling it a defect. a difference, yes. a defect, no. webbed feet a defect? maybe. depends upon whether it impairs the quality of life i suppose. i have a big nose, a small mouth, and small ears. they're all out of 'normal' proportion. does that make me defective? because of my small mouth, eating large tortilla chips cuts the edges of my mouth, and it hurts (doubly, because of all the salt). that impairs the quality of my life.



who decides?





Science is breaking down the misconceptions of Religion and Mythology. You can turn your back on it, say, "Evolution isn't real", decry DNA-based genetics, and believe that the wold is flat....



Or you can accept the truth. If yo do, welcome to a greater, larger, more sensible Universe. science can answer a lot. it can't answer everything. according to the laws of science, the laws of science don't exist.

[Jives]

anastrophe wrote: has this actually been established?


Affirmative. Search 'Simon Levay" His research is being generally accepted by both sides of this argument.

it may be recent research, and i haven't read the actual results, but i think it's flawed. to bifurcate people into 100% male, 100% female as being the normal state is incorrect. we all are partly the other sex, that's a matter of science as well. the glans of the penis is the homologue of the clitoris. in the womb, we start out undifferentiated, and as the fetus grows, the various structures form out of the same 'parts'. there are surprisingly large populations of people who fall in between, the 'hermaphrodytes', who suffer terrible identity problems. at best, i think one might say that homosexuals have *more* of some structures than the strictly heterosexual.


here you aregue that sexuality is genetically developmental. Why would it be so hard to believe that, just as hermaphrodites can be developmentally abnormal, homosexuals could be too? It is logical and makes sense to me. In the case of a hermaphrodite, the body is abnormal, in the case of a homosexual, the brain is abnormal. Not necessarily bad, but not the norm.



the fact is, science hasn't got a clue about gender, really. oh they can do all sorts of research, and more is learned as the decades pass. but gender, identification with same, and the fact that humans fill the spectrum between the extremes, tells me that science isn't going to answer why some people are attracted to their own gender.


And why not? Science discovered the reason you get sick, the process you use to heal yourself, how virii infect, we've even decoded the DNA strand. Freud and his colleagues have made great inroads into the psyche. It's only a matter of time until we understand everything there is to understand about ourselves.

the fact is, there have been men i've known who i was nearly as attracted to as women. i had no desire to have sex with them, but just wanted to be around them. 'attraction' is something that science will never define.


Pheromones, dude. Pheromones.





i question the validity of calling it a defect. a difference, yes. a defect, no. webbed feet a defect?


Whoa. Got me there. Let's call it a differnce then.



science can answer a lot. it can't answer everything. according to the laws of science, the laws of science don't exist.


Which is why we need religion. But they should work hand in hand, not against each other. :rolleyes:

[Jives]

Huh? Skittles, you crazy kid, you crack me up. Nothing like a teenager to make sure the adults do'nt take themselves too seriously. :wah:

[anastrophe]

Jives wrote: Affirmative. Search 'Simon Levay" His research is being generally accepted by both sides of this argument.well again, i find it hard to believe that 5,000 + species have been checked. particularly interested in results for nearly extinct species, siberian tigers for example. same rates? are all the results from studies of completely wild populations, or populations affected by human intrusion? well, i'll just have to do some googling.







here you aregue that sexuality is genetically developmental. Why would it be so hard to believe that, just as hermaphrodites can be developmentally abnormal, homosexuals could be too? It is logical and makes sense to me. In the case of a hermaphrodite, the body is abnormal, in the case of a homosexual, the brain is abnormal.sexual orientation, sexual desire, are - thus far - not physically quantifiable. sexual organs are genetically developmental, of course. sexual desires are not necessarily so. what if someone likes light 'bondage & discipline', kinky little pink handcuffs? that desire has nothing to do with the narrow act of procreation, but it exists, nonetheless. is that a genetically developed trait? or a fetish for very long hair. or any of a thousand variations of the expression of human sexual desire.



so perhaps someday they discover that cytochrome p4547 within basal ganglia tints pink in reactive agents if the subject is homosexual. is that difference the cause of the person being homosexual, or is it the result?





Not necessarily bad, but not the norm.define normal. hint: there is no such thing.







And why not? Science discovered the reason you get sick, the process you use to heal yourself, how virii infect, we've even decoded the DNA strand. Freud and his colleagues have made great inroads into the psyche. It's only a matter of time until we understand everything there is to understand about ourselves.science is one branch of philosophy. it is adequate for answering a great many things. it is not adequate for many other things; certainly not for defining the human soul. one can spend a lifetime trying to determine why taking a bite of a fresh peach on a crisp fall day might elicit overwhelming memories that have no reference point, but that are memories purely of feelings and moods. one will have wasted a lifetime finding the answer, rather than experiencing the moment. many things have no reason, and no answer.





Pheromones, dude. Pheromones.reductionist fallacy, dude. reductionist fallacy.

[capt_buzzard]

anastrophe wrote: one of the problems i have - and by that i really mean my own problem - is that i don't know if i'm a christian, and in some ways i 'don't want to be' a christian. part of it is the groucho marx creed - 'I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members'. i was raised in the christian church - episcopal; (the one joke i know, 'how many episcopalians does it take to screw in a light bulb? three. one to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks, and one to talk about how much better the old bulb was.'). i was 'confirmed' at 13 or so i think. but much of modern christianity turned me off, and from my teens on i pretty much rejected the church/christianity. the destruction of native/aboriginal societies by do-gooder missionaries intent on clothing the natives from the nakedness and 'civilizing' them angered me intensely. i then and now absolutely reject - despise - proselytizing. if your faith is good for you, fabulous. DON'T push it on others.



the curious thing is the history of faith in my family. my maternal grandfather was a christian missionary in persia at the beginning of the 20th century. he was pretty much a fundamentalist. yet he practiced yoga that he learned in his travels to india until the day he died. my mother studied theology at vassar, and went to seminary for a time, studying under paul tillich. my eldest brother is active in his baptist church, my other brother is vehemently anti-christian.



i'm fascinated by God, faith, the universe. i don't go to church.



decades ago, a cousin of mine who shall remain nameless was telling me why she's a 'christian' - it was along the lines of - 'so if there really is a jesus, then what harm is there in believing in him, just in case?'



that attitude appalled me. believing in jesus as a backup plan? 'plan B'? that's not what faith is about!



how does this all relate to what would convince me jesus was here? simple. nothing. there's no point to it. if you truly have faith, then what happens in the future is immaterial to your salvation, because you have faith. if you don't have faith - perhaps that's me, perhaps not - then what happens in the future is immaterial to your salvation, because 'you break it, you bought it'.



have i rambled enough? please, someone, pull the plug before i start talking about how coffee is my salvation.Amen. I was raised in the Anglican & Roman Catholic Church. I'm with you on this one Paul.

[Jives]

anastrophe wrote:

define normal. hint: there is no such thing.


Normal is asymtotical, that is it can be defined within certain limits. Is it normal to run down a freeway naked? No. What about running down a nude beach. Normal.



reductionist fallacy, dude. reductionist fallacy.


ROFLMAO! The kids asked me why I was cracking up so much during the break, it's because never in ten years of posting have I had such an intelligent, yet subtle, answer. I absolutely LOVE jousting with you Anny!

I bow to your vocabulary and searing wit.

[Ted]

Ruewen :-6

It helps to study a little further then a few verses. What you have given is a complete misinterpretation of Romans 1:24ff.

Paul was speaking about sexual immorality, promiscuity if you will. He was not deriding homosexual acts between two loving committed consenting adults. That is the difference between immoral acts and normal acts. Promiscuity is condemned.

I think enough has been shown in other posts, especially the work of Simon Levay, to show that homosexuality is completely natural for some folks. It is not a defect or a sin. That is pure nonsense.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Jives]

Ted wrote: Paul was speaking about sexual immorality, promiscuity if you will. He was not deriding homosexual acts between two loving committed consenting adults. That is the difference between immoral acts and normal acts. Promiscuity is condemned.


Thank you for that breath of fresh air, Ted. It sure makes sense to me. God understands that we are not perfect. It's the acceptance of him and Jesus that allows forgiveness. I asked a devout Christian friend of mine, "What would happen if I lived a terribly sinful life, but I saw the light and was saved just before I died, would I still go to Heaven?" He answered, "Yes."

I think enough has been shown in other posts, especially the work of Simon Levay, to show that homosexuality is completely natural for some folks. It is not a defect or a sin. That is pure nonsense.


Cool. Ted agrees with me. That's like having Bruce Lee at your side in a fight.

[Ted]

Jives :-6

LOL

Shalom

Ted :-6

[Ted]

Ruewen :-6

"I guess we all read what we want out of it huh?"

I would hope not. We must learn to decipher the very word of God within the very human words of the Bible. That requires some work. It is not just something to pick up and read without a critical view.

There are many good commentaries that offer much help in Biblical interpretation. These are usually written by very scholarly men; both professional scholars and clergy.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[telaquapacky]

koan wrote: What happened telaquapacky? Did you have an epiphany?Sabbath after church I went to a nice waterfall in Sequoia with some friends. Sunday I visited my friends’ farm and they showed us pictures of their mission trip to Peru. Monday was a very busy day at work. And my home computer became totally trashed by a virus. Praise the Lord, only a week ago I backed up everything, including four years of original music compositions and recordings, fifteen years of my sermons and Bible studies, and two years of internet correspondence. God is indeed good to me.

koan wrote: I think there is no one left on Earth who truly knows what exactly Jesus meant by anything.I know it seems very much that way. Much of what represents itself as Christianity is really human tradition in costume. I can explain it in a way you can particularly understand, Koan, since you channel spirits. Jesus promised His followers that after He left, the Holy Spirit would come and would live in His followers, enabling them to understand His words, and all the words of Scripture:

John 14:16,17

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

John 16:13,14

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.

So when a believer reads their Bible, they are actually “channeling” the Holy Spirit, and the teachings of Christ, in both Old and New Testaments.



koan wrote: Seeing as how the world has changed a lot since then I think he would speak in much different terms if he were to return/ has returned. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Culture changes, but human nature is pretty much a constant. The striking similarity between the times when Jesus first came, and the present time (which some of us believe is just prior to His second coming) is that practically all the believers were unprepared to meet their Messiah because they had self-serving misconceptions about the nature and purpose of His coming. At the first coming, the Jews wanted Messiah to save them from Roman domination and make them a great and prosperous nation and the spiritual leader of the world. They rejected Jesus because He did not come to save them from the Romans. He came to save them from their sins. They said, “No thank you. We’re alright spiritually and don’t need to be saved from our sins. Crucify him.” At this time, likewise, most Christians aren’t looking to be saved from their sins- they want to be saved in their sins. This is an oversimplification- the similarities between the Jews who weren’t ready for their Messiah, and today’s Christian church are complex and fascinating. There’s quite a lot to it.

[telaquapacky]

john8pies wrote: Now of course a lot of this has to do with whether you believe every word in the Bible or not, or whether you even think it should even be acknowledged. That having been said, it seems a bit strange to use the Bible to actually defend homosexuality as I`m sure there are at least 2 references against it (`Sex is for the procreation of the human race` being one - since buggery could not possibly result in procreation;John, there is no such verse in all of Scripture that says that the act of sex is exclusively for having children or procreating the human race. God encouraged Adam and Eve to have children because He wanted children. There’s no command in all of Scripture for a husband and wife to refrain from sex because they have had enough children. Sex between a man and his wife cements their emotional marital bond. It is God’s approved way for them to enjoy each other.

Proverbs 5:18, 19

May your fountain be blessed,

and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

A loving doe, a graceful deer—

may her breasts satisfy you always,

may you ever be captivated by her love.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.



john8pies wrote: and ` all sins can be forgiven, except the sin against the flesh` being another). Sorry! I don't mean to hammer you, but it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which is the unforgivable sin.

Matthew 12:31

And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

[telaquapacky]

Ruewen wrote: Rape and child murder! such a loving god. I guess its how i intrepret these little pearls of wisdom huh? Taking it out of content im sure effects the quote as yours do....We all see what we want...So keep reading your "good" book! Keep telling us all what it saids cause we dont seem to be able to read it for ourselves..That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Though we need the Holy Spirit to help us understand, our own personal prejudices color the outcome. My own prejudices when I read the Bible are very simple: “Sin is bad, God is good.” If a person would read the Bible cover to cover with that prejudice, they would read a harmonious and consistent story of a loving, perfect God mercifully reaching out to a fallen, sinful race of men and women. If you alter the formula, either “Sin is good,” or “God is bad,” or both, you read a dark, confusing, nonsensical, gobbledygoop of criminally-insane mythical ranting that no one in their right mind could accept.

If anyone wants to believe “Sin is good,” or “God is bad,” no explanation of mine will help them. If a person really believes in God, they don’t need me or any other man to tell them what Scripture says.

[telaquapacky]

Ruewen wrote: Explanation or self righteousness? Lets be clear here please! Religion is a tool to enlightenment NOTHING more! "God" is a sacred and personal choice for each of us. If you are going to quote "scriptures" to make a point about your own personal beliefs i will continue to quote also. Lets not pick and choose verses that "work" the conversation.I sent Ruewen a private message proposing that we have this conversation by private message. Please excuse me, but I have changed my mind. Any further "conversation" seems to me to be an argument for sport to see who wins and loses. Nothing could be a more counterproductive waste of time, and I am finding it to be spiritually depressing to me rather than uplifting.

Ruewen- sorry, buddy. Disregard my private message.

My religion isn't a tool to enlightenment. I am a tool of my religion to glorify God and uplift His righteousness. If I could grow spiritually to the highest state I could attain, I would no longer care about my salvation, my reputation, my pride. I would no longer care if any of you think I know anything about the Bible, or spirituality or anything. All I would care about is God's glory, and His reputation.

[nvalleyvee]

He admitted his love for Mary Magdeline and I could trace their genealogy.

[nvalleyvee]

So tell me why the scriptures differ and there is such a gap between Catholicism and Christianity

[Bones87]

To be honest i don't want Jesus to come to earth, i just want him to sort the earth out, less asians, be able to walk down my street without fear of being atacked, to much to ask for?

[koan]

Bones87 wrote: To be honest i don't want Jesus to come to earth, i just want him to sort the earth out, less asians, be able to walk down my street without fear of being atacked, to much to ask for?


why less asians?

[telaquapacky]

Thank you, Reuwen for the Roman Catholic part of the story. RC’s are very proud of the old age of their institution. What I like about Roman Catholicism is the church’s humanitarian service and advocacy for the poor, and it’s mission to be the benefactor of the world as Christ would have us do, which I think deserves very high respect and would do all other churches well to imitate.

Why would anyone wish to depart from so august and old a denomination? No follower of Christ would want to be different merely for the sake of argument; that would be dividing the body of Christ. But there have been many Christians throughout history whose spiritual consciences led them to leave the Roman communion to seek a closer harmony with the teachings of the Bible. The believers in Rome and Alexandria in the first century changed Christ’s teachings drastically to conform to the popular religious thinking of the day in the Roman Empire, probably to escape persecution and win more converts among Greek and Pagan citizens. Later the Roman Church began to represent their institution as the sole owner and dispenser on earth of the grace of God to sinners, and the Bishop of Rome as the supreme and infallible head of the church on earth, in the place of Christ. Through the Inquisition and the Crusades, the Roman church systematically eliminated any competition or dissent. In the political practice of the time, they destroyed whatever historical evidence they could that gave testimony of any Christian community on earth independent of the Roman Pontiff from the time of Christ. During the Middle Ages, Rome ruled over the kings of the western world.

Martin Luther was only one of a number of great men, the Protestant reformers, who stood up for Biblical truth against a prevailing tide of error and corruption. The reformers and their followers were violently persecuted and bitterly oppressed by the church and state for their teachings, and individuals were prohibited from reading or possessing Bibles. The people were told that only scholars and priests could interpret the Scriptures for them, whereas the Reformers taught as Christ had promised, that the Holy Spirit would reveal their true meaning to any soul who from a sincere heart sought to learn and obey the will of God. The Roman Catholic penchant for reducing the authenticity and reliability of the Scriptures gives the impression of an ongoing effort to substitute the traditions of man for the word of God, and to grasp kingly power and mind control over believers. Now that’s spiritually depressing.

If the RC church would be content to be the great benefactor to the world that has been it’s honor, and accept a place of mutual tolerance among the many denominations of Christianity without seeking to dominate, there could be healing from the wounds of the past, and no need for “cat and mouse” games between RC’s and Protestants. Keep your Pope, I’ll keep my Bible. Don't you think that's fair, Reuwen?

Actually, I am not a tool of my religion or of any religion- forgive the sloppy terminology. My highest hope would to be a polished tool in the hand of God to do His will, work for His glory and accomplish His purpose for my life.

[anastrophe]

Bones87 wrote: To be honest i don't want Jesus to come to earth, i just want him to sort the earth out, less asians, be able to walk down my street without fear of being atacked, to much to ask for?
sigh. you don't want less asians. you want fewer asians.



and yes, it's too much to ask for.

[anastrophe]

telaquapacky wrote: Keep your Pope, I’ll keep my Bible. Don't you think that's fair, Reuwen?




in the course of this lengthy topic i don't recall you ever identifying what church/denomination you are a member of. don't recall seeing that in any of the other topics pertaining to religion either.



is there some particular reason for this?

[Ted]

Ruewen :-6

Please be careful about what you call facts.

First point "Mark" was written around 64.

Secondly you have made a lot of accusations concerning the validity of the scriptures as written. It would be nice if you would add in the sources for your info. I have spent well over 40 years in both formal and informal studies of both the sacred writings and church history. Much of what you claim to be facts are pure speculation.

Indeed the "Dead Sea Scrolls" the earliest manuscripts we have have generally supported the Bible as written and they were written at about the time of Jesus. Any scholarly document will confirm this: ie. "The Dead Sea Scrolls" by Geza Vermes the world renound expert on the scrolls.

As far as the Holy Trinity goes it does cause confusion among some folks because they are trying to read it literally and it must be read metaphorically otherwise it makes no real sense. The Book "Metaphorical Theology" by Sallie McFague will confirm this .

You have failed to understand the makeup or the functions of the counsels who in fact gave us the sacred writings that we have today. In all likelihood, if the Gospel of Thomas had been known to exist at the time the canon was approved it too would have been included but it was a later discovery. "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson.

We are not even sure who the gospel writers were, so that raises an whole other set of problems. However, what we do know about the Gospels is that they were written to describe the beliefs concerning Jesus, that the church had come to hold at the time of writing. Matthew and Luke made extensive use of Mark in their compositions and a document now referred to as "Q". Any good Bible commentary will confirm this. "The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary of the Bible" is one example.

Scholars who translate are after the best translation that they can produce. Is it a difficult job? Yes it is yet it is being done continually with better and better translations coming forth. The question is does a translator translate word for word or does s/he try to translate the meaning as it was at the time of writing.

Be careful about calling the Bible stories. They are that to be sure. However, the Bible is a complex mix of myth, legend, folk tale, poety, short story, fiction, theology, philosophy and does contain kernels of history throughout. It is not a history book and was never intended to be read as such. It is purely a religious document. "The Bible and the Common Reader" by Mary Chase.

BTW there are some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world.

Shalom

Ted :-6

[gmc]

If Jesus was here he wouldn't get a word in edgeways because of all the people telling him he was wrong and they were right and that he didn't understand the bible.

[telaquapacky]

anastrophe wrote: in the course of this lengthy topic i don't recall you ever identifying what church/denomination you are a member of. don't recall seeing that in any of the other topics pertaining to religion either.



is there some particular reason for this?I'll answer by PM.